I'm Not Absent But I'm Not Totally Present Either

The majority of companies large and small have some type of applied policy regarding absences in the workplace.  Undoubtedly, the policy outlines some sort of threshold on what constitutes abuse and may even outline the measures that will be taken to address and curb abuse.  Having such a policy is part of Human Resources 101.  Any experienced manager can name which employees are reliable and which ones can't seem to get to the office on time on a regular basis.  It is easy to list the effects of employee absenteeism: you've got your usual negative affect on productivity, the cost of paying out sick leave while also having to incur the cost of another employee covering the absent employee's workload, and there are the associated administrative costs.  It can be fairly safe to say that much of what affects employee absenteeism is employee health.  The more health issues an employee has, the more likely (not in all cases but in the majority) that the employee will have a higher frequency of call-outs.  After watching an episode of HBO's documentary series The Weight of the Nation, I was reminded of another, greater, impact on a company's bottom-line......presenteeism.

               Presenteeism is defined by Dictionary.com as:  "the practice of coming to work despite illness, injury, anxiety, etc., often resulting in reduced productivity"   This definition can also be expanded to include the loss of productivity that occurs when employees come to work with general limitations as a result of their health status.  For example, WebMD cites a study that indicates presenteeism is a cost of obesity.  According to the 2010 study, "the health-related cost of obesity among U.S. workers is $73.1 billion a year - enough to pay the salaries of 1.8 million new workers".  Staggering figures, right? Remember, this is over and above costs to a company connected to absenteeism. 

What I think the great take-away here is that the importance of company health plans cannot be stressed enough.  Specifically those that have intertwined health tools, incentives, and strong support.  

Snacking the Way to Higher Health Costs?

You can now add into the cost of a bag of chips an additional premium to your health insurance.  More companies are looking for ways to offset the rising costs of healthcare and, after cutting benefits to "alternative" treatments such as chiropractic and massage, they are looking for more ways to save.  Enter the age of the healthcare penalty premium.  Here's how it works: your company requires to to submit to a health evaluation (which may consist of anything from weight and blood pressure screening to a complete work-up of your daily habits).  Then, your company evaluates the results and determines whether you meet predetermined markers for health.  If you do not you can be charged a higher rate for healthcare premiums or will be asked to participate in a program to address your healthcare issues to hold the increased rate in abeyance.  

Or, your company may want to mirror the policy CVS has enacted.  "A new policy by CVS Pharmacy requires every one of its nearly 200,000 employees who use its health plan to submit their weight, body fat, glucose levels and other vitals or pay a monthly fine" according to Steve Osunsami of ABC News.  That fine is $50 per month and employees that agree to submit their health stats through a work-up by their doctor will not see an increase.  Think of it as an opt out program.  The idea is similar to that of companies who automatically enroll all eligible employees in a retirement savings plan and force employees to take an action to opt out.  

This, of course, creates quite a push back from not only individual employees who see this as an unfair practice and an invasion of their privacy but also from groups like the Patient Privacy Rights.  Founder DR. Deborah Peel states: "The approach their taking is based on the assumption that somehow these employees need....to be penalized in order to make themselves healthy". 

The practice, though, of passing along a "surcharge" for an unhealthy lifestyle is not relatively new. But what about offering a carrot to those employees who participate in company wellness programs?  Surely that must be okay, right?  In fact, industry experts like benefits consultant Towers Watson, predict a significant rise in the number of companies that implement the practice.  In the New York Times article The Smoker's Surcharge, Reed Abelson points to a concern.  "Some benefits specialists and health experts say programs billed as incentives for wellness, by offering discounted health insurance, can become punitive for people who suffer from health problems that are not completely under their control".   

So....what to do?  Let me throw one final thing out there to think about.  Choice.  How much of an employee's health is related to the choices they make?  Choices in the foods they eat, the level of activity they have, etc..  Where do you draw the line of personal and governmental responsibility (for allowing the phenomenal rise in artificial ingredients and food processing)?

Okay....off my soap box now...

Making Good Health a Competition

I recently received a $50 Target gift card in the mail. I received this gift card because I filled out a health questionnaire for my organization's health care plan. Getting $50 to spend at "Tarjay" was easier than having a birthday (because I wasn't a year older). The gift card was an incentive, one of many various organizations use in an attempt to raise the health-consciousness of their employees. 

This wasn't the first attempt by my organization to form a healthier workforce. In the past we had the "Take the Stairs" challenge where employees were encouraged to use the stairs rather than the elevator. When the challenge first began there was a communication push tied to a contest on how many flights total tallied up. Since that initial push, the most that has happened is doodling on the stairwell sign-in sheets. Then there was the challenge for who could walk the most steps in a span of time. Each participant was given a pedometer and teams were formed, mainly based on the floor your office was located on. None of these seemed to make an effective, lasting impact. Was there some value in these efforts - yes. They were low cost and did lead to re-focusing attention on employees' health.

Why did my organization take the time and effort to partner and promote these challenges? Health care costs. It's a fairly straight line from the aggregated health of your employees to the costs of health care premiums. Healthy people tend to use their health care benefits less often, tend to use less sick days, and are more productive. Apparently a healthier workforce also results in less presenteeism (don't worry, I had to look it up too). Presenteeism, according to the CDC is "the measurable extent to which health symptoms, conditions, and diseases adversely affect the work productivity of individuals who choose to remain at work".

According to statistics noted in "Pitting Employees Against Each Other...for Health" and appearing the Wall Street Journal, 60% of employers polled by consultants and the National Business Group on Health indicate their future health initiatives will include online games and other competitions between employee groups or locations.  After reading this, I began to question just how effective are these methods for bolstering the health of employees? To answer, I considered the challenge for walking the most steps. After participants received their pedometers it wasn't long until word spread that you could "tip the scales in your favor" by jiggling the pedometer (no walking needed). I'm afraid the message on health was lost on some employees. 

How do you ensure participants in health games are not cheating? You could require they use "tamper-proof" devices like digital pedometers or heart-rate monitors like those used with Humana's incentive program HumanaVitality. This may cause other issues, though, like backlash from employees who feel their privacy invaded. "The more you make it formal, the more burdensome it might feel", states health and welfare benefits leader Carolyn Plummer.  

I guess we will stick with our small, low cost efforts for now....

Achoo! Work Is No Place For The Flu

It will soon be flu season again and, inevitably, coughing and sneezing employees will begin to appear. Before you break out the industrial size container of antibacterial wipes and ban anyone with a slight sniffle from your office, take a few minutes and read over the helpful hints on How to Prevent the Flu in Your Workplace from Advanced Safety and Health. This tip from the article, however, is the one that seems to be the most difficult and tricky to convey: "Let it be known that sick employees should stay home whenever possible."  Most organizations agree they do not want sick employees spreading the love (um, germs) in the workplace but at the same time employees may feel they are expected to come in. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (aka the CDC - why not the CDCP? - good question) has a wealth of information on their site to help answer the question, including checklists to ready your organization for the coming germ onslaught.

Part of any good flu awareness campaign is marketing regarding your plan to keep the workplace free of zombie-like germ carriers. Here's a nice poster courtesy of the Center for Hygiene and Health in Home and Community to get you started:

Flu Awareness -