Tuesday, 06-11-07 06:50

Dear Ms. Andrews,

I find your post very thought provoking and timely, as employee healthcare costs continue to spiral out of the workplace. I definitely agree that our nation as a whole would largely benefit from a move toward preventative medicine and away from our current treatment based system. Statistical evidence for this cause can be seen in its potential to decrease American-based medical costs and productivity loss by a staggering $1.1 trillion, according to the Milken Institute, as discussed in your post. The notion of the work place as acting as a catalyst in such a movement toward preventative medicine is both exciting and daunting. With the potential of “workplace wellness” benefiting millions of employees across the country, a large percentage of individuals involved in the workforce will be shifted toward a brightened “overall health picture.” However, with this comes the potential for overly eager and thus highly invasive employers, raiding the employee personal sphere by subjectively promoting healthful programs for the employer’s fiscal gain, via the lowering of employer coverage output costs. This double ended dagger requires much care and guiding legislation to assure there is no workplace discrimination against those who do not wish to part take in such corporate sponsored wellness programs. Wellness targeting obesity in particular, could have hugely beneficial implications, both for the individual and for the healthcare economy, as was stated that “Spending on [ ] obesity-related maladies alone drove 34 percent of the increase in medical spending” in the past decade alone. The methodology of enacting the wellness programs however, will determine their success. Staging them as a checkpoint system, in which one must meet certain ‘healthy’ criteria such as a certain BMI or cholesterol, to avoid monetary fines, will send the program for a nose dive. This setup, I agree, is overly invasive, as employers should not have access to this personal employee health information. An employee should not be penalized for their dietary habits, “blood sugar, cholesterol, and blood pressure” as was the case with the Clarian Health Partners. When deciding whether or not to have that extra bag of chips or to reach for the non-fat milk in lieu of the whole milk, one will not stop to consider the extra $5 surcharge on their employer subsidized health coverage. Further, regardless of legislation, preventing discrimination against ‘unhealthy’ individuals would be inevitable, with business run wellness plans aimed at lowering employer healthcare costs. The employee benefits, including access to healthful programs, such as gyms, nutrition advice, and psychological counseling, as well as lowered premiums may outweigh the downsides of the system for some. As discussed in your post, permanent behavioral modification must come from within. Therefore, wellness plans are incredible attributes to the workplace in general, but extreme caution should be taken when they are given a personal price.