They Said What?

Home » Articles posted by whynobodybelievesthenumbers

Author Archives: whynobodybelievesthenumbers

Wellness Vendors Dream the Impossible Dream

Alice laughed: “There’s no use trying,” she said. “One can’t believe impossible things.”

“I daresay you haven’t had much practice,” said the Queen. “When I was younger, I always did it for half an hour a day. Why, sometimes I’ve believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast.”


Six impossible things before breakfast?  The wellness industry would just be getting warmed up by believing six impossible things before breakfast. They believe enough impossible things all day long to support an entire restaurant chain:

Consider the article in the current issue of BenefitsPro — forwarded to me by many members of the Welligentsia — entitled: “Can the Wellness Industry Live Up to Its Promises?”  BenefitsPro rounded up some of the leaders of the wellness industry alt-stupid segment. Specifically, they interviewed US Corporate Wellness, Fitbit, Staywell, and HERO. Each is a perennial candidate for the Deplorables Awards — except US Corporate Wellness, which already secured its place in the Deplorables Hall of Fame (and Why Nobody Believes the Numbers) several years ago with these three paeans to the gods of impossibility.

In case you can’t read the key statistic — the first bullet point — it says: “Wellness program participants are 230% less likely to utilize EIB (extended illness benefit) than non-participants.”  Here is some news for the Einsteins at US Corporate Wellness:  You can’t be 230% less likely to do anything than anybody. For instance, even you, despite your best efforts in these three examples, can’t be 230% less likely to have a triple-digit IQ than the rest of us.  Here’s a rule of math for you: a number can only be reduced by 100%. Rules of math tend to be strictly enforced, even in wellness.  So the good news is, even in the worst-case scenario, you’re only 100% less likely to have a triple-digit IQ than the rest of us.

And yet, if it were possible to be 230% dumber than the rest of us, you might be. For instance, US Corporate Wellness also brought us this estimate of the massive annual savings that can be obtained just by, Seinfeld-style, doing nothing:

So assume I spent about $3500/year in healthcare 12 years ago, which is probably accurate. My modifiable risk factors were zero then and they are still zero — no increase. So my healthcare spending should have fallen by $350/year for 12 years, or $4200 since then. But that would be impossible, since I could only reduce my spending by $3500. Do you see how that works now?

To his credit, US Corporate Wellness’s CEO, Brad Cooper, is quoted in this article as saying: “Unfortunately some in the industry have exaggerated the savings numbers.” You think?

I’m pretty sure this next one is impossible too. I say “pretty sure” because I’ve never been able to quite decipher it, English being right up there with math as two subjects which apparently frustrated many a wellness vendor’s fifth grade teacher:

400% of what?  Is US Corporate Wellness saying that, as compared to employees with a chronic disease like hypertension, employees who take their blood pressure pills are 400% more productive?  Meaning that if they controlled their blood pressure, waiters could serve 400% more tables, doctors could see 400% more patients, pilots could fly planes 400% faster? Teachers could teach 400% more kids? Customer service recordings could tell us our calls are 400% more important to them?

Or maybe wellness vendors could make 400% more impossible claims. That would explain this BenefitsPro article.


Fitbit

We have been completely unable to get Fitbit to speak, but BenefitsPro couldn’t get them to shut up. Here is Fitbit’s Amy McDonough: “Measurement of a wellness program is an important part of the planning process.”   Indeed it is! It’s vitally important to plan on how to fabricate impossible outcomes to measure, when in reality your product may even lead to weight gain.  Here is one thing we know is impossible: you can’t achieve a 58% reduction in healthcare expenses through behavior change — especially if (as in the 133 patients they tracked in one of their studies) behavior didn’t actually change.

You can read about that gem, and others, in our recent Fitbit series here:


Health Enhancement Research Organization (HERO) and Staywell

I’ll consider these two outfits together because people seem to bounce back and forth between them. Jessica Grossmeier is one such person. Jessica became the Neil Armstrong of impossible wellness outcomes way back in 2013.  Not just any old impossible wellness outcomes — those have been around for decades. She and Staywell pioneered the concept of claiming outcomes they already knew were impossible.   While at Staywell, she and her co-conspirators told British Petroleum they had saved about $17,000 per risk factor reduced.  So, yes, according to Staywell, anyone who temporarily lost a little weight saved BP $17,000 — enough to clean up about 1000 gallons of oil spilled from Deepwater Horizon.

See British Petroleum’s Wellness Program Is Spewing Invalidity for the details.

Leave aside both the obvious impossibility of this claim, and also the mathematical impossibility of this claim given that employers only actually spend about $6000/person on healthcare.  Jessica’s breakthrough was to also ignore the fact that this $17,000/risk factor savings figure exceeds by 100 times what her very own article claims in savings. Not by 100 percent. By 100 times.

Fast-forward to her new role at HERO. In this article she says:

The conversation has thus shifted from a focus on ROI alone to a broader value proposition that includes both the tangible and intangible benefits of improved worker health and well-being.

Her memory may have failed her here too because HERO — in addition to admitting that wellness loses money (which explains its “shift” from the “focus on ROI alone”) — also listed the “broader value proposition” elements of their pry-poke-and-prod wellness programs. The problem is the elements of the broader value proposition of screening the stuffing out of employees aren’t “benefits.”  They’re costs, and lots of them:

When she says: “The conversation has shifted from a focus on ROI alone,” she means: “We all got caught making up ROIs so we need to make up a new metric.”  RAND’s Soeren Mattke predicted this new spin three years ago, observing that every time the wellness industry makes claims and they get debunked, they simply make a new set of claims, and then they get debunked, and then the whole process repeats with new claims, whack-a-mole fashion, ad infinitum.  Here is his specific quote:

“The industry went in with promises of 3 to 1 and 6 to 1 based on health care savings alone – then research came out that said that’s not true. Then they said: “OK, we are cost neutral.” Now, research says maybe not even cost neutral. So now they say: “But is really about productivity, which we can’t really measure but it’s an enormous return.”


Interactive Health

While other vendors, such as Wellsteps, harm plenty of employees, Interactive Health holds the distinction of being the only wellness vendor to actually harm me.  I went to a screening of theirs. In order to increase my productivity, they stretched out my calves.  Indeed, I could feel my productivity soaring — until one of them went into spasm. I doubt anyone has missed this story but in case anyone has

They also hold the distinction of being the first vendor (actually their consultant) to try to bribe me to stop pointing out how impossible their outcomes were. They were upset because I profiled them n the Wall Street Journal . The article is behind a paywall, so you probably can’t see it. Here’s the spoiler: they allegedly saved a whopping $53,000 for every risk factor reduced. In your face, Staywell!

Here is the BenefitsPro article’s quote from Interactive Health’s Jared Smith:

“There are many wellness vendors out there that claim to show ROI,” he says. “However, many of their models and methodologies are complex, based upon assumptions that do not provide sufficient quantitative evidence to substantiate their claims.”

You think?

Finally, here is a news flash for Interactive Health: sitting is not the new smoking.  If anything is the “new smoking,” it’s opioid addiction, which has reached epidemic proportions in the workforce while being totally, utterly, completely, negligently, mind-blowingly, Sergeant Shultz-ily, ignored by Interactive Health and the rest of the wellness industry.

There is nothing funny about opioid addiction and the wellness industry’s failure to address it, a topic for a future blog post. The only impossibility is that it is impossible to believe that an entire industry charged with what Jessica Grossmeier calls “worker health and well-being” could have allowed this to happen. Alas, happen it did.

And, as you can see from the time-stamp on this post, except at establishments favored by the Wellness Ignorati, breakfast hasn’t even been served yet.

We interrupt this blog to bring you a special wellness bulletin

Normally we draw a bright line between Quizzify and TSW.  However, today we are going to re-blog from Quizzify, because of the importance of the hazard of tick-borne illness to about a third of the residents of the US.

And also because this particular hazard is getting completely ignored by the wellness industry. I guess that’s because they are spending all their time educating employers and employees on the opioid epidemic. (Not.)

Like the opioid epidemic, tick-borne illness is a far greater hazard than obesity or cholesterol or not taking enough steps. This summer, the odds of an employee getting Lyme Disease, in the mid-Atlantic and Northeast, are probably 5-10 times the odds of an employee having a heart attack.  (I won’t bore — or, in the case of Interactive Health, confuse — anyone with the relative incidence rates, but the numbers add up.)  There are also other tick-borne illnesses — 15 of them — in the other 38 states as well, but not yet in epidemic proportions.


And while my $2-million reward supports the proven observation that heart attacks are about 0% preventable with “pry, poke and prod” programs, tick-borne illness should be 100% preventable by following a few self-evident rules…and one not-so-self-evident rule.

We’d urge everyone in states where ticks are an issue to read the blog post, post the downloadable infographic in break rooms, and educate their employees generally. We are now in high-tick season so it is important to do it soon.

It’s not possible to do attachments on WordPress blog posts (translation: I personally have no clue), but here is a low-res preview:

Response to my Posting on the Case Western Reserve Law-Medicine Journal Wellness Critique

The following was proposed as a comment to my posting on the article The Outcomes, Economics and Ethics of the Workplace Wellness Industry.  This response needs to be anonymous because the person who posted it actually works for a large employer and can’t represent the employer. I thought it was important enough to merit its own posting.  


Very good summary of all the items you have “uncovered” from these vendors.  I have worked 28 years in healthcare cost control and it’s unfortunate that most employers believe what someone else tells them (so you have the blind leading the blind).  These points tell about the industry from your article and other items I have learned from you and my experience:

1) We all want to feel like there is an answer to cost control/help our employees and management looks to HR for the answers:

On its surface, who can argue with the concept of workplace wellness? How could there be anything wrong with corporations helping their employees reduce their risk of disease while saving money in the process?

2) As a culture, we have convinced ourselves “more is better”.  So vendors have an easy sell—let’s do more testing, more HRAs, more surveys…because it will give better results.

(Al) See this article on the Arkansas state program. Wellness isn’t working so the state benefits director wants to do more of it. It’s not “robust enough” now, he says.

3) People don’t ask questions, they don’t take the time to understand or study the facts as outlined in your overview of ACA/Safeway, Harvard Study, HERO, etc.

4) For years no new studies show savings that can be independently verified.  You’ve pointed this out before and no vendor is willing to attempt to claim your $2-million reward.  You also noted…For the last seven years, no peer-reviewed article in a major journal has found that wellness programs lead to substantial risk reduction.

(Al) If the situation were reversed — and I dare them — I would (under the same rules as my reward) claim it in a heartbeat.

5) No vendor ROI savings/metric methodology standard.  Vendors don’t want to be held accountable and most employers don’t care/don’t understand or just want to put a program in place to feel good.  Similar to your experiences with vendors, I have felt others view me as an obstructionist or negative because I ask too many questions or point out their program doesn’t/didn’t provide savings.  Unfortunately, I don’t see the industry changing because wellness is an easy product to sell to employers that don’t ask hard questions.  Maybe we’ll see some type of regulations to help in this area.

6) I hope the good vendors mentioned at the end of your article/Validation Institute members begin publishing their results that demonstrate an independent verified ROI that the industry will want to follow (become the standard).  I would suggest you explore more discussion on these vendors so employers might look to them for help.

(Al) Will do, though my positive postings don’t get remotely as many hits as my exposes. Also one reason they get validated is they don’t fabricate ROIs.

Al, I appreciate your insight and oversight in this industry.  Thanks for sharing your time and expertise.

Case Western Reserve Takes on Wellness. Wellness Loses.

Workplace “pry, poke and prod” programs are like pennies, Communism, baseball and Microsoft Outlook, in the sense that if they didn’t already exist, nobody would invent them.

This observation does not apply to workplace screening according to actual clinical guidelines, and next-generation programs like the Wellness 401W Savings Plan, which are good ideas that should get traction.  It doesn’t apply to wellness done for employees instead of to them.  It doesn’t apply to the Sterlings, It Starts with Me’s, USPMs, ImpactHealths, Redbricks, and Limeades of the world, who are doing the right things.  (If you think I am leaving anyone out, let me know!) And of course it doesn’t apply to health literacy, a la Quizzify. There is no argument in favor of ignorance.

There is no better evidence for this observation than the current issue of the Case Western Reserve Law-Medicine Journal, which devotes almost its entire current issue to the problems with these first-generation wellness programs.


The lead article, “The Outcomes, Economics and Ethics of the Workplace Wellness Industry,”  shows how vendors cover up their losses and harms to employees with lies that would make a White House press secretary blush. When they get caught blatantly lying and harming employees (and kudos to Sharon Begley for her expose on Wellsteps), they simply give each other awards. To paraphrase the immortal words of the great philosopher Ryan O’Neal, being a Koop Award winner means never having to say you’re sorry.

Next up is The Incidental Economist (TIE) team, weighing in on the “Dubious Empirical and Legal Foundations of Wellness Programs.” Kudos to TIE for outing this scam (the LA Times’ word, not mine) years ago. I did too, but the difference is that they have “day jobs” dissecting all the other frauds in healthcare, whereas I have altogether too much free time on my hands.

Samuel Bagenstos then piles on with “growing…evidence that reliance on workplace wellness to reduce disease is bad and likely futile health policy,” before deconstructing the questionable legality of these programs, featuring a definition of “voluntary wellness programs” that would make George Orwell blush.

Next up is Leah Fowler, pointing out that one reason wellness programs fail is they assume you can basically “give [employees] the opportunity” to lose weight, and they will. Fowler and her co-author Jessica Roberts point out that social determinants of health rather than employee indifference are vastly disproportionately the cause of poor health. “Nudges” won’t help. The evidence overwhelmingly supports their thesis. (And kudos to our own Tom Emerick for being first out of the box with this insight.)

Finally, Penn State’s resident health policy experts, Professors Scanlon and Shea, review the debacle of Penn State’s own wellness program and the (many) lessons that can be learned from it. The combination of their policy expertise and having been in the belly of the beast makes for a compelling read.

The bottom line? Wellness in its current form is such a sham (Slate’s word, not mine) that I can offer a $2-million reward for showing it works, knowing my money is safe from the Wellness Ignorati, who for all their bluster apparently either know their programs fail, or don’t have any use for $2-million.  (They hate me so much you’d think that even if they didn’t need the money, they’d claim the reward just to keep me from having it instead.)

It’s up to us to create a next-generation offering that benefits employees, and that they like. I see some good things out there on the http://www.ethicalwellness.org website — Sterling Wellness, It Starts with Me, and many other vendors have endorsed it. (You know it’s a good start because none of the Wellness Ignorati want anything to do with it.)

Fitbit Throws a Bit of a Fit, Part 2: More Fitbit Tidbits

The “prequels” to this posting are:

  1. Springbuk wants employees to go to the bathroom
  2. Fitbit Throws a Bit of a Fit, Part 1

Fitbit might just have taken the lead in the wellness industry’s race to the bottom. They are using the “dumb and dumber” defense to deflect their ethical shortcomings. This defense has been shown to work, in the sense that Ron Goetzel still has a job.

In Fitbit’s case, they have no choice. If they claim to be intelligent, that would mean they dramatically overstated the value of Fitbits deliberately, as opposed to out of pure, sheer, unadulterated ignorance. In turn, that would mean that the folks at Fitbit could be facing a little taxpayer-financed vacation in the federal hoosegow. That’s because public companies aren’t allowed to deliberately misrepresent their product to shareholders, which is precisely what this press release does.  Stupid is OK. Dishonest isn’t.

Here are a few more morsels from that study:

  • There were 22,259 employees in the employer population. Only 905 were in the study population. So the entire analysis of savings was based on projection from 4% of the population.
  • For some unexplained reason, the control group –the people who did nothing at all — enjoyed a dramatic 9.3% reduction in medical claims costs, vs. an “expected” increase of 5.8%, a 15.1% swing. So doing nothing turns out to be a great strategy to achieve double-digit savings.
  • Speaking of doing nothing, perhaps our favorite tidbit from this study is that an employee could stay in bed for up to 182 days a year  — meaning take 100 steps a day or less, getting up just to eat and pee, as described in the original Springbuk study — and “save” 21.8%.
  • It’s also possible that employees simply forgot to put on their Fitbits the other 183 days of the year, which is why they didn’t appear to take 100 steps on those days. However, that possibility is not acknowledged anywhere in the study. That could be because it wouldn’t make for much of a study to say: “We compared people who forgot to put on their Fitbit for fewer than 182 days to people who forgot to put on their Fitbit for more than 182 days.”

Therefore, whatever the other criticisms of this study, no one can accuse them of lying or even exaggerating when they say:


Speaking of which, let us now just focus on the 374 people (about 2% of their entire population) who did take more than 100 steps a day for a whopping 274 days out of the year or more. Their savings are massive:

Even the healthier subset of employees can reduce healthcare costs by a quarter by wearing a Fitbit, but that’s nothing compared to “low steps” employees who walk only 6477 steps a day, about the same as everyone else in the country. Those lucky employees can slash costs by more than half by continuing to walk an average number of steps, but this time wearing a Fitbit.

Oh, wait a sec. They were wearing a Fitbit in the baseline year too. Otherwise, how would we know how many steps they took? So they didn’t do anything in order to save massive sums of money.

Come again?  This conclusion seems wacky even by Fitbit/Springbuk standards. So let me repeat it: these people did basically nothing in the study year that they didn’t also do in the baseline year…and yet they somehow set a record for greatest cost reduction ever achieved in a year, 50.7%.

Then, these employees broke their own record. This next chart is for employees with “>=365 days” of use over the course of a year. (Not sure how they could have worn a Fitbit for “greater than 365 days” since the baseline for this two-year study was 2013, but maybe every year is a leap year on Springbuk’s planet.)

You read that right: a 58.6% reduction in spending for those 133 people taking the average number of steps everyone else takes in both years.

How much is a 58.6% reduction in costs in terms of utilization reduction? That means that simply by continuing to be average, these 133 average everyday folks wiped out the equivalent of all their hospitalizations and ER visits and specialist visits besides. Of course, we won’t know because Springbuk never plausibility-tested the result. As they say in journalism, it was a story too good to check.

Or, if Springbuk and Fitbit understood the concept of attribution as described in Biostatistics 101, they would realize that one can attribute only reductions in wellness-sensitive medical events to a wellness program, since those are what a wellness program is designed to avoid.  If only those events can be avoided, they must have wiped out heart attacks and diabetes for these 133 people, their spouses, and roughly 5000 of their closest friends.


If anyone is interested in the real health impact of activity tracking, I’d recommend this JAMA article. It’s the only one on the topic which is not financed by people connected to the industry. Researchers attached activity trackers to some at-risk overweight/obese people to see how much weight they would lose (which would mean a reduction in their risk and possibly a slight reduction in their healthcare costs).  The study’s result? The study population gained weight.

Fitbit Throws a Bit of a Fit, Part 1

This column originally appeared in the Corporate Health and Wellness Association blog but they were asked to remove it by Springbuk, which did the original analysis.  Not because it is inaccurate — no inaccuracies have ever been pointed out despite multiple requests by me to do so — but because it was accurate.

So I’m re-posting it here.



This is a sequel to “Springbuk Wants Employees to Go to the Bathroom,” which should be read prior to reading this posting.


In wellness, it’s totally legal to lie to customers. Indeed, if you don’t, you’ll probably lose them, since your competitors are happy to do exactly that, and most customers aren’t going to notice anyway.

In securities, though, it is totally illegal to lie to shareholders or to pay someone to write a favorable but dishonest report on your product, with the intent of propping up the stock price.

This brings up to Fitbit, and a recent report on savings allegedly generated by their activity trackers, published by Springbuk. Let’s leave aside for a moment the value of activity trackers to users. I like mine enough to generally recommend they be offered and subsidized (not given away) as part of a corporate wellness program, but “like” is not the issue in this savings claim. The issue is whether the math works.

And it doesn’t.

The Springbuk report of savings and outcomes for Fitbit was impossible. Among the clinical issues is the study design itself: the report defines “active” as taking 100 steps a day. However, as the previous installment showed, it is impossible not to take 100 steps in a day without being so sick you can’t get out of bed. So rather than being the threshold for being counted as an “active” person, as the Springbuk study says, it should be the threshold for being a person who can get out of bed.  And of course, people who can get out of bed will by definition have lower healthcare costs than people who can’t get out of bed, whether or not they wear a Fitbit.

Among the mathematical issues, it is not possible to reduce costs by 45.6% (one of the claims made) with a fitness device, because in the working-age population, only about 5% of hospital admissions are caused by lack of fitness.

Further, in addition to the apparent mathematical and clinical impossibility of Springbuk’s results, the author — and Fitbit — refused to respond to the following query.


Hi Mr. Daniels,

I have some questions about your report. Perhaps I’ve gotten some things wrong, so I’d love to hear from you in the next 3 business days, if I have.

First, isn’t it the case that anyone who is not in a wheelchair walks at least 100 steps a day, Fitbit or no Fitbit?   Is that the threshold for “active” as opposed to “bedridden” ?

Second, Figure 2c indicates that the very fact of being in the “engaged” group, even if you never get out of bed, reduces costs by 30%+.  How is this possible?  A corollary:  It would seem that all savings is being attributed to Fitbit, at least in the Fitbit interpretation. They also seem to be taking credit for this: “266 employees who used their Fitbit tracker for at least half the duration of the program decreased their healthcare costs by 45.6% on average.”

Third, can you reconcile this statement…:

“The materials in this document represent the opinion of the authors and not representative of the views of Springbuk, Inc. Springbuk does not certify the information, nor does it guarantee the accuracy and completeness of such information.”

…with this statement:

“This demonstration of impact achieved by integrating Fitbit technology into an employee wellness program reinforces our belief in the power of health data and measurement in demonstrating ROI,” said Rod Reasen, co-founder and CEO of Springbuk. 

Fourth, how is it possible to show basically no separation for 182 days of getting out of bed (taking 100 steps a day) from being bedridden, but massive separation for getting out of bed for 274 days?  I can’t find the explanation of the exercise science that would lead to that result. It would seem that there is some huge physiological disadvantage to those extra 92 days of taking 100 steps.

Fifth, am I missing the disclosure that Fitbit paid you to do this study? I can’t find it anywhere. Or did you do this on a pro bono basis?

Sixth, would you have come up with this same result if you had been paid by a hedge fund that was shorting Fitbit stock and wanted to show no savings?

Seventh, since most wellness-related healthcare spending is unavoidable altogether by walking 100 steps a days or any other amount for 12 months, I’m wondering if you were able to determine approximately which elements of healthcare spending were reduced, in order to get a 45.6% reduction in costs?  You would have to wipe out all hospitalizations, for example – and get roughly a 10% reduction in everything else.

Thanks very much.  If you would like to reply, I’ll look forward to your reply by 5 PM EDT on Wednesday 5/24.


Assuming Fitbit paid Springbuk (that’s a big assumption — this obvious conflict of interest is not disclosed anywhere, so the reader has to decide whether Springbuk collected money, or whether they did this study out of the goodness of their heart), one of four outcomes is possible:

  1. Springbuk genuinely thinks, among other things, that walking 100 steps a day for 274 days reduces healthcare costs by 27% vs. walking 100 steps a day for only 182 days. No crime there, other than the one committed by the grade school that granted them a diploma. It’s unlikely they think this, because Springbuk says they are  “obsessed with analytics” and that they sell “the leading health analytics software…[with] powerful insights.” So if Springbuk truly believes their own report, then congratulations are in order: they have accomplished more in this one analysis than most extremely stupid people accomplish in a lifetime. (Not an original line, as Veep fans know, but apropos nonetheless.)
  2. Springbuk wanted to show savings because they were being well-paid to do so, but Fitbit put no pressure on them when they gave them the check. Once again, doesn’t say much for Springbuk’s ethics, but Fitbit did not commit a crime.
  3. Fitbit paid Springbuk to lie for them, in order to impress prospects and customers. Once again, no crime. There wouldn’t be enough room in the prison system if lying in wellness were a crime. (See http://www.ethicalwellness.org for a list of wellness vendors that have agreed not to lie. It’s not very long.)
  4. Fitbit paid Springbuk to lie for them, in order to inter alia impress investors. This is not legal, any more than if Fitbit made up their own data for that reason. Since many Fitbit analyst reports make reference to savings of “up to $1500 per employee per year,” and since this study appears to be one of only two justifications for that statement (the other being equally suspect), there is a case to be made that Fitbit’s stock price would indeed be lower if they told the truth: that no disinterested researcher has ever found more than a trivial impact on employee health status or healthcare insurance cost.

We don’t know which of these four is the case. Is Springbuk dishonest, or just incompetent? Does Fitbit genuinely believe that wearing their device could magically reduce healthcare costs for US corporations by hundreds of billions of dollars, or are they willing to lie in order to boost revenues and their share price?

We look forward to hearing the answers to these questions once the financial media gets hold of this posting.

Header Photo – Copyright: dzejmsdin / 123RF Stock Photo

Opinions expressed in this column are those of Al Lewis individually. They do not necessarily represent the views of the Corporate Health and Wellness Association. Therefore all threats of lawsuits should be directed to the former, to which I say: “Go ahead. Make my day.”

Al Lewis said What???

Dear They Said What Nation,

Usually I am the one quoting people verbatim. Being quoted verbatim, of course, is the wellness industry’s worst nightmare. (I’m talking to you, Fitbit. And remember that today is your final day to respond to my observations about all the fallacies in your study.  More specifically, this is your final day on your final extension, since you’ve now had 40 days, including 3 “final” deadlines, to answer 6 simple questions, or roughly one week per question.)

So let’s see how I do when the situation is reversed, as I am the one being quoted verbatim in this WELCOA podcast. You have to access it via their site, which means getting on their mailing list. Several people have asked if I could post this in its entirety. I hate to disappoint my fan base, given how few people are in it, but it wouldn’t be fair because it’s WELCOA’s IP, and the only advantage for them of putting in this effort is to expand their mailing list.  (We’re only sending the pdf to FOQs — friends of Quizzify.)

However, I can share some highlights with everyone.

First, no one has claimed the $2-million reward for showing wellness doesn’t lose money. Just once it would be great if someone could explain how they can be so certain that wellness saves tons of money but at the same time so certain that it doesn’t save money that they aren’t willing to risk a small entry fee to make $2-million.

Second, there are good programs out there in the well-o-sphere.  I named a bunch of them and also special kudos to the program I am in, at Boston College. I said:

I’m in an outstanding traditional program, my wife’s. She teaches philosophy at Boston College. They’re amazing. They screen  — but it’s generally according to guidelines, so I go in once every few years. They’ve got Harvard Pilgrim’s nurses doing the coaching. They are excellent and totally up to date with information. Likewise, the actual health risk assessment itself is completely up to date. All good information. If every program were like this, there would be no place for me. I’d be living under a bridge eating squirrel.

Of course some kudos went to Cummins too, and on the public sector side, to Hilliard County (OH) and the City of Chelmsford, MA.

Finally, I noted the Wellness Code of Conduct, which now has quite a number of endorsers and followers. I would urge people to join it, if they haven’t already.


Before anyone starts puking, it isn’t all sweetness-and-light. I called out the usual suspects, and gave the “back story” on how my first book, Why Nobody Believes the Numbers, got me blacklisted due to an overdose of integrity. And, no, it wasn’t because I named names.  It didn’t name names. That came after I got blacklisted. I had nothing to lose, so I figured I might as well go public.

 

 

%d bloggers like this: