Home » wellness doesn’t work
Category Archives: wellness doesn’t work
There is a lot more to this study than meets the eye.
Some tourist attractions feature an “A” tour for newbies and then a “behind-the-scenes” tour for those of us who truly need lives. For instance, I confess to having taken Disney’s Magic Kingdom underground tour, exploring, among other things, the tunnels through which employees travel so as not to be seen out of costume in the wrong “Land.”
Likewise, there have been many reviews of the recent wellness study conducted by the National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER), the first-ever randomized control study of a wellness program. This, however, is the first review to go beyond the “A” tour of the headlines.
By way of background, the headline is that the mainstream wellness program the investigators examined at the University of Illinois did not noticeably move the needle on employee health. They didn’t address return-on-investment (ROI), because there obviously was none. Achieving a positive ROI would require moving the health risk needle—not just by a little, but rather by enough to significantly improve the health of many employees. Then, since wellness-related events, such as heart attacks, would not otherwise have befallen these employees immediately, this improvement would have to be sustained over several years before there was a statistical chance of some events being avoided.
Finally, the magnitude of this improvement would have to be great enough to violate the rules of arithmetic, because it is not mathematically possible to avoid enough medical events to break even on wellness. For instance, it actually costs about $1 million to avoid a heart attack through a screening program.
This finding, therefore, represents an existential threat to conventional wellness programs.
It all boils down to: why would an associate professor (Damon Jones) publicly humiliate his own dean (Katherine Baicker — yes, the very same Katherine Baicker who always seems to be on the wrong side of every wellness debate) …unless he is absolutely sure he is right?
She can’t fire him now because that would get picked up by the lay media. Perhaps she should have paid him $130,000 not to disclose the results.
The Wellness Industry’s Terrible, Horrible, No-Good, Very Bad Year just got worse. Seems like CMS (Medicare) and Modern Healthcare are also ganging up on the Health Enhancement Research Organization (HERO) and all their cronies.
The headline in today’s Modern Heathcare turns out to be a bit of an understatement:
Wellness programs aren’t generating Medicare savings
Read farther the article and you’ll come up with gems like:
Utiization and expenditures actually increased among program participants… The results mirror those in the corporate world.
Asked for comment, the National Business Group on Health’s very stable spokesgenius, Steve Wojcik, said:
So, while it didn’t reduce healthcare expense or utilization, it seems to have had a positive impact…by preventing or delaying normal deterioration that comes with age.
Where Mr. Wojcik came up with this spin, creative even by wellness industry standards, is anyone’s guess. Nothing in the program suggests it and when he finds something that does prevent age-related decline, I will be the first to nominate him for a Nobel Prize.
The curious thing is this failed approach is not “wellness or else” as Jon Robison calls it. Instead these programs are truly voluntary. Also unlike corporate wellness programs, vendors aren’t harassing healthy employees to eat more broccoli but rather focusing on unhealthy ones. Instead of making healthy 30-year-olds get unneeded checkups, they’re encouraging 70-year-olds with chronic disease to get more medical care.
And yet the programs still don’t work. Color me surprised. I genuinely thought (and I honestly still think) that willing participants in voluntary programs who have chronic disease would benefit from these programs. Perhaps when they re-review another year’s data they will find a benefit.
Alternatively, instead of trying to maintain the revenue streams of their members, perhaps HERO could actually try to find a new model that does provide a benefit. Certainly there are plenty of vendors out there with possibly better mousetraps, but they all have one thing in common: they have no use for HERO’s pet vendors, any more than companies that make solar panels have a use for coal.
Speaking of HERO, let us review HERO’s comments from just last week:
Teddy Roosevelt said, “complaining about a problem without posing a solution is called whining.” It’s a quote that also reminds me why I’ve not thought of angry bloggers who target health promotion [vendors] as bullies. Though they relish trolling for bad apples, their scolding is toothless, more the stuff of chronic whiners.
Not to mention:
We’re fortunate to work in a profession with a scant number of vociferous critics. My take is that there is one thing these few angry loners want more desperately than attention: that’s to be taken seriously.
Just like wellness vendors like to define “voluntary” as “forced,” I guess in wellness-speak “scant number of vociferous critics and chronic whiners” mean “every commentator,” and an “angry blogger” is any blogger with a great big smile on his face.
OK, this time I’m not the one causing the kerfluffle in the wellness industry, though I will confess to being a force multiplier.
Not since 2014, when the very unstable morons at the Incidental Economist made fun of the very stable geniuses who give out the Koop Award and also unequivocally concluded wellness loses money — combined with continued fallout from the Penn State debacle and the Nebraska scandal — has the wellness industry had such a bad year. And it’s only February.
Let’s review what’s happened so far in 2018. First, a federal judge ruled that voluntary wellness programs need to be — get ready — voluntary. The EEOC’s responded with the legalese equivalent of: “Fine, be that way.”
Next, WillisTowersWatson did something that might get them in hot water with the very stable wellness industry leaders: they were honest. They published a study revealing that employees hate wellness even more — way more — than they hate waiting for the cable guy to show up.
Finally, the very unstable National Bureau of Economic Research conducted a controlled study finding basically no impact whatsoever of a wellness program. More importantly, they specifically invalidated the “pre-post” methodology. Even more importantly, they specifically invalidated 78% of the studies used in Kate Baicker’s “Harvard Study” meta-analysis.
Here is an interesting piece of trivia. The lead researcher is an assistant professor at the Harris School of Public Policy. Why is this interesting trivia? Because Katherine Baicker — the Typhoid Mary of Wellness, whose THC-infused 3.27-to-1 ROI is the basis for essentially every subsequent genius wellness outcomes claim — is now the dean of that very same Harris School. I’m just guessing here, but I’d say it’s gotta be a trifle embarrassing when your own subordinate publicly disproves your own study. I mean, it’s one thing for me, RAND, Bloomberg, and anyone else with five minutes, internet access and a calculator to do it, but…your very subordinate?
On the other hand, the researcher, Damon Jones, just demonstrated not just amazing competence, but amazing integrity as well. In other words, he has no future in wellness.
The Wellness Empire Strikes Back
How does the wellness industry respond to these smoking guns threatening their entire revenue stream? Apparently, there is little cause for concern on their planet.
Let’s start with America’s Health Insurance Plans (AHIP), the health insurance industry lobbying group. Here is AHIP’s oxymoronic Wellness Smartbrief (January 26), on the NBER research. Yes, it summarizes the same wellness-emasculating study as the one above, though you could never guess it from the headline:
Continuing, AHIP said:
Offering incentives for completing wellness activities might be more cost-effective than offering incentives for wellness screening, a recent study of a comprehensive program found.
Perhaps AHIP has been infiltrated by Russian trolls, because here’s what the NBER article actually said about “completing wellness activities”:
We…do not find any effect of treatment on the number of visits to campus gym facilities or on the probability of participating in a popular annual community running event, two health behaviors that are relatively simple for a motivated employee to change over the course of one year.
Wellness programs might attract mostly employees who are already fitness-conscious, but the potential to attract healthy employees whose medical spending is already low could nonetheless be a boon to employers, the researchers found.
And on the subject of “the potential to attract healthy employees” being a “boon to employers,” the authors actually said:
We further find that selection into wellness programs is associated with both lower average spending and healthier behaviors prior to the beginning of the study. Thus, one motivation for a firm to adopt a wellness program is its potential to screen for workers with low medical spending. Considering only health care costs, reducing the share of non-participating (high-spending) employees by just 4.5 percentage points would suffice to cover the costs of our wellness program intervention.
In other words, you can apply some workplace eugenics to your company by using wellness to weed out obese employees, employees with chronic or congenital diseases, and so on. Good for you!
Soon, if AHIP and others have their way, there will be no need for guesswork in eugenics: employer wellness programs will be able to screen these employees out based on their actual DNA.
AHIP’s take on AARP v. EEOC
And now, AHIP’s take on this landmark case, their ace reporters scooping everyone with this February 2 headline on the December 20th court ruling:
Here are more typical headlines on that court ruling, headlines that came out the same month that the court ruling came out. Perhaps AHIP used the interim six weeks to focus-group various verbs until they settled on…tweak???
AHIP: It’s not just the headlines
One prominent healthcare executive recently attended an AHIP conference and reports:
I just returned from one of the dumbest meetings I’ve ever attended in Washington. Report of a new “study” by AHIP. Turns out people don’t mind health costs all that much, they just want more benefits. And everything is hunky-dory with their health plans, people like them so much. They love wellness benefits and crave more. Prescription drug prices have been nicely controlled thanks to the competitive marketplace (no, I am not making this up or exaggerating for drama). For every $1 employers spend on benefits workers get $4 in value. Priorities for SHRM rep: Fitbits for all employees, solving the outrage that only 20% of her employees got an annual physical. 85 cents of every dollar spent on health care goes to chronic disease.
Over these same two hours, I’d estimate about a thousand employees were misinformed, harmed or harassed by wellness vendors, roughly equal numbers of employees got useless annual checkups, employers spent about $200-million on healthcare and 40 people died in hospitals from preventable errors. But I’m being such a Debbie Downer! I’m going home to read Why Nobody Believes the Numbers to remove myself from this alternative universe.
Enter the Health Enhancement Research Organization (HERO)
HERO’s Prevaricator-in-Chief, Paul Terry, is demonstrating his usual leadership abilities in this crisis, of course. After all, HERO is the wellness industry trade association and these three items — the NBER invalidating their product, employees hating their product, and a federal judge forbidding them to force employees to use their product — represent existential threats to his “pry, poke and prod” members.
Teddy Roosevelt said, “complaining about a problem without posing a solution is called whining.” It’s a quote that also reminds me why I’ve not thought of angry bloggers who target health promotion [vendors] as bullies. Though they relish trolling for bad apples, their scolding is toothless, more the stuff of chronic whiners.
I suspect he is talking about me here as the “chronic whiner” who is “scolding” them. Or perhaps he is referring to the “angry bloggers” at the Los Angeles Times, the New York Times, Slate, or STATNews, since those “toothless” publications seem to be scolding wellness vendors more than I ever have. For instance, I’ve never called wellness vendors’ offering a “scam” or a “sham.” I simply quote these very stable wellness geniuses verbatim, as above or below, or last week.
Being quoted verbatim, not angry bloggers, is their worst nightmare. (One thing I would concede, though, is that “Paul Terry and the Angry Bloggers” would be a great name for a rock band.)
Yep, looks like the implosion of his industry all my fault. Otherwise, I’m not quite sure who is the “angry blogger” he is referring to, other than to note that Mr. Terry himself seems to blog a tad angrily himself, both above, and here…
Why I choose to ignore the blogger critics: We’re fortunate to work in a profession with a scant number of vociferous critics. My take is that there is one thing these few angry loners [Editor’s note: the complete “scant list” of the 220 “few angry loners” who have been “vociferous critics” can be found here] want more desperately than attention: that’s to be taken seriously. What they fail to comprehend is that as they’ve gotten ever more farfetched and vitriolic in search of the former, they’ve cinched their inability to attain the latter.
Baiting people with misinformation and offensive insults (but just a tad under highly offensive) is a pesky ploy that trolls hope will eventually land a bite that confers credibility where there is none. Even reading such drivel is a form of taking the bait; responding is swallowing it whole. Some say dishonesty should not go unchallenged and I respect their view; nevertheless, I’m convinced responding to bloggers who show disdain for our field is an utter waste of time. I’ve rarely been persuaded to respond to bloggers, and each time I did it affirmed my worry that, more than a waste, it’s counter-productive.
…and especially here, a seemingly incongruous decision to “act out” by someone who claims to be “choosing to ignore the blogger critics.”
Having read years of my “drivel” alongside Mr. Terry’s posting explaining why you shouldn’t “swallow this bait,” perhaps readers might opine here: which of us, exactly, is the “chronic whiner”?
Coincidentally, when I run live health-and-wellness trivia contests, the first of our 3 rules is: No Whining. Seems to me that he would have just violated it. Indeed the only rule HERO hasn’t violated so far is #3 below. Not that I want to put ideas in their head.
Often I don’t have time to write a full blog in my own words, but fortunately I usually don’t need to. It’s enough to quote the words of the very stable geniuses in the wellness industry verbatim. Being quoted verbatim, of course, is one of these geniuses’ worst nightmares.
Among the most stable of the wellness industry geniuses is Steve Aldana, CEO of Wellsteps, winner of the 2016 Koop Award as well as the 2016 Deplorables Award. How does he report the National Bureau of Economic Research’s complete evisceration of wellness industry research methods? Let’s take a looksee at the highlights of his posting.
First, it appears that two opposing studies, “one for and one against wellness,” came out “at the same time.”
One the one hand, someone — apparently he doesn’t know who — seems to say that there “wasn’t much improvement” at the University of Illinois. And something must have been wrong with this result, because “these results contradict over 90% of publish [sic] studies.”
“At the same time,” a publication no one has heard of found the opposite: health behaviors improved for “over 2 full years” in — get ready — one of Wellsteps’ very own accounts.
This is a textbook example of a false equivalence, the wellness version of: “You also had some people that were very fine people on both sides.”
To begin with, the researchers in the first group weren’t just any old researchers. This was the National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER). And the NBER didn’t say “they didn’t see much improvement.” Their specific words were that the causal effects were — get ready — nearly indistinguishable from zero for nearly every outcome.
Further to say this conclusion “contradicts over 90% of published studies about wellness,” would be like saying Galileo’s findings “contradicted” over 90% of published studies about astronomy.
The study’s actual conclusion used a slightly different verb:
Our 95% confidence intervals rule out 78 percent of previous estimates [of the effect of wellness] on medical spending and absenteeism from the prior literature. [Let me translate that, in case the words are too long for the very stable geniuses at Wellsteps to understand: you and all your very stable friends have been geniusing about savings for decades now.]
The reason the NBER was able to be so conclusive is that, to quote one of our Alert Readers, Robert Dawkins: “They foolishly included a valid control group.” Kudos to Mr. Dawkins for that very unstable moronic observation. (In any event, far from contradicting other research, the study is quite consistent with most articles on wellness not written by someone feeding at the employer wellness trough.)
The other journal, which published an article “at the same time,” found an improvement in healthy behaviors. That journal is called Health Promotion Practice. And if you haven’t heard of it, you’ve got company. Their “impact factor” is the lowest in an industry whose journals are notable for low impact factors. I googled quite extensively, and it appears — get ready — that no article from this journal has ever been cited, excerpted or even had the fact of its very existence even grudgingly acknowledged in the lay or scholarly media.
By contrast, the NBER article has been picked up everywhere — except of course by the wellness industry. See if you can find any reference to this article — or AARP v. EEOC, which was also national news — on the Health Enhancement Research Organization website.
Turns out there’s a reason no one cites this journal. It’s because it’s so genius. Exhibit A is this very same article, a rehash of the Boise School District findings that somehow overlooked the key finding, which is that the employees got unhealthier during Wellsteps’ program. Instead, the author — displaying not the slightest intellectual curiosity as to how this could possibly be true — reports the most genius findings we’ve ever seen in a journal:
- only 3% of Boise School District employees smoke, and…
- …they smoke only 4 days a week.
Perhaps — just playing devil’s advocate here — the other 17% of Boise employees who smoke (Idaho has a 20% smoking rate) might have lied on their health risk assessment? The “tell” is that everybody knows smokers don’t smoke only 4 days a week. Obviously, they smoke 5 days a week, with time off for weekends, major holidays and Beethoven’s Birthday.
Very stable genius that he is, the author (both a friend of Wellsteps’ Mr. Aldana, according to the disclosure statement, and also a genius who has already been profiled on this site for his previous insights) also admits that with a high non-participation rate and a 20% dropout rate:
There exists the possibility of selection or dropout bias that could have influenced the results reported.
Ya think? Maybe just a tiny bit?
But wait…there’s more
We’ve highlighted Mr. Aldana’s phrase “at the same time” describing how these articles were simultaneously published. We repeated the phrase in three separate places above for emphasis because — get ready — these two results were not published at anything like the same time.
To begin with, Mr. Aldana has been very stably geniusing about his Boise results for more than two years now. (See my article from September 2015 accurately forecasting that, thanks to the number of obvious errors and self-immolating contradictions, this study would win a Koop Award. And of course the Boise employees got harmed.)
This article, using that same data set, was published last July, whereas the NBER article just came out a few weeks ago. Perhaps in some geologic sense July 2017 and January 2018 are “the same time,” but imagine if the rest of the world defined “at the same time” as “six months apart.” For instance, let’s join Sherman and Mr. Peabody in the Wayback Machine and set the dial for June 1944:
Eisenhower: “OK, we’ll storm Omaha and Utah Beaches, and you guys can storm Juno and Sword Beaches at the same time, and then we’ll hook up and say…”
Churchill: “…Merry Christmas, chaps.”
For a good time, try googling on Wellsteps.
Not to be confused with those immortal words often attributed to the great philosopher Yogi Berra, a big joke among economists is: “An economist is someone who upon learning how something works in practice, wonders how it will work in theory.”
That joke morphed into reality last month — though it was a controlled study testing a theory, rather than the theory itself. The “theory” would be that inactive unmotivated non-participants can be used as a control for active motivated participants. Ironically, this study design has never been proposed as legitimate, even in theory. Wellness “researchers” like it because it always show savings, even when nothing happens. For example, even when there was no program for the participants to participate in.
Obviously if this were a legitimate design, the FDA would approve it for clinical trials, saving a ton of time and money vs. having to do controlled trials.
To wit, the National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) just published a study showing that the participants-vs-non-participants (“par-vs.-nonpar”) study design, used extensively by the very stable geniuses in the wellness industry to do their alt-research to fabricate their alt-findings, is completely invalid.
Highlights of NBER study for the wellness industry: bad news first
First the bad news. Fasten your seat belts and be shocked, shocked to learn that the researchers could identify:
- No noticeable change in health behaviors due to the wellness program
- No noticeable change in health outcomes due to the wellness program
- Clear self-selection bias among participants opting into the wellness program
Lest anyone think we are taking this out of context, here are their exact words:
We do not find any significant effects of treatment on total medical expenditures, employee productivity, health behaviors, or self-reported health measures in the first year following random assignment. We further investigate the effect of our intervention on medical expenditures in greater detail, but fail to find significant effects on different quantiles of the spending distribution or on any major subcategory of medical expenditures (pharmaceutical, office, or hospital). We also do not find any effect of treatment on the number of visits to campus gym facilities or on the probability of participating in a popular annual community running event, two health behaviors that are relatively simple for a motivated employee to change over the course of one year.
This of course merely confirms what we observe in outcomes reports published by wellness vendors, including the two most recent proud recipients of the Deplorables Awards. Actually, in the case of Wellsteps there was indeed a noticeable change in health outcomes among program participants — they got worse.
Also, the authors — no doubt anticipating the objection from the very stable geniuses at the Health Enhancement Research Organization — specifically note that nothing in Year One’s results presage any step-function improvement in Year Two. So the specious “Wait ’til next year” argument is off the table.
You might be thinking, “Another nail in the wellness industry coffin.” True, except that there almost isn’t room for any more nails. Soon the coffin will have enough nails to create its own gravitational field.
Next, the good news
Here are the two pieces of good news for the wellness industry. One finding was:
Our 95% confidence intervals rule out 78 percent of previous estimates on medical spending and absenteeism.
That means that it is possible that 22% of previous estimates may conceivably not be completely invalid. This is not to say that 22% are valid, just that they aren’t automatically invalid. That is great news for the wellness industry, where clearing the bar for not being automatically invalid is cause for celebration. As Dave Chase says, the bar for wellness is so low a snake could jump over it.
However, the 78%-totally-invalid figure specifically invalidates Katherine Baicker, author of the so-called “Harvard Study.” Depending on whether you are a wellness vendor or an oppressed employee, she is either the Johnny Appleseed or the Typhoid Mary of wellness. Her famous 3.27-to-1 ROI was tallied entirely from par-vs.-nonpar studies, exactly the methodology that the NBER just invalidated, citing exactly the studies she cited. (The three examples in my study referenced above were also part of her meta-analysis.)
So perhaps she might now make a formal statement regarding par-vs-non-par as a study design? Either a retraction or a defense. Just something that clarifies her previous statements, which seem to be neither retractions nor defenses but rather more like excuses:
- It’s too early to tell (um, after 30 years of workplace wellness?)
- She has no interest in wellness any more
- People aren’t reading her paper right (we’re only reading the headline, the data, the findings and the conclusion, apparently)
- “There are few studies with reliable data on the costs and the benefits” (um, then how were you able to reach a conclusion with two significant digits?)
The irony is that Kate Baicker has otherwise done outstanding research. Her study on Oregon Medicaid is a classic. In Oregon at the time, Medicaid eligibility was determined by lottery amongst applicants. That meant that — quite the opposite of wellness control groups — the control group of people not picked in the lottery had equal motivation to seek insurance coverage as people who were picked. After following both groups going forward, her finding was that obtaining insurance to access basic medical care did not change outcomes. (Having insurance did bring peace of mind, though.)
And yet somehow in “Workplace Wellness Can Generate Savings,” she was quite comfortable reaching a conclusion that was completely inconsistent with her Oregon finding, not to mention the Law of Diminishing Returns: throwing additional unrequested, generally unwanted, and largely misdirected medical interventions and advice at employees who already have insurance — and recall that most insured Americans are drowning in medical care — could dramatically improve their outcomes enough to calculate not just a massive ROI, but an ROI precise to two significant digits.
What she will hopefully learn through the NBER study is something that I learned 11 years ago: when the data proves you wrong, fess up. Then people like me have to find someone else to blog about. Fortunately, in wellness, that is not a heavy lift.
The second piece of good news for the wellness industry
To quote the study:
…wellness incentives may shift costs onto unhealthy or lower-income employees if these groups are less likely to participate in wellness programs. Furthermore, wellness programs may act as a screening device by encouraging employees who benefit most from these programs to join or remain at the firm…
To be clear, this calculation does not imply that adoption of workplace wellness programs is socially beneficial. But, it does provide a profit-maximizing rationale for firms to adopt wellness programs, even in the absence of any direct effects on health, productivity, or medical spending. [emphasis theirs]
In other words, employers can use wellness programs to subtly discriminate against unhealthy — read, older and poorer — workers. Many of the very stable geniuses in the wellness industry will be happy to hear this. The exceptionally stable genius who will be most thrilled to hear this is Michael O’Donnell. Mr. O’Donnell is the former Prevaricator-in-Chief of the wellness industry trade publication and a current member of the Koop Award cabal. These are excerpts from one of his editorials:
First, he says prospective new hires should be subjected to an intrusive physical exam [editor’s note: notwithstanding the fact that this is totally illegal], and hired only if they are in good shape. OK, not every single prospective new hire needs to be in good shape — only those applying for “blue collar jobs or jobs that require excessive walking, standing, or even sitting.” Hence he would waive the physical exam requirement for mattress-tester, prostitute, or Koop Award Committee member, because those jobs require only excessive lying.
Second, he would fine people for not meeting “outcomes standards.” In an accompanying document, he defines those “outcomes standards.” He specifies fining people who have high BMIs, blood pressure, glucose, or cholesterol.
In other words, Mr. O’Donnell wants to charge for insurance by the pound, as that accompanying document says. Actually, by BMI, which of course is of dubious value as a measure of weight, let alone health.
Here is his actuarial formula:
Although having read his very stable arithmetic elsewhere in this same document, I’d worry about the accreditation status of any actuarial school, or for that matter any school of any kind within the 50 states, that would accept him:
Thirty-one states have no laws that prohibit employers from using smoking status as the reason for not hiring… In the remaining 29 states…smoking status cannot be used as the reason for not hiring.
I’m not waiting around for a retraction from this genius either.
We often talk about wellness vendors competing against one another in a race to the bottom, with the very stable geniuses at Wellsteps, Interactive Health, Total Wellness, and Star Wellness in the lead. Of course, the equally stable geniuses at Wellness Corporate Solutions, Healthywage and Bravo can’t be counted out. There could be other candidates too. Keep in mind that wellness is a crowded industry, with many very stable vendors constantly trying to outgenius one another. (There are, of course, some excellent vendors out there too. Simply put the name of your vendor in the “search” box and see what pops up.)
However, we never talk about the wellness industry as a whole competing against other industries in a race to the bottom. Why not? Because it turns out that the wellness industry has already won that race. How do we know this? Simple. By looking at Net Promoter Scores. Net Promoter Scores are the most widely used, and considered the most valid, measure of user satisfaction. Let’s see how wellness compares to a benchmark of other industries.
The Benchmark: Where are other industries on the Net Promoter Score scale?
Here is a a screenshot of the Net Promoter Scores for the 20 largest US industries serving consumers. (Source: The Temkin Group, which sells comprehensive reports based upon the NPS.)
The worst performer of any industry is, not surprisingly, TV and internet services. The average for that industry is +2. Even so, we have Comcast and I love it. If you want to watch a show — say, Billions — you just literally say “Billions” and <presto> the show appears on your screen. Plus Comcast’s picture quality is now so sharp that every time Paul Giamatti realizes that Damian Lewis has outsmarted him again, you can almost see the steam coming out of his ears.
Nonetheless, the cable TV and internet services industry at least earns a positive score. It’s not that bad.
Where is the wellness industry on the Net Promoter Score scale?
On the other hand, the wellness industry is that bad, according to the data.
Wellness isn’t on the Temkin chart because, thankfully for America’s employees, it is not one of the 20 largest B-to-C industries. It is off the charts both literally, and also figuratively, because the wellness industry Net Promoter Score averages a minus-52 in the US. That’s 54 points lower than the next-lowest industry. (This does not include Quizzify, which is very highly regarded by employees. So much so that one of employees’ biggest complaints is, not enough quizzes.)
This isn’t us or one of the many other wellness skeptics doing the Net Promoter Score measurement. It’s the highly respected consulting firm WillisTowersWatson, whose comprehensive report covers all aspects of the industry.
This rating shouldn’t come as any surprise to people who read this blog, or for that matter people who read at all. Just last week we related a typical employee wellness story, and last year we reposted a few of the comments to the Slate article: “Workplace Wellness Programs Are a Sham,” My favorite, of course, is “I’d like to punch them in the face.”
And also just last week, yet another person — who used their full name — commented on a previous blog, complaining about their “untethered from reality HRA and biometric screen.”
Speaking of untethered from reality, here’s what a wellness vendor — VirginPulse — believes to be the case on their planet:
And there is Bravo, saying punitive wellness programs are:
“very popular and well received by the vast majority of employers and employees alike…”
My question to VirginPulse and Bravo is, where is this “87%,” and/or this “vast majority of employees” who love wellness, and insist on being pried, poked and prodded? We’ve looked in a number of places — here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here — and can’t find anyone.
Why this matters
We have a saying: “Wellness will make employees happy whether they like it or not.” In the real world, a minus-52 Net Promoter Score indicates that morale takes a big hit if you do wellness to employees instead of for them. (The Health Enhancement Research Organization concurs with us only on a few issues — the deleterious impact of wellness programs on morale is one of them.
More importantly, employers, except for Quizzify’s customers and partners, are losing their “Safe Harbor” as of January for tying clinical wellness programs to large financial forfeitures. Aggrieved employees will have much greater recourse in the federal courts than they have today. As the Net Promoter Scores show, there is no shortage of aggrieved employees, and likely no shortage of attorneys willing to “assist” them in collecting a financial settlement.
There is also no shortage of expert witnesses here at They Said What? to support them. And we’ve never lost.
It’s not just that Maryland is setting the record for most epic financial fail ever recorded in wellness. We are also bringing you an eyewitness account from the Belly of the Beast, an employee willing to give out her name in order to help spare other state employees and taxpayers the pain of this program.
The Most Epic Fail Ever?
Maryland is on track to miss its savings goals by 18 decimal places. To put that in perspective, the total economic output of the world sums to only 14 decimal places.
Here’s how the math works. The state is claiming that avoiding wellness-sensitive medical events will save $4 billion dollars — a number with 10 decimals. Thanks in part to Maryland’s lowest-in-country hospital rates of about $20,000/heart attack, the state would have to avoid 20,000 heart attacks a year to do this. No easy feat when the entire insured Maryland population — all private- and public-sector employees and their families combined — only suffer about 2700 heart attacks/year.
Plus, in the history of wellness, it appears that not a single heart attack, or for that matter, diabetes event, has ever been avoided. (More likely, a few have been avoided, but a few also have been caused by employees taking bad wellness vendor advice.)
Put yet another way, that’s $4000/family/year in savings. Achieving that outcome that would require wiping out all hospitalizations on all state employees and dependents, along with some of their closest friends.
Taxpayers, this is on you
Meanwhile, Maryland state taxpayers are paying Optum on the magnitude of $70,000,000 (8 decimal places) over this period, plus the cost of hundreds of thousands of useless and possibly counterproductive coerced checkups.
The best-case scenario? It’s a very safe bet–one I am willing to make to the tune of $3-million and give out 10-to-1 odds– that they will save nothing. That’s 10 decimals in missed savings targets and 8 decimals in fees — a truly epic fail of 18 decimal places.
And yet even this is an optimistic assessment. Like both other public sector employers — Connecticut and Boise — which have reported outcomes, Maryland’s program will likely drive up spending and possibly harm their employees. And if you guessed that Optum’s contract calls for them to receive bonuses based on invalid measurement of non-existent savings, then update your resume. You are too smart to be in this field.
Further, Optum (through its representation on the board of the wellness trade association), has already publicly admitted wellness loses money. Their cabal tried to take that back by pretending they lied when they admitted it, but it turned out they lied when they said they lied. The data was real, meaning the admission was real.
It happens that I know two state employees. One bragged to me about how their entire quasi-public organization was able to dodge this program because everyone hated it so much. The other shared her “wellness” story, a typical one rather than the stories of great harms, or the experiences of employees who make constructive comments in the lay media, such as: “I’d like to punch them in the face.”
Instead, her story sounds like every other employee wellness story — with the notable exception that she is allowing me to use her name, since she no longer works for the state and is concerned about the stress and potential harms caused to employees, including her former colleagues. (Plus, as a taxpayer, she’d like her $50 back, representing her share of the total program expense.)
Her name is Alice, and here is her experience. (Anyone who would like her last name and contact info may contact me and I will pass that along to her. She is willing to talk, though not for attribution.)
As a state employee and with my entire family being on the state plan, my husband and I have had the joy of recently completing our wellness assessments. Here is my rant:
First, it’s a giant pain in the butt. Second, the questionnaire could not have been more ridiculous and third, my doctor didn’t really do anything with it. She just gets to bill an unnecessary office visit to the state, in order to sign a form.
On the first topic, the questionnaire took 45 min for each of us, plus the inconvenience of having to schedule and go to an appointment we didn’t need. And in my case, having just gone through 9 months of prenatal care, labor and delivery care and postpartum care on top of all the newborn appointments, the last thing I needed was another doctor’s appointment.
On the second point, the questions they asked were terrible for assessing my actual health. There was an obvious right answer in every case, and it seemed to want to judge my mental health/level of happiness more than actual health. “Think of yourself on a ladder in terms of xxx (happiness, social status, personal accomplishments). What rung on the ladder would you place yourself, 1 being the lowest and 10 the highest?” How does that assess my health? It’s a personal fulfillment questionnaire that also asks if you exercise. At the end they ask for all these lab values which I don’t have and my doctor didn’t think she was supposed to request so they aren’t filled out at all.
And on the last point, my doctor never looked at the 30 page final assessment that I had to print and she just asked me if I think I’m healthy and I said yes. She was fine with that. The only thing she told me was that I could lose a few pounds to get my BMI in the right place – well OF COURSE! I just had a baby, which on a side note is not a part of the wellness assessment at all. There are all these questions about how much sleep I’m getting, am I stressed, etc… but no accounting for the natural things that happen in life like a newborn.
Shame, shame, shame on Alice!
Like every other Maryland employee, Alice needs to pull her weight, if she ever expects to account for her $40,000 share of the $4 billion in savings. Unfortunately, according to the actual arithmetic, she is already way behind in her quest. She hasn’t saved a nickel but has cost the state:
- 1 doctor bill
- 1 vendor fee
- 30 pages of paper from needlessly destroyed trees
- 45 minutes of lost productivity completing her kumbaya assessment, plus the time spent at the doctor
Fortunately, the doctor didn’t realize she was supposed to run (and charge for) a bunch of lab tests, so she saved the state some money there.
Where should the state go from here?
A quick plausibility test should determine that they didn’t save anything to speak of. Then Optum should be forced to give their money back, and issue an apology to Alice and others for wasting their time. The Attorney General should announce to overjoyed state employees that they are no longer required to do this — and that he just saved the taxpayers $70 million. Then he should run for governor. Alice could be his running mate.
Where will the state go from here? Like Connecticut and Boise, in exactly the opposite direction. The state HR people will claim they are heroes, using the classic combination of regression to the mean, ignoring dropouts, and participants-vs-non-participants study design, to pretend to show how much employees love the program and how much money it’s saving. When carefully read, of course, the data will show the opposite.
They will also find one state employee willing to claim he or she started eating more broccoli. As for the rest? For a more typical assessment of the Maryland program, I would recommend that the state, in the immortal words of those great philosophers Jefferson Airplane, go ask Alice.