Because the wellness industry's pants are on fire
Home » Nominate a Company
The link supplied above is to a letter sent to all employees of a state university run teaching hospital that has over the last few years become increasingly draconian and bullying in its efforts to force wellness on employees and faculty. It was instrumental in forcing patients who smoke to lumber blocks to off campus locations to smoke, many dragging IVs and wearing hospital gowns are seen daily making the trek three, four, or more times. Now they are planning to force employees (by raising health care coverage costs and offering “savings” for doing what they mandate) – which is a discredited model according to Forbes http://www.forbes.com/sites/danmunro/2014/07/16/are-workplace-wellness-programs-legal/
and leads in many cases to horribly intrusive activities, such as discussed here: http://managedhealthcareexecutive.modernmedicine.com/managed-healthcare-executive/news/blog-penn-state-wellness-program-proves-complete-failure?page=full
I have no doubt UAMS has spent hundreds of thousands of dollars – if not more – on this hair brain scheme sold to it by a pack of consultants and or the vendor of it’s screening program and the horrid UMR which now acts as its third party administrator of health benefits.
I am nominating UAMS because I’ve listened to their doublespeak for a long time, and imagine they will make fools of themselves if they can but be persuaded to open their well-intentioned mouths….. Please note I am using an alias, as I doubt the powers that be will appreciate the appropriateness of this prestigious nomination….
Link below, not above …
Click to access Employee_letter_2014wellness.pdf
Thank you for this nomination. We’ll look into it. Really appreciate your taking the time. You might want to circulate copies of Surviving Workplace Wellness to your co-workers, because it tells lots of stories like yours.
Lots of funny stuff here, but I was disappointed that you used exactly the same marketing fluff and hyperbole that your targets do. It makes for more interesting reading but it’s kind of hypocritical and undermines your credibility. Example: Castlight. You question a passage citing $225 pmpm “employer cost”. You even point to a Kaiser study to prove your point claiming that they show “more than double” that $225 figure even for single employees. The actual chart shows $355.50 employer cost per month, far less than double. Even if you ignore the term “employer cost” and use total cost, the Kaiser figures are still a bit less than, rather than “more than”, double. So while you are probably correct about the $225 being unreasonable, you demonstrate the same disregard for factual content that is the justification for your website.
Doug, thank you for your comment. We will take a look at that study of Kaiser’s and repost. I do think the average spend on an individual member is more like $400-$500/month but we’ll source this and re-comment if needed. Thank you for bringing this to our attention. The last thing we want to do is be hypocrites here!
Fixed as of now. Thanks again for bringing this to our attention.
I’d like to bring a company to your attention – HealthiestYou. They offer their platform to brokers/consultants and even distribute to United members. They basically integrate a bunch of 3rd party technology like telemedicine and pricing APIs. They make some interesting ROI claims (see their website), claim very high utilization metrics, and charge $11PEPM per month! Its the rage in the broker world. I’m sure they do well. I’d love to see how this company stacks up against your in-depth analysis.
There’s a big queue now — so much invalidity, so few electrons — but we’ll certainly take a looksee. Thank you . And keep those cards and letters coming in folks!
I just did take a looksee. For starters, they don’t understand fifth-grade arithmetic. I’ll take a closer look later but not understanding arithmetic is usually a good indicator that they will end up on our site. Possibly as a Smoking Gun but also possibly in a new category we are coming up with for squirrelly claims that are almost certainly wrong, but that don’t autmoatically self-invalidate. Those will be called the Golden Squirrel Awards.
I think you were looking at this document. The first part where they calculate number of doctor visits seems totally off.
The wellness claims i am sure, if true, would make them the best wellness platform out there. no? (kidding of course, they did quote numbers from Harvard!)
Click to access Self+Funded+Sample+ROI.pdf
yes–their own statement and their own arithmetic don’t match, and their ROI is off by two decimal points, mostly becasue they don’t understand how percentages work. And we are supposed to trust thei calculations?
Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:
You are commenting using your WordPress.com account.
( Log Out /
You are commenting using your Twitter account.
( Log Out /
You are commenting using your Facebook account.
( Log Out /
Connecting to %s
Notify me of new comments via email.
Notify me of new posts via email.
Blog at WordPress.com.