They Said What?

Home » Posts tagged 'Boise School District'

Tag Archives: Boise School District

The 2016 Wellness Deplorables Award winner: Wellsteps

This completes our year-end series on the Goofuses and Gallants of the wellness industry. See:

goofusgallant



Are you smarter than an award-winning wellness vendor? Take this quiz and find out.

Q: How is the first unlike the second?

aldana-linkedin-profile-checkpopeye

The first, Wellsteps CEO Steve Aldana, claims that it’s bananas that provide magical powers.  And unlike Popeye and spinach, he doesn’t think we need to consume massive quantities. “Even one more bite of a banana” is all it takes to reduce overall costs by fully a third, despite their admission that costs for individual employees increase by about the same amount over the same period.

wellsteps-cost-savingswellsteps cost per person

Yes, you read that right, and, yes, is it mathematically impossible for a number to go up and down at the same time. I noted in Wellsteps Stumbles Onward that Wellsteps had accidentally told the truth on the second display showing increasing costs, thus totally contradicting the first. The second display subsequently disappeared.

Perhaps Wellsteps deliberately made up the first slide to fool people (in this case, the Boise School District).  The more charitable explanation, which shows Wellsteps in a better light, is that they didn’t deliberately lie when they said costs increased and decreased at the same time. Instead, they were simply confused by their own stupidity.


Lying is a Business Strategy

Wellsteps’ Linkedin group is called Wellness is a Business Strategy. I was banned from posting on it, accompanied by the following invocation of the First Amendment:

“It has come to our attention that an outspoken critic has entered false data into these calculators in order to make a point. We certainly support free speech; however, we wonder how valid the point can be when it is based on false data?” [Where “false data” is defined as “any data”]

Sounds like they support free speech…except when they don’t. Speaking of supporting free speech, they claimed in bright red letters — for no apparent reason other than they were probably suffering withdrawal symptoms from having gone a whole week without lying — that they had convinced Linkedin to ban us from posting.  And yet many of you clicked through from linkedin. So here we are, posting.

wellsteps-linkedin


Stupid is a Business Strategy

Wellsteps’ ROI model doesn’t generate an ROI.  It doesn’t even generate a savings projection. What does it “generate”?  One number: $1359.  Yes,  it always gives the same answer ($1359 savings per employee) if you zero out “annual cost increases” in their model to control for inflation. So anyone can see this model simply makes no sense, notwithstanding Wellsteps’ insistence that it is “based on every ROI study ever published.”

How stupid is Wellsteps’ model? Even Ron Goetzel refused to defend it. And when Ron Goetzel won’t defend stupid data fabricated by his friends, you know it’s bad.

groucho-marx


Harming Employees is a Business Strategy

To win the Deplorables Award, outlying and outstupiding other vendors is a dicey strategy due to all the competition trying to do the same thing. So Wellsteps decided to boldly go where no vendor has gone before: they acknowledged, even bragged about, harming employees. Sure, plenty of vendors harm employees–by enticing them into crash-dieting contests, flouting clinical guidelines or giving them worthless nutritional supplements and billing their insurers. But no one had ever documented the before-after harms of wellness as conscientiously as Wellsteps did, which I helpfully displayed in detail.


Insults are a Business Strategy

What the judges here at TSW especially liked about Wellsteps’ candidacy for the Deplorables Award was their track record of not just harms and deceit, but also insults. Very clever ones too.

For instance, Wellsteps’ rebutted my observation that all their data is fabricated by saying I’m full of “hot air.” Touche!

wellsteps troy adams

One would think that that this guy (Mr. Aldana’s crony) could have come up with a better counterargument, given that he claims to have spent “11 years in college.” If you’re keeping score at home, that’s four more years than Bluto Blutarski.

Here are a few more targets of their ripostes:

Such brilliant repartee, in an earlier generation, would have landed them a seat at the Algonquin Roundtable.


Bananas are a Business Strategy

So, congratulations to Wellsteps for winning their first Deplorables Award.  Darwin will take it from here, and maybe get them a new gig more appropriate to their capabilities.

aldana-banana

 

Prediction: Wellsteps-Boise School District wins 2015 Koop Recognition

We are going to make a prediction.  We might be wrong, though, because in the immortal words of the great philosopher Yogi Berra, “It’s tough to make predictions, especially about the future.”  We predict that the Boise School District, a Wellsteps customer, is going to win the 2015 Koop Award.  At a minimum, they will get an honorable mention.

We base this prediction on three insights.  First, as our previous posting shows, the award tends to go to the program that spews the most nonsense.  Specifically, to the one that ignores both biostatistics and fifth-grade math most creatively.  Obviously, Wellsteps misunderstands the statistical concept of regression to the mean.  Misunderstanding biostatistics is a requirement for being a wellness vendor. What’s more surprising is that they were absent that day in third grade when the teacher explained the law of math that numbers can’t increase and decrease at the same time.  Laws of math tend to be strictly enforced.

In all fairness, it is possible that both Wellsteps’ claims are true: total costs may very well have declined even as cost/person increased.  The Boise School District might simply employ or insure fewer people in 2014 than in 2011. Or maybe the Wellsteps program was so unpopular and worthless that employees opted to get insurance through their spouses.  But even the most dishonest wellness vendor with the most clueless customer wouldn’t claim credit for a reduction in costs due to fewer people being insured. And even the ethically challenged Koop Committee isn’t dishonest enough to endorse a claim that blatantly specious.

Second, the award almost always goes to a client or customer of a Koop Award Committee member, or to a client or customer of a sponsor of the Committee.  Wellsteps’ Steve Aldana sits on the Committee.  All the other vendors and sponsors on this Committee have already been graced with an award for one of their customers.  So now it’s Wellsteps’ turn, as they have yet to win one for a customer of any size. (This partly reflects their lack of customers of any size.)

After all, why even bother being on this C.Everett Koop Award committee if you can’t give a C. Everett Koop Award to yourself?  Isn’t that what Dr. C. Everett Koop was all about — self-dealing, cronyism and corruption?  (not)

Third, the timing of the “White Paper” Wellsteps just published is quite fortuitous.  Sort of like in World War I, when one side knew an infantry attack was coming because it was preceded by an artillery bombardment by the other side, Wellsteps is preparing us for more “over the top” claims of success in a program that — by their own admission — was a total failure at controlling costs through 2013, and only did OK in 2014 because the cost of non-participants declined precipitously.

Fourth, if the Committee was at all on the fence, our posting last month would have helped them decide in favor of Wellsteps.  One thing this Committee enjoys doing is showing us that facts and math doesn’t matter because their customers don’t read our material.  The more outrageous their claims, the more they like to rub our faces in the reality that very few people in human resources care what we have to say.

This isn’t because they have, to use Mr. Aldana’s hilariously misinformed term, I-don’t-care-itis.  Instead it’s because most HR executives don’t hear what we have to say, as we are blocked from most linked-in groups run by members of the wellness ignorati.

We are actually quite proud of the enemies we’ve made…but even so would appreciate if you could re-post this.


 

Update: it is also possible that Wellsteps didn’t get their act together in time to apply for this award–applications were due in May and their White Paper just came out last month.  In that case, we’ll look forward to revisiting this post next year.

Wellsteps Stumbles Onward: Costs Go Up and Down at the Same Time

As our regular readers know, we have often had a very slight issue with Wellsteps’ math  Nothing major.  Just the fact that it’s completely made up.

So it’s no surprise that they’re at it again.  Before we get to the math they’ve done for the Boise School District to justify costing taxpayers as much as adding a number of extra teachers, there is another little tidbit.  They decided to use the classic fallacy of listing the improvements in the highest-risk sliver only –“those with the worst health behaviors.”  These “improvements” of course, omit dropouts, and — more importantly — the deterioration in risk factors among the overwhelming majority, the ones who didn’t have the “worst health behaviors” to begin with.  As the paper says: “There was consistent risk reduction among those who had the unhealthiest numbers at baseline.”

wellsteps school district

It’s not just us (and common sense) saying that. Dee Edington’s “natural flow of risk” model showed that the cohort with the worst health risk behaviors always improves, even in the absence of a program.  (In this version below, Dee circled the low-risk bucket to make a different point.  The point for Wellsteps is that a very significant portion of the 4691 initially high-risk people decline on their own, and are replaced by others whose risk is increasing. Wellsteps isn’t showing us the replacement people, just the cohort that declined on its own.)

edington flow of risk

There is a bit of irony in that this Wellsteps White Paper cites him several times…but somehow “forgot” to take account of Dr. Edington’s most important finding, which coincidentally disqualifies their own.

Fuzzy Math

Saving the best for last, Wellsteps once again demonstrates our mantra from Surviving Workplace Wellness:  “In wellness you don’t have to challenge the data to invalidate it.  You merely have to read the data.  It will invalidate itself.”

On one page, they show a declining overall cost trend by roughly 15% since the start of the Wellsteps program:

wellsteps overall trend

Now, compare that chart of the “actual” cost decrease among the entire population (participants + nonparticipants) since 2011 (“Wellsteps Begins”) to the chart below of cost/person, which shows a dramatic cost increase over the 2011-2013 period among the entire population (participants + non-participants):*

wellsteps cost per person

So which is it?  Did overall population costs go up or down?  Even using wellness math, which Wellsteps excels at, overall population costs can’t have both gone up and gone down at the same time.

There are four possible explanations for this, all of which are plausible given Wellsteps modus operandi:

(1) They are stupid;

(2) They are lying;

(3) Their program is so unappealing that employees are switching to their spouses’ coverage simply to avoid it;

(4) The number of employees in the school district declined, making it possible for total costs to decline even as costs/employee jumped.  However, even the most dishonest wellness vendor wouldn’t claim credit for that, and even the most gullible customer wouldn’t let them if they did.

One explanation we can rule out: Wellsteps is doing a great job and telling the truth about it. But anyone who knows this outfit could have ruled out that possibility before we even posted this.


As of this writing, Wellsteps has now “rebutted” these findings.   They say these dueling trendlines are “rock solid” and that we are full of “hot air.”

wellsteps troy adams


 

(Postscript: In 2014, for some undisclosed reason, non-participants costs dropped almost 40% while participant costs increased.  No one has any idea why, and whatever the reason is has nothing to do with wellness.  Total costs were still up from the start of the program.)


 

*Wellsteps didn’t mention the participation rate, so we are inferring a participation rate to the vector of this arrow based on them saying 60% were overweight of 3269 employees, but the number of overweight people listed in their report as participants is 1421.

 

Wellsteps ROI Calculator Doesn’t Calculate ROI…and That’s the Good News

Wellsteps

Short Summary of Intervention:

“At Wellsteps, we’ve created a series of research-based ROI calculators to help you estimate the effect of well-designed wellness programs on health care costs, absenteeism, and presenteeism. Each of the three ROI calculators will examine a different employee expense and will help you determine whether investing in wellness strategies makes sense for your company. A well-designed wellness program is one that changes the health behaviors of employees, spouses, and dependents, and lowers health risks, reduces chronic disease, and helps worksites create a culture of health. The design of the WellSteps turnkey wellness solution was based partly on this body of evidence.”

Materials Being Reviewed:

Wellsteps ROI Calculator . You input your number of employees, health spending, and goals for obesity and smoking cessation. The calculator will tell you how much money you can save through the Wellsteps program.

Summary of key figures and outcomes:

Wellsteps' Guaranteed ROI

 

Wellsteps' calculation tool

wellsteps003 wellsteps004

Questions for Wellsteps:

In the first example above, your model calculated massive savings even with no change in obesity and smoking. In the second example, your model calculated the same massive savings even with a huge increase in obesity and smoking. It seems that no matter what smoking and obesity data we enter once we factor out inflation itself, your ROI calculator reduces healthcare costs to a level below zero by 2019.   How is this possible?

ANS: Refused to answer

Shouldn’t a spike in smoking and obesity rates from 0% to 99% increase healthcare spending rather than reduce it?

ANS: Refused to answer

Your May 2014 email blast, sent out a few days after The Health Care Blog exposed your ROI model as being invalid, says your model is supported by “every wellness ROI study ever published” (a step up from being “research-based” on a “body of evidence” as your website says).   We recognize that asking you to list “every wellness ROI study ever published” would be burdensome, but could you direct us to just one study that says increasing smoking and obesity can improve workforce health and/or reduce healthcare costs to below zero?

ANS: Refused to answer

Does “every wellness ROI study ever published” include the RAND studies in Health Affairs that have found negative ROIs?

ANS: Refused to answer

How are you able to “guarantee” this ROI, since it is impossible to reduce spending to a negative number?

ANS: Refused to answer

Since you’ve known that the Wellsteps ROI Calculator is invalid since this fact was pointed out to you in October 2013 and you have updated your model twice since then, how come you have elected to continue to overstate savings by a mathematically impossible figure?

ANS: Refused to answer

You lead your marketing blast by saying that “11,000 brokers and consultants” have used this ROI model? Are we the first of those 11,000 people to observe negative savings?

ANS: Refused to answer

Do you see any irony in publicly accusing one of the principals of this website, Al Lewis, of acting like a “tobacco executive lying to Congress” when even tobacco executives wouldn’t claim that smoking reduces healthcare costs like your model says it does?

ANS: Refused to answer

Where in your “ROI Calculator” can I find the ROI?

ANS:  Their ROI Calculator doesn’t calculate an ROI so there was no point in even asking them to answer this question.  The good news about Wellsteps is that NASA employees don’t have to worry about job security because these people are not rocket scientists.


Update:   July 16, 2014

Addendum: Wellsteps accusation that I “entered false data” into the ROI calculator was posted on the “Wellness Is a Business Strategy” Linkedin Group

“It has come to our attention that an outspoken critic has entered false data into these calculators in order to make a point. We certainly support free speech; however, we wonder how valid the point can be when it is based on false data?”

“Use valid estimates for the percent of the current obese and smokers in an employee population. We provide the estimated default numbers based on national data of 33% and 20% respectively in all three calculators. In our combined 50 years of academic and consulting work, we cannot think of one employer with a 0% obesity AND 0% smoking rate. Again, valid estimates work best.”

Actually, we ran every combination of data from a reduction of 99% in smoking and obesity rates to an increase of 99% in smoking and obesity rates.  Some of that data might have been “false” (whatever that means), but the result was always the same: $1358.85 in savings/employee by 2019.  Here are two more examples, this time using the default numbers they recommended.  The first is @$5000/employee in annual costs, with no change in smoking or obesity.  The second is @50,000/employee.  The answer is still the same.

Wellsteps' Calculation Tool at $5000 an employee

Wellsteps' Calculation Tool at $50,000,000 total annual costs

How come, regardless of what assumptions get entered (and we have now entered many vastly different combinations of cost and success), the answer is always that by 2019, you save $1,358.85 per employee once you zero out inflation?

ANS: Refused to answer

Would you now admit that entering $5000/employee in spending and 33% obesity and 20% smoking (the national averages) constitute, in your words, “valid estimates that work best” ?

ANS: Refused to answer

Following my exposé, your model no longer allows a user to enter increases in smoking and obesity. Is this to prevent users from figuring out that even if the rates of smoking and obesity increase, the math underlying your model based on “every ROI study ever published” will still show a reduction of $1,358.85/employee in 2019?

ANS: Refused to answer

 How come the model shows that very same $1358.85 (now finally “rounded” to $1359) potential savings from reducing obesity and smoking even if I start out with no smokers or obese employees?

wellsteps 0% graph

 


Update–May 1, 2015: Wellsteps Doubles Down on Dishonesty

Two people forwarded us this, a sequel to their email that their ROI model is “based on every ROI study ever published”:

wellsteps quote


 

Update–September 10, 2015: Wellsteps Triples Down on Dishonesty

Somehow they reported costs going up and down at the same time.  Even wellness industry math doesn’t allow that.

 

%d bloggers like this: