Want To Make Workers Live Healthier? Tread Carefully
Using sticks -- not carrots -- to encourage good health could be a mistake.
By Martha Lynn Craver, Associate Editor, The Kiplinger Letter
October 8, 2007
Advertisement
The push to help workers stay well is taking a tougher stance as firms grow frustrated with rising health care costs. Companies are aiming at the small segment of high-risk workers that is the most expensive to care for -- the 5% of employees who account for 60% of health care spending. Clarian Health, an Indiana hospital chain, plans to start charging higher insurance premiums in 2009 for employees who smoke or exceed the limits on blood pressure, blood sugar, cholesterol or body mass index. Weyco, a benefits administrator based in Lansing, Michigan, won’t even hire smokers and has given existing workers a year to quit smoking or lose their jobs.
But employers need to consider all of the ramifications. These tough policies could run into legal problems. State laws on what’s allowed vary considerably. Some states don’t allow a ban on smoking, for example. Moreover, federal law is murky. For example, lawyers disagree over whether obesity is a disability that’s covered under the Americans with Disabilities Act.
Another problem: It could make it harder to find and keep top-notch workers if these punitive polices are adopted. "We are in a war for talent and many talented people are not in the best shape," says Helen Darling, president of the National Business Group on Health, which represents mostly large companies. The labor market is expected to remain tight for the foreseeable future, and older workers, who are more likely to have health issues, will be needed to fill skill shortages. Therefore, company policies must be weighed against the costs of recruiting and retaining talented employees, says Arlene Weissman of Hewitt Associates, a benefits consulting firm.
Positive reinforcement is more effective than punitive measures, say many personnel experts. Long-term changes in behavior are much more likely if workers have been in programs, such as health coaching, that provide them with the skills and confidence they need to succeed, says Weissman. Darling says most employers will offer rewards to workers who participate in programs that promote healthy behavior and reduce risk, rather than impose penalties.
For weekly updates on topics to improve your business decisionmaking, click here.
Reader Comments (3)
Posted by: Kenneth Sandale at 10/08/2007 08:42:42 AM
The idea that getting tough on smokers is going to cause a company to lose its best workers is just stupid. Smokers are people, who for whatever reason, suck on burning poisonous leaves. I would kind of expect that poeople who do crazy things are less desirable than normal people. Duh! It's not the 1950's anymore. Pass that along to your writers.
Posted by: gina pogol at 10/08/2007 03:01:53 PM
I think you need a combination of carrot and stick. A non-smoking policy makes sense if it cuts your insurance premiums; then you can offer other incentives to retain and recruit. Access to gyms and healthy food, an environment that allows employees to balance their work and personal lives (and a chance to work out) all help. And I don't think in today's technology-driven workplace that older, fatter smokers are in such demand. I won't discriminate against an over-40 (I'm one myself) but candidates' life-style will be a factor if it impacts my bottom line and the benefits I could offer my other employees who make better choices.
Posted by: Joseph J Honick at 10/09/2007 12:09:02 PM
One of the problems in policy making of such areas is that the policies are made without much input from those targeted for improvement. As important is the fact that too many of those making the decisions also smoke, have high blood pressure and all the rest, so actions are not taken seriously. Finally, how do you make policy to diminish blood pressure and other ailments that are often genetic?