Estimating the Return on Investment From a Health Risk Management Program Offered to Small Colorado-Based Employers

Abstract

Objective To determine whether changes in health risks for workers in small businesses can produce medical and productivity cost savings. Methods A 1-year pre- and posttest study tracked changes in 10 modifiable health risks for 2458 workers at 121 Colorado businesses that participated in a comprehensive worksite health promotion program. Risk reductions were entered into a return-on-investment (ROI) simulation model. Results Reductions were recorded in 10 risk factors examined, including obesity (−2.0%), poor eating habits (−5.8%), poor physical activity (−6.5%), tobacco use (−1.3%), high alcohol consumption (−1.7%), high stress (−3.5%), depression (−2.3%), high blood pressure (−0.3%), high total cholesterol (−0.9%), and high blood glucose (−0.2%). The ROI model estimated medical and productivity savings of $2.03 for every $1.00 invested. Conclusions Pooled data suggest that small businesses can realize a positive ROI from effective risk reduction programs.

Health economic evaluations of interventions to increase physical activity and decrease sedentary behavior at the workplace: a systematic review

“…As in most HEE (66), our data showed that indirect costs (productivity) were the main cost-drivers. For example, in the study by Goetzel et al (50), the ROI was -42% excluding indirect costs but 103% including indirect costs. A systematic review found that PA was related to increased psychosocial health in employees (27) and there is also evidence that such health outcomes reduce presenteeism (67).…”

Productivity estimation in economic evaluations of occupational health and safety interventions: a systematic review

“…The remaining 4 studies (4%) all used ad hoc approaches that (41, 45-48, 51, 56-58, 60, 62, 64, 66, 68, 70, 72-75, 79, 81, 83, 84, 87-90, 92, 93, 95, 97, 98, 100-102, 105, 107-110, 113, 117-125) North-America 34 (39, 40, 43, 44, 50, 52-55, 59, 61, 63, 65, 69, 71, 76, 80, 82, 85, 86, 91, 94, 96, 99, 103, 106, 111, 112, 114-116, 126- (39, 41, 42, 44, 45,49,50,(52)(53)(54)(55)59,60,67,68,70,71,76,77,82,87,95,115, 128) Inferred: 19 (40, 43, 46,57,61,63,65,80,86,91,92,94,96,103,111,116,(125)(126)(127)56,62,64,66,69,72,73,75,78,79,81,(83)(84)(85)…”

“…Measure for reduced productivity at work/ while working 31 (39, 41-44, 56, 60-65, 69, 70, 72, 77, 82, 87, 89, 94, 95, 98, 103, 104, 114, 115, 118, 119, 123, 124, 128) Source presenteeism Employee survey 18 (41, 44,56,62,64,69,72,82,87,89,94,95,98,104,115,118,119, 123) Simulated / assumptions 7 (39, 43, 44,103,114,124, 128) Previous studies 6 (42,60,61,63,65,70) Firm data 1 (115) Employer survey 1 (77) Survey/instrument presenteeism 56,62,69,82,94,95,118,119,123) Days (unspecified) 49 (39, 40, 42, 46,49,(51)(52)(53)(54)58,60,62,64,66,71,72,74,75,(77)(78)…”

“…A generic national or regional price weight was used in 13 studies (19%), 9 (13%) used a worker-specific weight, 3 (4%) the industry or company average, and 1 (1%) a job average with age differentiation. Variations -such as using the mean annual salary per staff member in the NHSL (47), the study group average (75, 100), or the national average (41, 45,48,56,60,62,64,(66)(67)(68)(69)(70)72,(83)(84)(85)87,89,93,95,97,99,103,107,(118)(119)(120)(121)(122)(123)(124) 47,63,65,74,(77)(78)(79)81,82,87,(100)(101)(102)108,109,112,114,117,(126)(127)(128) (48, 52, 53, 58, 65-67, 69,...…”

Health Risk Calculator

“…This partnership resulted in several peer reviewed publications outlining the need for businesses to address the health, safety, and productivity of employees. 4,[21][22][23][24][25] However, the partners were aware of the need to disseminate these findings to businesses in a way that resonated with them to ultimately help facilitate action to enhance their employee's health and safety at work.…”