Tag Archives: johnson & johnson

2017: A Journey Toward Self-Disruption

Last year, an EIOPA stress test revealed that a large portion of European insurers remain vulnerable for one or both of the tested scenarios. At the same time, insurers continue to struggle with a constant shift in customer expectations. We are all used to seamlessly working digitally in more and more aspects of our lives, and we’ve come to expect the same treatment when it comes to insurance.

So what’s the problem? Shouldn’t a healthy insurer be perfectly able to cope with some adversity while making the change to become a more digital and customer-minded organization?

Unfortunately, a number of reasons mixed together provide a particularly toxic combination that slows the transformation. To start with, insurers are still largely running on legacy applications. Not only does this limit organizational agility dramatically, but it also means that available change capacity is predominantly used to keep the legacy infrastructure up and running.

On top of this, regulatory pressures are dramatically increasing the cost of doing business. Complex risk and compliance requirements in legacy-dominant environments reduce the ability to transform on a more fundamental level. Furthermore, there is continued pressure on product margins, and historically low interest rates are reducing returns.

See also: Insurance Disruption? Evolution Is Better  

Beyond the insurtech hype

As incumbents struggle with internal inefficiencies and adverse conditions, fintech and insurtech initiatives are starting to emerge – based on fresh thinking and modern application architectures. These new initiatives relentlessly exploit inefficiencies in the value chains. And with the rise of the sharing economy, new ways to manage risks like usage-based or P2P insurance are becoming increasingly important.

The right stuff?

The awareness that incumbents need to transform their way of working, and solve some fundamental problems in their business models, is prevalent. There is in fact a lot of activity and experimentation taking place, through innovation labs, partnerships or direct strategic investments in insurtech.

This is all well and good, but are these initiatives sufficiently grounded to become successful? Do incumbents possess the right stuff to create, develop, nurture and scale new business concepts with sufficient impulse to remain relevant and profitable in the long run?

The journey toward self-disruption

These are all questions that the industry will be posing in 2017, and there is no doubt the insurance sector needs to adapt to a new world. One thing is for certain, simply embarking on a journey to implement one of the “Top-10 Insurtech Solutions” is not going to cut it.

The real challenge lies in first removing the legacy culture from organizations before trying to solve the challenge in application landscapes and value chains. This journey toward self-disruption requires courage and leadership. To reach the desired destination, boards may consider numerous approaches to rebalance change programs. 

Considered approaches

Scenario planning and storytelling can be a powerful tool for coping with a large number of uncertainties. Scenarios are perfectly suited to translate into compelling, vivid images of the future, using powerful storytelling as an effective way to convey messages.

Changing the innovation mix is also something insurers will be contemplating. The composition of your innovation mix (product-, process- or business-model focused) should be in line with the lifespan of your dominant business model. For insurers, this might imply that now is the time to direct more resources toward more radical forms of innovation.

Replacing incentives blocking change is another approach to consider. If a board’s primary responsibility is to facilitate the presence of a long-term business model, then this implies that the board should worry about anything in the organization that blocks this purpose. A review of existing performance management and key performance indicator (KPI) frameworks might be one of the most critical things to address as this drives behavior throughout the organization.

See also: Which to Choose: Innovation, Disruption?  

Then there is creative destruction as a driving force. A constant process of internal creative destruction is required to avoid becoming the victim of an external, competing creative force. The likes of General Electric and Johnson & Johnson have mastered this. Carefully applying these design principles in the insurance sector might be a critical activity.

Looking ahead  

The insurance sector has a long way ahead adapting to a new world. There is a critical role for current and coming leadership. We see insurers increasingly partner with insurtech companies, hoping to find fresh thinking, agility and entrepreneurship. We’ll have to find out if this brings sufficient change. Otherwise, the EIOPA double-hit scenario might be a blessing in disguise – it could, in fact, provide the required burning platform for the long-awaited transformation.

fat tax

Should You Announce How Fat Workers Are?

A shockingly serious proposal has been floated to first persuade (and later possibly compel) publicly traded companies to disclose to shareholders quite literally how fat their employees are.

Also, how much they drink, how well they sleep and how stressed and depressed they are.

This proposal, advocating what is known as a fat tax, shouldn’t even merit a discussion among rational businesspeople, and yet here we are, discussing it. Even Harvard Business Review (HBR) is discussing this.

Why? Because the well-financed, well-organized cabal behind this fat tax proposal include corporate names like Johnson & Johnson, PepsiCo, Humana, Merck, Novo-Nordisk and Unilever. The leader of this group is a South African insurer called Discovery Health.

If you guessed that any critique written by me would also implicate Ron Goetzel, you would be correct. Despite having now himself admitted that most wellness programs fail, he is the one justifying this entire scheme by claiming that wellness programs increase stock prices — even though they don’t. We’ve already offered a completely transparent analysis to the contrary.

He also made a rookie mistake in his own analysis. The stock prices of companies in his study diverged greatly in both directions from the averages, and he didn’t rebalance existing holdings annually. It’s simple compounding arithmetic. Suppose the stock market rises X% a year. If every stock in your portfolio increases at that rate, you’ll match the averages. However, if half your stocks increase 2X% a year while the other half don’t appreciate at all, and you don’t rebalance, you’ll beat the averages. Simply by doing nothing.

Goetzel’s study appeared right before the fat tax proposal was floated at Davos. No coincidence here — Discovery Health (the sponsor of the Vitality Institute) cites the study as a basis for wanting shareholders to “pressure” companies into disclosing the number of fat employees they have. And the more fat employees a company has, the more shareholders will insist on wellness programs, thanks to this study. Johnson & Johnson and Discovery both sell wellness programs, while Merck and Novo-Nordisk sell drugs for various wellness-related conditions.

We urge reading the HBR link in its entirety to see why a fat tax would be even worse than it sounds. Some highlights:

Most importantly, though – and you don’t need Harvard to learn this – it’s just not nice to stigmatize employees for their weight or other shortcomings unrelated to job performance. Basic human decency should have been taught to this cabal a long time ago.

We’ve pointed out many times in ITL that these wellness people were absent the day the fifth-grade teacher covered arithmetic. This proposal suggests that they were also absent the day the kindergarten teacher taught manners.

The Value of Workplace Wellness

The recent blog post by Al Lewis, Vik Khanna and Shana Montrose titled, “Workplace Wellness Produces No Savings,” has triggered much interest and media attention. It highlights the controversy surrounding the value of workplace health promotion programs that 22 authors addressed in an article published in the September 2014 issue of the Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, titled, “Do Workplace Health Promotion (Wellness) Programs Work?” That article also inspired several follow-up discussions and media reports, including one published by New York Times columnists Frakt and Carroll, who answered the above question with: “usually not.”

There are certainly many points of contention and areas for continued discussion on this topic. It turns out that Lewis et al. and I agree on many things, and there are other areas where we see things differently.

Where we agree…

Biometric screenings. Biometric screenings are important for collection of baseline health risk data and are often viewed as an added value by employees participating in workplace health promotion programs. Lewis et al. and I agree that employers should screen their workers for health risks in accordance with guidelines recommended by the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF). These guidelines are clear about the necessity and periodicity of biometric screenings for high blood pressure, obesity, cholesterol, glucose, triglycerides, cervical cancer, colon cancer, breast cancer and other conditions.

We agree that over-testing people is not a good idea and may lead to false positives, as well as unnecessary medical interventions that are costly and add little value. For readers seeking guidance on biometric screenings in a workplace setting, I refer them to a peer-reviewed article published in the October 2013 issue of the Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine.

Incentives. Workplace health promotion programs are not the same as incentive programs. “Smart” incentives are part of a well-designed program, but such programs need to be embedded in healthy company cultures where employers encourage and reward healthy behaviors. Comprehensive wellness programs often use financial incentives to attract participation and, in some instances, encourage behaviors that lead to risk reduction.

Most experts in workplace health promotion agree that creating intrinsic motivation for health improvement is an essential component of an effective program. As Daniel Pink points out in his book Drive, people are motivated to behave a certain way when they feel a sense of autonomy, when they are able to master certain skills needed to change a behavior and when they can connect changing that behavior to a larger purpose in life. This applies to individuals wishing to achieve certain health goals, such as quitting smoking, being more physically active and eating a healthier diet.

Paying people to improve their health in an unhealthy work environment is a futile strategy. Workers will expect higher payments each year, will view “non-compliance” as a penalty and will mistrust their employer for trying to do things to them instead of with them.

To summarize, incentives need to be practical, ethical and legal. The Affordable Care Act (ACA) legislation should not be used as a vehicle or excuse for “blaming” workers for poor health habits, or to penalize them financially for not achieving certain health outcomes. Employers share responsibility for the health and well-being of workers and can do much to create a healthy company culture.

For readers interested in a more in-depth discussion of health promotion incentive programs, I refer them to a series of Health Affairs blog posts and a guidance document prepared by the Health Enhancement Research Organization, American College of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, American Cancer Society and American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network, American Diabetes Association and American Heart Association.

Culture of health. We also agree that effective workplace health promotion programs need to be embedded within a culture of health that respects workers’ rights to make informed choices about personal health matters. Without question, workplaces need to be safe, and employees need to be treated with respect and dignity. Workers also have a right to be in a healthy work environment where positive health behaviors are encouraged and supported. That means making healthy food available in vending machines and cafeterias, encouraging physical activity, prohibiting on-site smoking, offering vaccination programs and providing health insurance.

The list of programs, policies and environmental supports for a healthy workplace is long, and there are hundreds of environmental and policy interventions available to employers who wish to send a clear message that the company encourages and supports good health. For a more complete discussion of how companies can achieve a healthy culture, see the May 2013 issue of The Art of Health Promotion.

The importance of studying “wellness-sensitive” events…in addition to overall utilization and costs. Lewis et al. highlight the need to focus on “wellness-sensitive” medical events when conducting cost analyses. I agree but ask the authors: What are these events? Where have descriptions been published? Who has reviewed them? Why do they only apply to in-patient claims? Are there not any “wellness-sensitive” events that would appear in out-patient settings?

The idea of analyzing claims for conditions likely to be most readily influenced by health promotion programs is sensible. In many of our studies, we have analyzed utilization and cost patterns for what we call “lifestyle diagnosis groups,” or LDGs. For example, in a 1998 peer-reviewed study, we evaluated Procter & Gamble’s health promotion program and found a 36% difference in lifestyle-related costs in the third study year when comparing 3,993 program participants with 4,341 non-participants.

Although it’s important to analyze a subset of diagnoses when evaluating wellness programs, it is equally important to analyze utilization and costs for all conditions. After all, one’s actual well-being and perception of well-being influences health holistically, not just any one particular organ or body system.

Where we disagree…

Whether only randomized trials can determine whether workplace programs are effective. Health services research and the field of epidemiology have a long track record of studying naturally occurring phenomena and drawing conclusions from observations of those phenomena. That’s how we have learned what causes hospital-acquired infections. We have also learned from long-lasting epidemiological investigations like the Framingham studies that a sedentary lifestyle, smoking and obesity are causes of heart disease, diabetes and cancers.

These “natural experiments” inform the scientific community about what happens to individuals or groups “exposed” to a condition, where others are not. Natural experiments are employed when a randomized controlled trial (RCT) is impractical or unethical.

How does this apply to evaluation of workplace health promotion programs? Imagine trying to convince the head of human resources of a company to approve a double-blinded randomized trial that would test the effectiveness of a wellness program, over three to five years, by randomly assigning some workers to a comprehensive health promotion program that includes health coaching on smoking cessation, weight management, physical activity and stress reduction while other workers are denied access to the program. Not only that, the HR executive would be asked to allow the researcher to administer a series of blood tests to participants and non-participants, access their medical claims and ask workers to complete periodic health surveys. The employer would also be prohibited from instituting organizational policies promoting health while this experiment is underway.

It’s hard to imagine a situation in which a company executive would allow this, never mind an institutional review board at a university.

Alternatively, when health services researchers conduct natural experiments, care is taken to control for any confounding variables and address alternative hypotheses. In our research, we use statistical techniques such as propensity score matching and multivariate regression to compare the health and cost experience of “treatment” workers (those offered health-promotion programs) and “comparison” workers (those not offered the programs). Most often, when comparing participants with non-participants, we match entire populations exposed to a program (whether or not individuals participate in that program) and those not exposed. In that regard, we are investigating program impacts on population health and not only comparing outcomes for motivated participants in programs compared with less motivated non-participants.

We publish our analyses in peer-reviewed journals so that the scientific community can review and critique our methods. We are also transparent about the limitations to our research in these peer-reviewed articles.

By the way, there are experimental studies focused on large populations (not necessarily at the workplace) demonstrating the value of health-promotion programs. One such trial was recently concluded by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) as part of the senior risk reduction demonstration (SRRD). Two vendors were involved in the demonstration, which lasted two to three years.  Beneficiaries participating in Vendor A’s risk-reduction programs achieved statistically significant improvements in stress, general well-being and overall risk, and beneficiaries participating in Vendor B’s program achieved statistically significant improvements in back care, nutrition, physical activity, stress, general well-being and overall risk.

Interestingly, the interventions were determined to be “cost-neutral,” meaning that Medicare spending for participants in the intervention group was not statistically different from spending for participants in the control group. This was a large-scale study where about 50,000 beneficiaries were recruited and approximately 20,000 participated in the health-promotion program in any given year. The bottom line: Significant health improvements were achieved at no cost to the government.

Interpreting the data. Lewis et al. highlight errors in others’ presentation of results. I have no argument with that. That is, after all, what a peer review process is all about: Conduct the study, subject it to peer review and publish the findings. The problem is that Lewis et al. have not (yet) published any studies in which their interventions are evaluated, nor have their methods been subject to peer review. That is unfortunate because I believe (truly) that all of us can learn from vetted research studies and apply that knowledge to future evaluations.

I am the first to admit that the methods we use to evaluate wellness programs have evolved over time and are still undergoing revisions as we learn from our mistakes. I invite Lewis et al. to reveal their methods for evaluating workplace programs and to publish those methods in peer-reviewed publications — we can all benefit from that intelligence.

Lewis et al. point to a study conducted by Health Fitness Corp. (HFC) for Eastman Chemical, which earned the company the C. Everett Koop Award. (In the spirit of full disclosure, I am the president and CEO of the Health Project. which annually confers the Koop prize to organizations able to clearly and unambiguously document health improvements and cost savings for their employees.) Eastman Chemical’s application is online and subject to review.

In their analysis of the Eastman Chemical application, Lewis at al. complain that costs for participants and non-participants diverged in the baseline years of the program; therefore, it was not the program that explains cost savings. Here’s the real story: Eastman Chemical’s program has been in place since the early 1990s. The chart found on the website (unfortunately mislabeled) shows participant and non-participant medical costs at baseline (2004), in subsequent years and in the final year of the study (2008).

The study compares medical and drug claims for minimally engaged (non-participant) and engaged (participant) employees matched at baseline (using propensity score matching) on age, gender, employee status, insurance plan, medical costs and other variables. No significant differences were found between participant and non-participant costs at baseline, but their claims experience differed significantly at follow up. Although not a perfect study, the economic results, coupled with significant and positive health improvements in many of the health behaviors and risk factors examined for a multi-year cohort of employees, convinced the Health Project board that Eastman Chemical earned the C. Everett Koop prize in 2011.

Whether return-on-investment (ROI) is the only metric for evaluating workplace health promotion programs. It seems that too much of the debate and controversy surrounding workplace health promotion is focused narrowly on whether these programs save money. If that were the aperture by which we judged medical care, in general, we would withhold treatment from almost every patient and for almost every procedure, with the exception of a few preventive services that are either cost-neutral or minimally cost-saving. That makes no sense for a compassionate society.

In a February 2009 Health Affairs article, I argued that prevention should not be held to a higher standard than treatment; both should be evaluated on their relative cost-effectiveness (not cost-benefit) in achieving positive health outcomes and improved quality of life.

Take a simple example of two employees. One has just suffered a heart attack and undergoes a coronary bypass. If the individual is willing, he is then engaged in counseling that encourages him to quit smoking, become more physically active, eat a healthy diet, manage stress, take medications to control blood pressure and see the doctor for regularly scheduled preventive visits. For that individual, I would be surprised if an employer providing medical coverage would demand a positive ROI.

How about a second employee? That person is overweight, smokes cigarettes, eats an unhealthy diet, is sedentary, experiences stress at work and has hypertension. He has not (yet) suffered a heart attack, although most would agree he is at high risk. To justify a health promotion program for that employee and others in the company, many employers insist on a positive ROI. Why is that a requirement? If a well-designed program can achieve population health improvement (as demonstrated using valid measures and an appropriate study design), and the program is cost-neutral or relatively inexpensive, why wouldn’t an employer invest in a wellness program, especially if is viewed as high value to both workers and their organization?

It’s time to change the metric for success. Instead of demanding a high ROI, employers should require data supporting high engagement rates by workers, satisfaction with program components, population health improvement, an ability to attract and retain top talent, fewer safety incidents, higher productivity and perceived organizational support for one’s health and well-being. That’s where program evaluations should be focused, not simply on achieving a positive ROI.

I appreciate the reality that some employers may still require an ROI result. Fortunately, there is evidence, published in peer-reviewed journals, that well-designed and effectively executed programs, founded on best practices and behavior change theory, can achieve a positive ROI. I won’t re-litigate this point, other than to point newcomers to a large body of literature showing significant health improvements and net cost savings from workplace heath promotion programs. (See, for example, studies for Johnson & JohnsonHighmark and Citibank and several literature reviews on the topic).

I challenge proponents and opponents of workplace wellness to direct their energy away from proving an ROI to measuring one or several of the important outcomes of interest to employers. Achievement of these outcomes is only possible when management and labor work toward a mutually beneficial goal — creating a healthy workplace environment. Health promotion programs require time to take root and be self-sustaining, but the benefits to employees and their organizations are worth the effort.

Why Employers Must Help Stop Suicide

The American Association of Suicidology said it best when it created this logo for the association: “Suicide prevention is everyone’s business.” By everyone, the association includes employers and work organizations. Considering that the workplace is where the majority of working-age adults spend a significant portion of their day, and sometimes night, it only makes sense that employers and coworkers join the national fight against suicide.

Over the past 10 years, work organizations have begun to realize that they can help identify and treat working adults suffering from depression — a leading risk factor for suicide and also the leading cause of lost work productivity. Despite the knowledge that depression is highly correlated with suicide risk, workplaces have been slow to embrace their potentially critical role in preventing suicide through workplace-based programs. Many of the programs already being offered by employers address depression and can be easily and often freely expanded to also include elements of suicide prevention. The connection between depression and suicide is clear, and employers, large and small, have an important role to take in addressing the public health problem of suicide in our country.

Detecting and treating depression among employees is one way employers can play a significant role. In fact, many employers are already making inroads in minimizing the negative effects of depression and related mental health issues through employer-sponsored benefits such as employee assistance programs (EAPs), workplace wellness programs and occupational health services.

Some of the more commonly offered employer-sponsored interventions at the workplace to identify and respond to depression include workplace-based public awareness campaigns that involve posting suicide warning signs, referral resources and general anti-stigma messages, workplace-based depression screening, such as the program offered through Screening for Mental Health and other early interventions that can be cost-effectively offered through EAP counseling, wellness programs and related occupational health programs.

Improving the detection and treatment of depression and therefore preventing suicide will have a positive impact on the employee and, in the process, the business success of the company. By expanding existing workplace-based wellness programs that often focus heavily on identification and treatment of depression among employees, employers are able to increase the number of employees seeking and obtaining treatment — depression often has low rates of treatment because it is not accurately identified. In fact, prior research shows that, at any given time, depression affects between one-tenth and one-fifth of U.S. employees (Kessler et al., 2008). For employers, this means that for every 100 employees, depression costs employers about $62,000 annually. The majority of this cost does not come from treatment (treatment only accounts for about $9,000), but, rather, costs related to lost work time resulting from sick day absence, work disability (short term and long term disability days) and “presenteeism” (underperformance at the workplace because of illness). In addition, depression and suicide contribute to hidden costs to employers such as lowered morale, increased stress and lower employee engagement and loyalty. The effect of a suicide on coworkers can also be devastating.

In addition to treatment of depression, employers who work with their EAPs and other wellness programs to identify and respond to depression will improve other chronic health conditions. This is because employees who suffer from depression also suffer from an average of 5.1 other chronic health conditions that can complicate treatment and increase costs to the workplace. For example, some of the most serious comorbid conditions in terms of lost productivity with depression include anxiety (48% of employees with depression also have anxiety); chronic fatigue (46%), obesity (29%), chronic sleeping problems (26%) and chronic back and neck pain (32%). (The statistics are from data collected by Integrated Benefits Institute, a leading research organization in health and productivity. See www.ibiweb.org for more information.)

Research suggests that medication and psychotherapy are effective in 70% to 80% of depression cases (RAND, 2008). Employers can require their EAPs and other workplace wellness programs to screen all employees for depression using free and simple validated tools such as the 9-item Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9), where the ninth question asks specifically about suicide risk. Employers can also provide comprehensive depression care management programs for employees screened or otherwise identified to have serious depressive symptoms or for those at increased risk, such as employees who recently went out of the workplace on short-term disability (Desiron, de Rijk, Van Hoof, & Donceel, 2011; Lerner, Rodday, Cohen, & Rogers, 2013; Lo Sasso, Rost, & Beck, 2006).

EAPs are one way through which workplaces have historically and effectively provided help to employees with depression and other mental health and personal problems. EAPs have been shown to be effective in reducing depressive symptoms among employees, including thoughts about suicide (University of Michigan Depression Center). EAPs can provide identification and screening services, such as on-site employee depression screening; however, EAP services go well beyond simple screening and identification. Depending on the services purchased by the employer, EAPs can provide comprehensive assessment, short-term counseling and referral and case management services for longer-term help in the community. Additionally, well-positioned EAPs, those with more on-site access and easy access to consultation with workplace managers and leaders, help to ensure that EAPs are even more effective at recognizing and responding quickly to employee problems such as suicide risk.

Additionally, strategically positioned programs can offer responses that are integrated and in line with the culture of the broader work organization to better serve employees while also supporting workplace productivity. Highly visible and management-supported EAPs can help to reduce stigma toward mental health problems, which in turn will encourage employees to seek help at an earlier stage of their problems and be more responsive to early intervention.

It is important that all employees in the workplace take suicide risk seriously. They should be trained to identify depression and suicide risk among coworkers, not be afraid to ask questions about the well-being of coworkers and refer them to EAPs or other resources when needed. Some examples of companies working to train employees (a designated employee, group of employees or all employees) and raise awareness of suicide and mental health in general are: Chesapeake Energy, DuPont and Johnson & Johnson (see Partnership for Workplace Mental Health for these and other examples).

EAPs can work with employers to develop appropriate training material to help reduce the stigma of mental health problems, not limited to just depression and suicide, so that everyone is able to play a role in contributing to the well-being of the workplace. Just as employees understand and can identify physical safety risks such as falling hazards and safe lifting practices, employees should also understand what to look for when employees may be at risk for a mental health problem.

Even employers who are not able to provide comprehensive services such as EAPs and workplace wellness programs can take small steps that can have a huge impact on saving lives.

One simple first step employers can take to increase awareness of depression and suicide at the workplace is to promote the phone number for the National Suicide Prevention Lifeline (1-800-273-8255) at different locations throughout the workplace where employees will readily see signs, posters and online messages. The Lifeline is a free hotline that can be utilized by anyone who might want to talk with a professional about mental health issues and well-being. Promoting the Lifeline is free to the employer and can be a good way to demonstrate the employer’s interest in the mental wellness of employees. Utilizing free hotline services such as Lifeline is especially important for employees who don’t have access to EAP or other workplace wellness programs.

Overall, we know that workplaces that offer more control to their employees with regard to working conditions that can lower workplace stress, do better with regard to workplace productivity and depression. Therefore, it is critical that employers step up the plate and review and revise workplace policies and programs that are designed to support employees who may be suffering from depression and therefore have increased risk for suicide. By expanding existing programs to include assessment and treatment for depression, employers are working to improve productivity while also preventing suicide at the same time. It is a win-win for employers, employees and society as a whole.

This article was written by Dr. Jacobson Frey; Kimberly Jinnett, PhD; and Jungyai Ko, MSSA.