Tag Archives: peter grant

Wellness Works? Prove It–and Win $$$

The reward for showing your wellness program works is now $3 million!

As almost everyone in the wellness industry knows, we have offered a $2 million reward to anyone who can show that conventional annual “pry, poke and prod” wellness saves money. I’m feeling very generous today, so let’s make the reward $3 million.

Even more importantly, let’s loosen the rules — a lot —  to encourage applicants. You’ll find the $3 million reward is not just more generous but also far easier to claim than the previous $2 million reward.

Loosening the Rules

Except as indicated below, the rules stay the same as in the previous posting, but with the following relaxed standards. Most importantly, I’ll now accept the burden of persuasion. It is my job to convince the panel of judges, using the standard civil level of proof, that you are wrong, as opposed to you having to convince them that I am wrong.

Next, let’s expand the pool from which the judges can be drawn. It wasn’t very nice of me to allow you to choose from only the 300 people on Peter Grant’s exclusive healthcare policy listserve, because obviously no one invited into a legitimate healthcare policy listserve thinks wellness saves money.

See also: Should Wellness Carry a Warning Label?  

In addition, you can also choose among the 100-plus people on Dave Chase’s email list and the 70 people on the Ethical Wellness email list. (www.ethicalwellness.org)  To make things totally objective, we will add as judges whatever two bloggers happen to be the leading dedicated lay U.S. healthcare economic policy bloggers at the time of the application for the award, as measured by the ratio of Twitter followers-to-Twitter-following, with a minimum of 15,000 followers.

So judges are chosen as follows: two bloggers chosen by objective formula, plus we each choose six people from among the other 460, with the other party having veto rights for five of them. That gives a total of four judges, who will choose a fifth from among those roughly 500 people.

The original rules included the requirement of defending Wellsteps’ Koop Award.  After all, the best vendor should be exemplary, right? A beacon for others to follow? A benchmark to show what’s possible when the best and brightest make employees happy and healthy?

However, now you have another option. You could instead just publicly acknowledge that the Koop Award committee is either corrupt or incompetent, as you prefer, because that possibility cannot be ruled out as a logical explanation for Wellsteps winning that award. Your choice….

Next, you may bring as many experts with you to address the adjudication forum as you wish to bring. I, on the other hand, will be limited to myself.

Further, you no longer have to defend the proposition that wellness as a whole has saved money. You can, if you prefer, simply acknowledge that most of it has failed…except you. Meaning that, if you are a vendor that has been “profiled” on this site in the last two years, you can limit your defense to your own specific results. You don’t have to defend the swamp.

That new loophole allows companies like Interactive Health, Fitbit, Wellness Corporate Solutions, etc. — and especially Wellsteps — to get rich…if what I have said specifically about them is wrong. I have $3 million that says it isn’t.

Special Offer for HERO

Ah, yes, the Health Enhancement Research Organization (HERO). The belly of the beast.

Let me make them a special offer. Paul Terry, the current HERO Prevaricator-in-Chief, has accused me of the following  (if you link, you’ll see they had enough sense not to use my name, likely on advice of counsel, given that I already almost sued them after they circulated their poison pen letter to the media):

I’m convinced responding to bloggers who show disdain for our field is an utter waste of time. I’ve rarely been persuaded to respond to bloggers [Editors note, in HERO-speak, “rarely” means “never” — except for that intercepted Zimmerman Telegram-like missive], and each time I did it affirmed my worry that, more than a waste, it’s counter-productive. That’s because they’ll not only incessantly recycle their original misstatements, but worse, they’ll misrepresent your response and use it as fodder for more disinformation.*

Tell ya what, Paul. let’s debate disinformation, including your letter. Aside from the standard 10% entry fee (used to pay the judges honoraria, reserve the venue and compensate me for wasting my time with your THC-infused quixotry), all the economic burden falls on me.

The only catch: I have asked you on multiple occasions to clue me in as to what my alleged disinformation actually is, if any. That way, I can publicly apologize and fix it, should I choose to do so.  Before applying for this award, you need to disclose this alleged disinformation. You can’t just go around saying my information is made up, etc. without specifying what it is.

By definition, “disinformation” is deliberate misrepresentation. To my knowledge, as a member of the “integrity segment” of the wellness industry, I have never, and would never, spread disinformation.

On the other hand, if I did spread inadvertently incorrect information by mistake, it seems only fair to let me fix it — especially given that I have been totally transparent and generous with my time in explaining to you what yours is, and how to correct it. (I might have missed some. Keeping up with yours is a challenge of Whack-a-Mole-meets-White-House-press-correspondent proportions.)

See also: Wellness Vendors Keep Dreaming  

So perhaps it is time to man up, Mr. Terry.  You and your cronies claim to have been collecting my “disinformation” for years, without disclosing any of it. I’m offering you a public forum and $3 million to present it.

Otherwise, perhaps you should, in the immortal word(s) of the great philosopher Moe Howard, shaddap.

A couple other mid-course corrections to the previous award offer.  Someone wondered if this offer is legally binding, so if your attorney’s knowledge of contract law matches your knowledge of wellness economics, they can voice their likely spurious objection. I will publish the objection and address it if need be, to make the reward a binding offer.

Another commenter whined that maybe I just won’t pay the reward. I’m sure that’s the reason no one has applied. (Not.) So, put 10% of the entry fee down, and I’ll attach a lien.

$2 Million Reward if Wellness Works!

Does wellness save money?

I say no.

The wellness industry — specifically its trade association, the Health Industry Research Organization (HERO) — says yes.

We both can’t be right. The difference is that I am backing up my conclusion with a $2 million reward, up from last year’s paltry $1 million offer, for showing that wellness works.

See also: What Trump Means for Workplace Wellness  

Beyond that $2 million, I would also send a $1 million donation to the Boise School District to atone for the highly unfavorable coverage it has received about its program, coverage apparently so biased that the CEO of Boise’s vendor, Steve Aldana, called the award-winning STATNews journalist who wrote it a “lier.”

Screen Shot 2016-11-15 at 9.47.06 AM

To win the $2 million reward for yourself and the $1 million for the school district, you just need to prove (using the more-likely-than-not civil standard of proof), the following (to bend over backward to be fair, I will start out by offering to use only materials prepared by your side):

  1. During this millennium, the wellness industry has reduced hospitalizations by enough to break even, using the government’s Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project database. For this one, I will concede in advance that the wellness-sensitive medical event methodology (“potentially preventable hospitalizations”) as described on pages 22-23 of the HERO Outcomes Guidebook is the one to use. (HERO and I agree that non-hospitalization expenses increase.)
  2. The vendor anointed in 2016 as the “best” vendor, Wellsteps, indeed did reduce the costs of the Boise School District by about a third (as the company claimed), specifically by making the employees sufficiently healthier to support that savings (as the company claimed). For this one, I will concede in advance that the raw data collected by Wellsteps is accurate. In other words, we are both working off Wellsteps’ own published reports.

Here are the rules. This is a binding legal offer, as any attorney will tell you.

Panel, Venue and Judges

We each pick two panelists from Peter Grant’s “A-List” of the leading 260 health economists and policy experts (this is an invitation-only email group where health policy and health economics concerns are addressed and debated) that are unaffiliated with either the wellness industry or with my company, Quizzify, and together they pick a fifth.

The parties will convene in Boston for a 2.5-hour finalist presentation, featuring:

  • 10-minute opening statements, in which as many as 15 slides are allowed;
  • 30-minute cross-examinations with follow-up questions and no limitations on subject matter;
  • 60 minutes in which panelists control the agenda and may ask questions of either party based on either the oral or the written submissions;
  • Five-minute closing statements.

Entry Fee and Award

I give you a lien on $2 million as soon as you put $200,000 in escrow to cover the costs of the program, for panelist honoraria, venue, etc., as well as for wasting my time with your quixotry. If I win, I will make a $100,000 in-kind donation to the Boise School District to help compensate them for the fees the district wasted on its wellness program.

Length and content of Submissions

Each side submits up to 2,000 words and five graphs, supported by as many as 20 links; the material linked must pre-date the award application to discourage either side from creating linked material specifically for this contest.

Publicly available materials from the lay media or blogs may be used, as well as from any of the 10 academic journals with the highest “impact factors,” such as Health Affairs, published within the last five years.

Each party may separately cite previous invalidating mistakes made by the other party that might speak to the credibility of the other party.

Either side may cite an unlimited number of “declarations against interest” made within the last five years — meaning comments made by the other party so prejudicial to their own position that the other party would have said them only if they believed these statements to be true. Example: If I said, “Wellness definitely saves money” (except when I said that as an April Fool’s gag a few years back), you could cite that. There is no word limit on these.

See also: There May Be a Cure for Wellness  

Each party can then rebut the other party in writing with up to 2,000 words and five graphs as well as 20 links.

Additionally, we both take a lie detector test. Each side will present the polygraph operator with five questions, and all 10 questions will be asked of both parties. Results are then sent to the panelists.

What if you want to claim the award?

Send $1,000 via Paypal to alewis@dismgmt.com to hold your spot. I will set up an escrow account at Bank of America. Once we both sign the escrow papers, you send the $200,000 to that account, and I’ll give you first lien on $2 million of asset