THCB

RAND Shrugged

The long awaited federally-mandated RAND Corporation report on workplace wellness programs is finally out, after months of anticipation.  Despite an odd now-you-see-it/now-you-don’t release, both wellness proponents and critics anxiously awaited the report’s public deliverance.

Like many documents emanating from the political cauldron, the RAND report has elements in it to please both camps, although proponents will have to reach deep into the document for snippets of hope built around simulations, models, and what they term “convenience” samples of employers predisposed to support health-contingent workplace wellness programs.

For critics of health-contingent workplace wellness programs, the conclusion is much more straightforward: even using prejudicial data sources and lacking a critique of the quality of the evidence, the impact of workplace wellness on the actual health of employees and the corporate medical care cost burden, is, generously stated, negligible.

This is not worth $6BN a year, which is the purported size of the US market for health-contingent workplace wellness programs (“purported” because like everything else in wellness, the size of the industry itself is totally opaque).  There are clearly better ways to spend these funds; at the very least, it must be possible to get the same dismal results for far less money and with vastly less complexity.

With the push of the Affordable Care Act, the drive to implement health-contingent workplace wellness programs is accelerating.  The RAND report, rather than contributing propellant, ought to give responsible business leaders pause as they consider whether to step up the pressure (i.e., increase incentives and penalties) for employees to participate in these highly intrusive, clinically dubious, spendthrift programs that yield health in RAND’s hypothetical world of models and simulations, but perhaps not so much, as RAND notes, in a more earthbound reality.

The lesson for executive leaders is that the nearly hagiographic employer belief in the value of health-contingent wellness is completely undone by the fact that RAND says virtually no employer (2% of their sample) measures program impacts and, as we have written previously, it doesn’t look like any employer, benefits consulting firm, or vendor actually knows how to do so.

The RAND report has two other insurmountable shortcomings.  The first is its reliance on the conventional wellness literature rather than giving that literature its long overdue and deserved outing as deficient.  Unlike reports from the Cochrane Collaboration, which are particularly insightful for their unvarnished assessments of the quality of the available evidence (if the evidence is poor, it is impossible to draw credible conclusions, and the product of simulations is not evidence), RAND politely, with politics in mind, tolerates the wellness literature’s surfeit of design errors (though a careful reader can sense the authors’ discomfiture).

For example, using people as their own controls and measuring the progress of participants versus against non-participants (thus ignoring the effect of motivation) should have proven disqualifying.  Instead, RAND takes a philosophical middle ground, lamenting that the literature is inadequate, but relying upon it nonetheless, because doing otherwise would really have left them almost nothing to write about.

The second insurmountable deficiency is the necessary and unavoidable reliance on a database of large employers with a predisposition to support workplace wellness.  It is insufficient to draw data from employers who’ve committed deeply to health-contingent workplace wellness and contribute their data to an industry trade association.

Though impractical if not impossible, it would have been insightful to draw data from employers that are not involved in the industry trade association, know why employers choose not to commit to wellness, why some employers may have dropped their wellness programs, and, critically, why virtually no one expends the time, money, or energy to quantify programmatic impacts.  These concerns are wholly unaccounted for.

Of the five case study employers, two — accounting for fully 82% of the employees in the five organizations — are government agencies.  No industry sector has gone all-in for wellness the way that government has.

In sum, these issues go to the heart of credibility.  They bring to mind the critique of published literature by John Ioannidis of Tufts and the University of Ioannina, who argues essentially that many reported results are simply a restatement of prevailing biases and are shaped by financial and other influences.

The RAND report has not settled the debate over the value and credibility of health-contingent workplace wellness programs.  RAND is not itself to blame for its inconclusive treatise; they had no choice but to throw the lifelines of simulations and models to an industry that should otherwise collapse under the weight of its own fecklessness and mendacity.  Yet, the industry’s addiction to sophistry rages on unabated, as is evident in this flier, which one of us recently received from wellness vendor.

The RAND report should, however, make people question how the document – and many others like it – helps to meet the political ends of administration leaders who demanded and paid for it.  It was not coincidental that the RAND report and the government’s rules on wellness programs were released contemporaneously.

The RAND fig leaf will encourage political supporters of health-contingent wellness to say that their approach is “evidence-based”.  We believe, however, that a more sober reading of the report will leave many more people wondering not only about the meaning of the word “evidence,”   but about whether, if after more than a decade of hyperbolic bluster it is not possible to demonstrate the salubrious value of health-contingent wellness programs, just how much more time and money will it take?

Vik Khanna is a St. Louis-based independent health consultant with extensive experience in managed care and wellness.  An iconoclast to the core, he is the author of the Khanna On Health Blog.  He is also the Wellness Editor-At-Large for THCB.

Al Lewis is the author of Why Nobody Believes the Numbers, co-author of Cracking Health Costs: How to Cut Your Company’s Health Costs and Provide Employees Better Care, and president of the Disease Management Purchasing Consortium.

Livongo’s Post Ad Banner 728*90

19
Leave a Reply

11 Comment threads
8 Thread replies
0 Followers
 
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread
12 Comment authors
Nursan DemirKerryAl and VikSteve CyboranRob Recent comment authors
newest oldest most voted
Nursan Demir
Guest

Good point. The best wellness program a company like Kraft could implement would be a program that demands employees not eat anythng Kraft makes.

Al and Vik
Guest

Steve, thanks for your thoughts and yes, we DID make a blanket statement that vendors make up outcomes, so I would offer you an invitation. Could you please name one vendor that has reported valid outcomes that include savings, with enough detail to see if the claims make sense? There are 25 vendors on my website (www.dismgmt.com/ida) that are obviously making stuff up, named and I called them liars in as many words (usually just using their own words against them)…and I haven’t been sued yet. We also named three in the Wall Street Journal article. One called to say… Read more »

Steve Cyboran
Guest

Vik and Al, Thanks for the blog post! I would like to offer a few suggestions to strengthen your argument, make it more constructive and help you preserve your credibility. It concerns me when you make blanket statements such as, “it doesn’t look like any employer, benefits consulting firm, or vendor actually knows how to do so.” Surely, there are employers, benefits consultants and vendors that know how to measure impact. I happen to know some of them. Perhaps you have not yet met them. If we are going to initiate meaningful dialogue, there should be a basis behind the… Read more »

Rob
Guest

Hats off to the editor who came up with the name “Rand Shrugged.” Brilliant.

Vik Khanna
Guest

Thanks, Rob. I thought people would like it (well, people who got it would like it). It was one of those great “Eureka!” moments when it came to me.

Mitch
Guest
Mitch

Good post….at some point the drumbeat of evidence will overwhelm the wasted money and bad programs. In some ways I fel sorry for HR-the CEO demnds they “do something” and there are no easy solutions, let alone hard ones. Wellness is easy, not too bothersome and to your point no one has figured out how to measure all that matters, ourtcomes. And frankly HR likes it that way. Seems like the “Nobody got fired for buying IBM” argument. Until they did.

Keep up the great work guys.

Melissa Tobler
Guest
Melissa Tobler

And let’s not overlook that the mere $6B (or whatever) industry cost is not inclusive of incentive cost to employers, the time invested by employers from their HR staff and wellness teams, etc. This is a significant investment by employers who want to believe they are going to generate a return from their efforts. They have a right to receive appropriate guidance to manage expectations and not be purposefully mislead.

Vik Khanna
Guest

We could not have said it better. Thanks, Melissa.

Margalit Gur-Arie
Guest

It’s also not just about 6 billion dollars to wellness companies. It’s about many more billions in risk and imaginary risk being shifted to the employee and/or beneficiary. It’s also about an innovative way to reintroduce discriminatory practices into health insurance coverage in a more socially acceptable format. More here: http://onhealthtech.blogspot.com/2013/03/the-shell-game-of-health-contingent.html

Peter1
Guest
Peter1

What I find most disturbing is that the ACA is relying on corporate America to know what a “wellness program” is. How can the same CEOs who give us a high fat, high sugar, high salt food culture, and support it through massive advertising, know what will make Americans “well”.

The ACA would be better to ban junk food advertising to children – OH WAIT, that would jeopardize their campaign funding source.

Vik Khanna
Guest

And, it’s not just about the CEOs of food companies, it’s about corporate leadership up and down the food chain, so to speak. It is not all unusual for company leaders to extol the virtues of their wellness program and exhort or coerce workers to participate, but completely ignore the impact of, for example, the food they serve in their cafeterias. Food services within companies (including vending) is about profitability and expediency. Wellness be damned, people need to eat fast, get back to work, and we (the firm) had better make money while they do it.

Mitch
Guest
Mitch

Good point. The best wellness program a company like Kraft could implement would be a program that demands employees not eat anythng Kraft makes.

Kerry
Guest
Kerry

This applies even to hospitals! Last time I had a medical appointment, I saw a very overweight woman, using a walker, order a cheeseburger at 9am in the hospital cafeteria. Probably not her best choice (admittedly I had just purchased a not-very-healthy muffin, myself). And even doctors don’t necessarily eat very healthfully, either…

Al Lewis
Guest

You raise great q’s. Several answers. As observed in the article, we can’t find any inkling of the size of this market. That’s about the only number that shows up anywhere. I just did some googling this morning. It turns out it is traceable back to me, because I needed a number for another purpose and just filled that one in. It could indeed be way higher. Second, that $6B (or whatever) in wellness spending probably drives a multiple of that in overdiagnosis and overtreatment. And actually people feel worse. There are two ways to show that. first, the penalties… Read more »

Vik Khanna
Guest

And, it’s not just the $6BN. It’s that the industry is built on a series of falsehoods that are propelled forward by both corporate complicity and government support (both policy and fiscal). It’s as if, all of a sudden, everyone has decided that the used car salesmen of the health care world have legitimacy.

Matthew Holt
Guest

Damn, you may force me to actually read the report. If screening for cancer is counted as in the $6 billion, I’m confused. I thought this was about weight loss and smoking cessaton, and cool web sites making everyone walk everywhere….surely that shuold make you feel better

Vik Khanna
Guest

Screening for cancer, “testing for” heart disease via elevated cholesterol levels, taking portable bone scans at workplaces to “diagnose” osteoporosis, encouraging people to go to their doctor for no reason at all…the list is long. Employers should not play doctor, especially not when they’re led to this endeavor by organizations and people who have no business giving medical advice. If wellness was about positive engagement and opening people’s eyes to better health by facilitating better choices (which WILL make people fee better), it’d be hard to oppose it.

Matthew Holt
Guest

Al & Vik. So bitter about mere $6 billion? The gym market in the US is at least 4-5 times that. http://www.ibisworld.com/industry/default.aspx?indid=1655 And $6bn isnt even a rounding error for real waste in say imaging or back surgery. We’re only talking about $60 per member of the workforce per year here here. Most of them spend more than that on lattes a month. And their employers spend more than that on beer bashes. For this type of spending, you (and RAND) should have a lower bar, like, do people feel better? Time to take your vicious investigative skills to a… Read more »

Legacy Flyer
Guest
Legacy Flyer

And one could question the value of anything from the RAND corporation based on its predictions of the money to be saved based on adoption of the electronic medical record.