The Latest Health Wonk Review Is Up!

The 10th Anniversary Edition of the Health Wonk Review is now up at Joe Paduda's Managed Care Matters.  The review summarizes and links some of the better postings of health-policy bloggers, with topics that range from (angry) unionizing docs to the proximity of hospitals to stockpiles of (explosive) ammonium nitrate.

Since ten years qualifies as an eon in web-time, the HWR must be doing something right.

Enjoy!

Ten Questions Publicly Traded Company Boards Should Ask about Employee Wellness

The Board reviews a company

health promotion program

As follow-up to this post about the peer-reviewed evidence linking company-sponsored employee wellness programs and total shareholder return (TSR), the Population Health Blog offers ten questions that these companies' boards of directors should consider when reviewing the topic with their management team:

1. Does the company have a wellness, health promotion, disease prevention or condition management program in place?  If not, why not?  If it does, what is the vision and strategy?

2. In addition to internal measures of "return on investment," are the costs of the program(s) worth the impact on total shareholder return (TSR) and will this pass muster with the due diligence of activist investors?

3. Do other companies competing in the same industry have wellness, health promotion, disease prevention or condition management programs? How have they fared?

4. Have the program(s) been subject to external review, such as Mercer, C. Everett Koop or CHAA? 

5. If the company is self-insured, what are the expectations about the impact of the program(s) on health insurance claims expense?

6. Is the programs' impact on recruitment, morale or productivity being assessed?  How, and can the results be subject to an internal audit or to third-party outside review?

7. How are regulators' and employees' concerns about discrimination or privacy being addressed?

8. Does a "Chief Health Officer" exist?  If not, why not?  If yes, does the job description include any oversight responsibility of employee health?

9. Who on the board can act as a lead in providing the necessary oversight of any of these programs?

10. Is low-cost, scalable digital technology "mHealth" being leveraged? How?

Image from Wikipedia

The Link Between Corporate Wellness Programs and Total Shareholder Return

While employer-sponsored wellness, health promotion and disease prevention programs have been linked to "human capital," talent recruitment and retention, improvements in employee morale, reductions in absenteeism, reductions in presenteeism and bending the curve of claims expense, should shareholders care?

After all, according to President Obama's latest State of the Union Address, corporate America's pursuit of profits have resulted in greater automation, less competition, loss of worker leverage and "less loyalty to their communities." According to that narrative, employees are just another commodity on the road to total shareholder return.

Well, according to an expanding body of peer-reviewed scientific literature, shareholders should care.

The latest example of why is this publication by Ray Fabius and colleagues that appeared in the January issue of the Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine.

First, some background.  The Corporate Health Achievement Award (CHAA) was created by the American College of Occupational and Environmental Medicine (ACOEM) to recognize companies' workplace health and safety programs.  It relies on a thousand point-based assessment system of multiple standards in four categories of 1) Leadership, 2) Healthy Workforce, 3) Healthy Environment (including Safety) and 4) Organization.  Many of the companies that have participated in CHAA are household names.

In this study, the authors tracked the stock market performance of companies that applied for the CHAA from 1997 through 2014.  As the Population Health Blog understands it, all the privately held companies as well as those that scored 175 or lower in Organization and lower than 350 combined in the Workforce and Environment categories were excluded from the analysis. Of the remaining publicly companies, those scoring at or above the 37.5 median percentile in the four categories described above (defined as high CHAA achievers) were placed in six hypothetical stock portfolios of 5 to 22 companies.  The authors then mapped out what would have happened with a January 2001 investment of $10,000. As each year passed, new high scorers were added to "rebalance" the portfolios, while the stock of repeat high scorers were added.

The results? While the benchmark Standard and Poor's (S&P) return over the study period was 105%, the portfolios easily exceeded that with returns that ranged from just from over 200% to 333%. 

This study builds on other studies that used the CHAA as well as other wellness award programs including Mercer's HERO Employee Health Management Best Practices Scorecard and the C. Everett Koop National Health Award.

Now that's total shareholder return.

In another demonstration of why peer-review is so important, Dr. Fabius and his colleagues correctly point out that correlation is not the same as causation. As a result, there is no evidence that importing wellness programs into other companies will translate into better stock performance. In addition, elementary statistics tells us that corporate wellness and TSR won't necessarily correlate over shorter periods of time for individual companies.

Bottom line? The PHB doesn't think investors in public companies are necessarily interested in "causation" as they are in market signals. It stands to reason that a commitment to company wellness is an important signal about where to put their money. 

Which raises three questions....

1) This was raised by Fabius et al: should investors or regulators demand that companies publicly report whether they have employee wellness programs?

2) Should companies invest in a "Chief Health Officer?"

3) Why isn't corporate wellness part of the national conversation about capitalism in America?

Coda: For additional reading, see this link on the ten questions about employee wellness that should be asked by boards of directors.

Image from Wikipedia

The Latest Health Wonk Review is Up!

Hank Stern over at his InsureBlog naturally celebrates 11 years of blogging by hosting the latest Health Wonk Review, The Happy New Year Edition.  Check it out for the latest health policy insights that you won't get anywhere else.

Enjoy!

2016 is the Breakout Year for mHealth: Savings vs. Value

In this post, the Population Health Blog predicts how and why mHealth will be covered by more commercial health insurers in 2016, and why the retail "over the counter" mHealth market outside of insurance coverage will also continue to grow. 

 

While you're reading, consider this simple question: What are the revolutions per minute (RPMs) of your automobile's engine as you ascend from stationary idling to freeway speed?

 

The Definition of mHealth: "the delivery of healthcare services via mobile communication devices." Other definitions can be found here.  Elements include handhelds, wireless communications, software, hardware, networking, social media, sensor technology, apps and cloud-based services. The World Health Organization says it's global and much is still in its infancy.

 

Three Population Health Blog predictions for mHealth in the United States:

 

1) 2016 will be a breakout year, because both the savings and value propositions will be clarified.

 

What does the PHB mean by this? 

 

The ultimate question for health services buyers, payers, providers and patients is whether mHealth technology is: 

 

Substitutive: achieving savings from displacing present or future high cost services,

 

or

 

Additive: co-existing with present, or increasing future utilization.

 

The same is true for many pharmaceuticals, population health programs and the medical home.   

 

2) Faced with the reemergence of unsustainable health care cost inflation, commercial health insurers will deploy today's premium to sponsor tomorrow's substitutive mHealth cost reductions.

 

Commercial insurers will look for mHealth that is "S³" or Smart, Synergistic and Scalable.

 

1. Smart: addresses the tailored needs of selected population segments; instead of being all things to all patients, think focusing mHealth on high risk patients with special needs. 

 

2. Synergistic: enhances, not replaces other incumbent resources, such as one-on-one care management or outreach telephony.  

 

3) Scalable: uses the economies of scale to provide a lower-cost service to larger numbers of consumers.  As more patients in a select population use mHealth, the cheaper it becomes. 

 

3) But.....Value-driven mHealth will also flourish in the direct-to-consumer, over-the-counter or retail market for three reasons:

 

1) Consumer notions of value: 

 

Interest in personal wellness, a cultural belief in the pervading merits of technology and the allure of every more innovative gadgetry will continue to outpace the underlying mHealth abandonment rate.

 

2) As Obamacare acquaints consumers with real healthcare costs, #mHealth will be viewed as a relative bargain.

 

Comparatively pricey physician encounters, emergency room visits or a hospital stays - especially for Bronze Plan enrollees - will only increase consumer appreciation for  mHealth's "over the counter" benefit-to-cost ratio: for a few extra bucks, why not have that weight-loss, blood-pressure, medication-management app or wearable, especially when you already have a handheld smart device and the bandwidth?

 

3) Some commercial insurers will "cover" wellness #mHealth, not because their actuaries support it, but because their customers (purchasers, brokers and consumers) demand it. 

 

"Coverage" will be in the form of a volume-based discount pricing borne by the consumer, not a value-based benefit covered by the insurer. If it increases customer loyalty/"stickiness," all the better.

 

Plus there's the mHealth "X-Factor." mHealth sponsors and their allies will collect, sell and use consumer data for marketing and surveillance.   The PHB calls it mining and monetizing. 

 

Back to the tachometer: Even though its dashboard displays it, the PHB doesn't know the vehicle's RPMs either. Aside from  the use of the tachometer by some car enthusiasts  to optimize manual gear shifting, it adds little to car performance or safety. 

 

Yet, it's standard and in the dashboard of just about every automobile being sold in the U.S.A.  Could gadgets, wearables, apps and mHealth physiologic monitoring become the healthcare tachometer?  Useful to a critical few and standard for everyone else?

 

So, What is the the Basis of the PHB's Predictions?

 

Growth potential:

 

None other than Eric Topol says "Until now, most of the effect of the digital era in the practice of medicine has been confined to electronic health records. But that is about to undergo a radical transformation in the next 5 years." As in $50 billion by 2020.

 

If you think it's all about "Fitbit" or managing diabetes, think again. How about promoting mindfulness, monitoring medication compliance, home-based high-risk pregnancy monitoring, in-home safety for the frail elderly, heart rhythm management, and home-based "pervasive" monitoring. Plus, mHealth style technology is being used outside of healthcare, such as in the automobile, for elite athletes and to promote safety in high-risk worksites

 

S³  = Savings

 

Smart: Here's a just-published JAMA study of a randomized clinical trial (RCT) that showed text-prompts had an clinically relevant impact on blood pressure in a group of select persons with coronary heart disease. Here's an rigorously conducted RCT that showed persons with Type 1 diabetes mellitus achieved better blood glucose control.  How about socioeconomically vulnerable patients with diabetes? Or patients with heart failure being discharged from a hospital?  The list of special populations with special needs goes on and on.

 

Synergy - This exhaustive peer-reviewed publication examining the merits of wellness mHealth for weight management, physical activity promotion, tobacco cessation, and cholesterol control shows that there's little evidence that it's better than existing therapies over the long-term.  Rather, the greatest promise appears to be in complementing existing interventions.  By the way, synergy does not mean overwhelming the system with data, but assisting the system with insight.

 

Scalable: While economists, policymakers and pundits legitimately worry whether bigger is better for healthcare in general, health system C-suites and boards of directors and their consultants are counting on information technology to drive economies of scale.  Papers like this and this suggest mHealth can be a part of that, especially if it can mitigate manpower constraints.

 

And an easy way to assess whether the insurer  really believes that it's sponsoring an S³ initiative is asking whether it pays for a handheld device for consumers that don't have one

 

Value:

 

Consumerism? Call it "the quantified patient." Here's a telling survey that shows the abiding faith in health information technology and a lack of privacy concerns.

 

 Bargain? The title of this peer-reviewed paper says it all" "It's like having a physician in your pocket!"

 

 Insurer discounts? The same thing happened to health club memberships.

 

The X-Factor: CIOs everywhere agree that they're not only apps, but software "vacuuming up data."

 

Image from Wikipedia