Back on March 25th, we discussed the first story that centered on the Wellness Committee within the Germantown employee ranks.  The committee was about to make a request for up to $20,000 to be used in a wellness program for village employees.  This proposal was sent back by the General Government and Finance Committee at that time for more work by the group.  I had mentioned at the time that there seemed little enthusiasm for a $20,000 expenditure but that the committee had been encouraged to formulate more detailed plans and return.

That return visit is scheduled for tonight according to a Journal Sentinel article this morning.  That article stated that the committee will be returning with a proposal for the expenditure of $14,495 this year on wellness activities.  The key here will be the plan of action that they present.

Wellness programs can be very good for employees and their dependents if managed correctly.  Many private sector employers use them and have had good results.  Among the keys is that employees have to be engaged.  They have to be challenged.  Some private sector employers have used incentives to get the employee's buy-in.  The incentives are legal if put together correctly.

In other instances, smaller groups have managed to create sound wellness programs with the expenditure of relatively few dollars.  By few dollars, I am talking about a few hundred dollars that is leveraged using the resources already available within the community.  Many wellness programs have begun on a smaller scale and then expanded as ideas were proved to work.

Other wellness programs see the gradual decline of participation by employees.  That seems to happen when the programs become old and stale; when there are no new ideas or approaches being developed year after year.

And, it is very important that wellness programs are available to dependents of the village employees.  Dependents typically outnumber employees especially in a more mature workforce such as seems evident in Germantown.

Finally, negotiated agreements may need to be revisited should the village decide to proceed with a wellness program.

I hope that we do not see blanket approval without some in-depth study and analysis.  These programs can be good or bad; they are never guaranteed to work.

In the final analysis, the purposes of wellness programs also include a return on investment.  What will the investment of $14,495 this year do, if anything, to reduce costs in the health care programs next year or in the next five years?  Who has put the plan together?  Are they qualified to do so?  If a professional group, does it have a track record that can be reviewed by the Board before moving ahead?

The morning Journal Sentinel carried a brief story about Germantown being in the process of considering the approval of a $20,000 employee wellness program.  The General Government & Finance Committee meets tonight at 7:00PM in the Village Hall Board Room and is scheduled to consider this as part of that agenda.

Wellness programs have been with us for some time now, and are quite common in the private sector.  Many are preceded by a Health Risk Assessment as is apparently the case here in Germantown.

I was under the impression that we had more than 46 employees, but that is the number given as those who participated.  If that is only a segment of the full number of employees, then I would have to assume that this Assessment was undertaken voluntarily.  Given the labor agreements in place, that might be understandable, but it tends to defeat the purpose of helping employees identify issues with their health.  And, it tends to defeat the purpose of trying to reduce our taxes through better control over health care expenditures.

I was surprised that some 80% of the 46 employees who did complete the Assessment were found in need of nutrition improvement, weight management, cancer risk reduction and fitness.  That seems a high percentage of a work force contrasted to what one would expect in the private sector.  This could be symptomatic of the fact that municipalities tend to have very low turn-over of employees once hired which would tend to provide for a higher average age in the group.  That speaks to the overall conclusions of municipal employees that they have a very good deal when employed in the public sector.

The idea that the village needs to pony up $20,000 to teach people how to cook or to encourage them to begin to take better care of themselves through smoking cessation or weight-management is counter to what one would expect in the private sector.  Private sector programs tend to offer rewards to those who take personal responsibility rather than to offer up money to pay for the classes necessary.  Health premium contributions might be reduced if one takes steps to improves his or her health risk.  The money involved on the part of the employer is typically the 'seed' money used to get the wellness programs launched thus helping over time to reduce the cost of health care within the group.  Maybe this article was written poorly; I don't know, but the inference is certainly disconcerting. 

I do not know how much, if anything, is contributed by village employees toward their health coverage.  That may also be part of the problem.  We tend to attach little worth to something we don't pay for or for which we pay relatively little.

That $20,000 amounts to some $540 for every employee who displayed health risks.  It does nothing to reward the few employees who were already taking better care of themselves.  Doesn't that seem to be sort of a reverse incentive?  Then again, if the employees are paying little or nothing for their health coverage, this would've helped to create the environment where one would have to think of paying someone to take better care of themselves.

Update: The General Government & Finance Committee approved further study of the village Wellness Committee's request for funding at its meeting last night.  The general concensus was that this seemed a good idea but without specifics, there was nothing of sufficient substance to compel anything other than a furtherance.  Discussion appeared to indicate that this committee was not favorably disposed to a $20,000 initial funding level, but might consider some lesser amount at a future time.