Example: Why should someone who is otherwise healthy be penalized for high cholesterol? Show me a valid, non-biased study free of conflicts of interests that shows a value to lowering a persons cholesterol who is otherwise healthy? The 1995 WOSCOPS study was hailed as clear proof that lowering cholesterol works for healthy people over age 45, because those on the statins tested had a 1.2% death rate to heart conditions in the next 5 years compared to the rate of 1.7% for those on a placebo. Considering the known risk associated with statins and the costs does this justify forcing people to reduce their cholesterol level or pay a higher premium? Is a 0.5% difference even statistically valid? According to this study, you would need to treat 200 people for 5 years with a statin to maybe save one life. And if you are doing the math at home don’t forget to add in the costs for the office visits and lab tests to assure the liver is functioning properly.

When we start down the path of considering risk factors to be diseases that need to be treated aggresively, because that is what will be happening, we will have found we have lost our way.

Although it is a shameless advertisement, I agree with Mike Chapman’s approach to wellness. Controlled weight loss, smoking cessation and exercise are still the most effective means to improving ones health and they come at a reduced costs. If programs could focus more on these elements, review the foods that they themselves provide on site, and work to achieve compliance with evidence-based medicine we would be better off for it. Until any of this happens and as long as the current approach continues I will just sit back and earn money on my investments in Rx companies.

Final note: If Clarian is successful in reducing their costs, they may also succeed in losing their best client.

Employees and their spouses who are at an acceptable weight, exercise and don’t use tobacco help their employer and their fellow employees keep group medical insurance premiums low, and keep their employer more productive since they have less absenteesim.

Employees and their spouses who are overweight or obese, who do not exercise and who use tobacco can cost their company and their fellow employees hundreds of thousands of dollars in resulting medical claims, higher premiums and lost wages.

It is not fair that an employee or spouse who does nothing to prevent such a preventable lifestyle disease Clairian pays the same for their portion of their group health insurance premiums as an employee who takes care of their own health. Clarian’s move actually puts fairness back into their group health and employee benefits plans by holding employees accountable for their own lifestyles.

And for a similar but simpler approach that works for the small businesses in America that employ about 90% of all non-farm labor, check out the recent wellness posts at http://www.GroupBenefitsAdvisors.com. This is a “scaled down” wellness plan structured along the “KISS” concept that concentrates solely on weight, exercise, and tobacco use, is very affordable for small businesses, and simple to administer with no specialized training required. In fact, when this plan is combined with a health reimbursement arrangement and/or Medical Expense Reimbursement Plan, there is no additional out of pocket cost to the employer. And for each dollar spent on the wellness plan, an employer should expect to save about four dollars in reduced medical claims and premium increases, and reduced absenteeism.