Boyce Irena, DeVoe Jason, Norsen Lisa, Smith Joyce A, Anson Elizabeth, McGregor Holly A, Singh Renu
UR Medicine Quality Institute, University of Rochester Medical Center, Rochester, NY 14642, USA.
UR Medicine Employee Wellness, School of Nursing, University of Rochester Medical Center, Rochester, NY 14642, USA.
Healthcare (Basel). 2024 Nov 25;12(23):2358. doi: 10.3390/healthcare12232358.
Evidence for the effectiveness and cost-savings of workplace wellness programs (WWPs) is varied, likely due to the variability in program design, as not all WWPs meet the five-point criteria of a "comprehensive WWP" set by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. A 2019 study of changes in cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk for those enrolled in a comprehensive WWP found that nearly half of enrolled employees with moderate to high CVD risk improved their risk compared to the initial predictions. This study extends those findings by evaluating the cost-savings and return on investment (ROI) resulting from participants' CVD risk reduction from the employer's perspective.
Cost-savings related to CVD risk were extrapolated using two studies that provided associated cost-savings for individuals participating in a WWP. Utilizing reference groups used in previous studies, we calculated cost-savings per 1% reduction in CVD risk using our population's specific CVD risk and our program-specific costs. The cost-savings were annualized per person within each risk category.
Across all risk categories, cost-savings were USD 1224 per individual or USD 4.90 ROI for every USD 1 spent. Those at risk had a higher ROI per USD 1.00 spent (USD 35.4 and USD 19.2 for males and females, respectively) than those with minimal risk. However, even those with minimal risk showed a positive ROI (USD 0.3 and USD 5.0 for males and females, respectively).
CONCLUSIONS/APPLICATION TO PRACTICE: Investment in WWPs should prioritize programs that include all five elements of the standards established by the U.S Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Well-designed and comprehensive WWPs can effectively impact employee health and lead to a positive ROI and cost-savings for employers.
职场健康计划（WWPs）有效性和成本节约方面的证据各不相同，这可能是由于计划设计的差异，因为并非所有的职场健康计划都符合美国疾病控制与预防中心设定的“综合职场健康计划”的五点标准。2019年一项针对参加综合职场健康计划者心血管疾病（CVD）风险变化的研究发现，与初始预测相比，近一半参加该计划的中度至高度心血管疾病风险员工的风险有所改善。本研究通过从雇主角度评估参与者心血管疾病风险降低所带来的成本节约和投资回报率（ROI），扩展了这些发现。
利用两项为参与职场健康计划的个人提供相关成本节约的研究，推断与心血管疾病风险相关的成本节约。我们使用先前研究中的参照组，根据我们人群的特定心血管疾病风险和我们计划的特定成本，计算心血管疾病风险每降低1%的成本节约。在每个风险类别中，成本节约按每人每年计算。
在所有风险类别中，每人的成本节约为1224美元，每花费1美元的投资回报率为4.90美元。有风险的人群每花费1美元的投资回报率（男性和女性分别为35.4美元和19.2美元）高于风险最小的人群。然而，即使是风险最小的人群也显示出正的投资回报率（男性和女性分别为0.3美元和5.0美元）。
结论/实际应用：对职场健康计划的投资应优先考虑包含美国疾病控制与预防中心制定的标准所有五个要素的计划。精心设计的综合职场健康计划可以有效影响员工健康，并为雇主带来正的投资回报率和成本节约。
