“This isn’t about big brother telling people what to do,” says John Rice, GE’s vice-chairman, “but helping them make better choices.”
The Economist reviews large employers efforts to improve employee health and thus decrease their own health care costs. Some of these efforts include:
- Prohibiting smoking on company premises
- Handing our healthy recipes
- Building on-site gym
- Bonuses for healthier living
Take these examples from Fortune 500 companies:
“At IBM, employees receive a $150 bonus for exercising, eating nutritious meals and so on. One such bonus is designed not just for an employee but for his entire family. According to IBM’s own data, caring for a diabetic child is six times costlier than caring for a healthy one.”
Kevin Volpp, the director of the Centre for Health Incentives at the University of Pennsylvania, found that GE’s anti-smoking incentives prompted 9.4% of smokers to remain smoke-free after 18 months. Without incentives, only 3.6% of those who tried to quit succeeded. A review published in Health Affairs last year found that firms saved $3.27 for every dollar they spent on health programmes.”
Is this a good thing? Health insurance should account for random health risks. Health risks due to individual employee behavioral choices, however, should be internalized by the individual. Since the premium prices are basically the same (free) for most employees in large firms, they have a smaller incentive to maintain a healthy behavior than would be the case if employers used individual underwriting in pricing policies. Thus, efforts to give bonuses for healthier behavior by employees and their families is, in essence, an effort to increase net premiums for those who do not engage in healthy behaviors. With health care costs consuming a larger and larger portion of employer’s budgets, these efforts to control costs will be increasingly important over time.
Recent comments