Few Employers Addressing Employees' Obesity Despite Increasing Costs

As if it is their responsibility.

"Obesity rates in the U.S. are driving up costs for employers that provide health insurance to workers, but few companies have introduced programs intended to curb the trend, the New York Times reports."

Good for them since wellness programs are at best unproven and most likely a waste of money as are the expensive Employee Assistance Programs implemented to support them.

Wellness programs are based on the same mistaken foundation as virtually all weight loss programs.

They will never work because they are impossible.

"Nationwide costs related to employees' obesity for companies are $45 billion annually, according to a report by the Conference Board and RTI International. In addition, a team of Emory University researchers -- led by public health professor Kenneth Thorpe -- found that obesity accounted for 27% of the rise in medical costs from 1987 to 2001.

Obese employees are more likely to miss work than other workers and typically are less mobile on the job than thinner employees, according to the Times. In addition, research by Roland Sturm, a senior economist for the RAND Corporation, found that obesity is a greater generator of chronic health problems than smoking or heavy alcohol use."

Better not to hire fatsos.

Or pay them less, or have them pay more for sick care insurance or fire them if they do not lose the weight.

"However, some companies might believe that 'obesity is not their problem to solve,' especially in industries with high employee turnover rates, because costs do not rise immediately with weight gain, and employees who change jobs 'tak[e] their health care costs with them,' according to the Times. Eric Finkelstein, director of the Public Health Economics program at RTI, said, 'For most companies, it's not a smart business move' to have obese employees. He added, 'Putting on a public health hat, you might say it's unfortunate that companies don't do more for employees. But it doesn't make sense from an employer's point of view.'"

Implementing an impossible program makes even less sense.

BTW, this study seems to contradict the Times article.