Workplace Wellness Trends: 2019 Survey Report · Workplace Wellness Trends | 2019 Survey Report |3...

Workplace Wellness

2019 SURVEY REPORT

Trends

www.ifebp.org/research

This survey report was prepared by the International Foundation of Employee Benefit Plans. Although great care was taken in researching the information in this report and the underlying sources are considered to be reliable, the accuracy and completeness of the report cannot be guaranteed.

This publication is sold with the understanding that the publisher is not engaged in rendering any business, financial, investment or other professional advice or service. This report is not a substitute for the services of a professional, nor should it be used as a basis for any decision or action that may affect your business. Consult a qualified professional. The International Foundation shall not be responsible for any loss sustained by any person who relies on this publication.

ContributorsThe following individuals from the International Foundation made significant contributions for the publication of this report: Rebecca Estrada: Questionnaire design, survey management, data analysis and lead author. Justin Held, CEBS: Questionnaire design review and manuscript review. Kelli Kolsrud, CEBS: Questionnaire design review and manuscript review. Robbie Hartman, CEBS: Editorial review.

Copies of this report may be obtained fromPublications DepartmentInternational Foundation of Employee Benefit Plans18700 West Bluemound RoadBrookfield, WI 53045

Call (888) 334-3327, option 4, for price information, or see www.ifebp.org/bookstore.

Published in 2019 by the International Foundation of Employee Benefit Plans, Inc. ©2019 International Foundation of Employee Benefit Plans, Inc.All rights reserved.ISBN 978-0-89154-784-6

Printed in the United States of America

RS1960921019

Acknowledgments

We are very grateful to the industry experts who reviewed the survey questionnaire and to the individuals who contributed their time to complete the survey.

About the International Foundation of Employee Benefit PlansThe International Foundation of Employee Benefit Plans is the premier educational organization dedicated to providing the diverse benefits community with objective, solution-oriented education, research and information to ensure the health and financial security of plan beneficiaries worldwide. Total mem-bership includes 31,000 individuals representing multiemployer trust funds, corporations, public employer groups and profes-sional advisory firms throughout the United States and Canada. Each year, the International Foundation offers over 100 educa-tional programs, including conferences and e-learning courses. Membership provides access to personalized research services and daily news delivery. The International Foundation sponsors the Certified Employee Benefit Specialist® (CEBS®) program in conjunction with the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania and Dalhousie University in Canada.

About the International Society of Certified Employee Benefit SpecialistsThe International Society of Certified Employee Benefit Specialists (ISCEBS) is a membership organization for those who have earned or are pursuing the Certified Employee Benefit Specialist (CEBS), Group Benefits Associate (GBA), Retirement Plans Associate (RPA) and Compensation Management Specialist (CMS) designations. Members have access to educational programs, information resources, networking at the local and national levels, publications and other services. Nearly 4,000 CEBS, GBA, RPA and CMS designees are members of ISCEBS; they work for corporations, consulting firms, multiemployer funds and insurance companies and in other industry professions.

About Research at the International Foundation The International Foundation conducts, writes and disseminates research studies, surveys and special reports on a range of benefits, compensation and financial literacy issues. The purpose of International Foundation research efforts is to enhance the capacity of its members and constituents to understand, design and deliver employee benefits that improve the financial security of plan participants and employees. Research programs include benchmarking studies, attitudinal surveys, special reports, hot topic surveys and collaborative projects. Visit www.ifebp.org/research to download reports.

The International Foundation expresses its thanks to Zirui Song, M.D., Ph.D., for feedback and contributions to the questionnaire. Dr. Song is assistant professor of health care policy and medicine at Harvard Medical School and an internal medicine physician at Massachusetts General Hospital.

(This page intentionally left blank.)

Workplace Wellness Trends | 2019 Survey Report | i

Table of Contents

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Key Findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

Workplace Wellness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

How Prevalent Are Wellness Offerings Today? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

Why Do Organizations Offer Wellness Benefits to Workers? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

Which Conditions Are the Costliest for Organizations? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6Conditions Impacting Overall Health Care Costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Conditions Impacting Workplace Productivity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

What Are Organizations Doing to Help Improve Worker Wellness? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8Physical Fitness and Nutrition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Health Screenings and Flu Shots . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Tobacco/Smoking Cessation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Social and Community Health . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Mental/Behavioral Health . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Worker Growth and Individual Purpose . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

Who Designs and Implements Wellness Programs? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

How Do Organizations Communicate Wellness Benefits? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

Budget . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

How Are Incentives Used in Wellness Programs? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

Wellness Data: What Do Organizations Collect, and What Do They Do With It? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18Tracking Wellness-Related Activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 Using Metrics and Data to Guide Wellness Offerings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 Return on Investment (ROI) and Value on Investment (VOI) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

What Barriers Do Organizations Face? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

Appendix A: List of Wellness Offerings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

Appendix B: Overall . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

Appendix C: United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61

Appendix D: Canada . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97


Workplace Wellness Trends | 2019 Survey Report | 1

Introduction

The International Foundation of Employee Benefit Plans conducted the Workplace Wellness Trends Survey, an in-depth study of organizations’ wellness offerings and policies, from May 16 to June 19, 2019. Responses were received from 619 organizations representing corporations (including nonprofits), multiemployer plans and public employee plans across the United States and Canada.

This report presents the overall findings of this survey, which include:

• Prevalence of programs

• Offerings

• Budget

• Communication of offerings

• Incentives

• Sources used to plan programs

• Return on investment (ROI) and value on invest-ment (VOI)

• Barriers to wellness.

For the purpose of this study, the International Foun-dation organized wellness offerings into the following categories:

• Physical fitness and nutrition

• Health screenings and flu shots

• Tobacco/smoking cessation

• Mental/behavioral health

• Social and community health

• Worker growth and individual purpose

For a complete list of wellness offerings presented as a part of this survey, see Appendix A. The list of wellness offerings included in this survey is not meant to be ex-haustive and may include items that are not commonly considered to be wellness benefits.

Data from previous years is taken from the following reports: 2012 Wellness Programs and Value-Based Health Care Survey, third edition; Workplace Wellness Trends: 2015 Survey Results (data collected in 2014); and Workplace Wellness Trends: 2017 Survey Results.



Wellness offerings are common in the workplace.

• More than four out of five (84%) organizations report offering wellness benefits to employees and plan participants, either through a formal wellness program (56%) or as a part of their employee benefit offerings (28%).

• The actual percentage of organizations offering well-ness benefits is likely higher; nearly all organizations reported offering at least one of the 67 wellness-related benefits asked about in this survey (See Appendix A).

Health care conditions having the most impact on organizations’ overall health care costs:

• Musculoskeletal conditions (including arthritis, back, carpal tunnel syndrome, etc.) (53%) topped the list of health conditions impacting overall health care costs, followed by cancer (47%), diabetes (44%) and cardiovascular disease/heart disease (32%).

• Nearly three in ten (28%) of organizations reported mental/behavioral health costs as one of their costli-est health care conditions—up significantly from 15% reported in 2012.

• For the first time, the International Foundation also asked organizations to indicate the condition for which they have seen the greatest increase in annual cost over the past five years. Cancer was reported by 25% of organizations, followed by mental/behavioral health (18%), musculoskeletal conditions (17%) and diabetes (16%).

Mental health resources are more widely available to workers compared with past results.

• In both the United States and Canada, the share of organizations that provide mental health coverage has increased substantially since 2014. This year’s survey found that 79% of Canadian organizations offer mental health coverage, up from 40% in 2014, and 87% of U.S. organizations offer coverage, up from 69% in 2014.

• Organizations offer a wide variety of resources to help workers manage stress and mental health issues, such as:

– Substance abuse treatment coverage/benefits (67%, up from 54% in 2016) (This question was not asked in 2014.)

– Mental health assessment included in health risk assessment (33%, up from 21% in 2014)

– Mental health first aid/crisis training (17%, up from 6% in 2014)

– On-site meditation/mindfulness classes (23%, up from 4% in 2014).

Worker stress negatively impacts workplace productivity:

• For the first time, organizations were asked to indicate the top three issues that negatively impact productivity. Stress led the list of issues, reported by 72% of organizations. In a distant second were the issues of poor work-life balance (33%) and personal financial concerns of workers (29%).

• Organizations are still searching for effective ways to reduce stress: 68% report that their efforts have been somewhat effective in reducing work-related stress, but only 4% reported very effective results. More than a quarter (28%) of organizations felt their offer-ings were not effective. Despite this, most organiza-tions plan to either increase (68%) or maintain (32%) their emphasis on mental/behavioral health offerings over the next two years.

Key Findings

| International Foundation of Employee Benefit Plans 4

Budget, ROI and VOI

• Approximately three out of five organizations (59%) that offer wellness-related benefits have a budget spe-cifically devoted to wellness. Respondents familiar with their organization’s wellness budget1 reported that, on average, organizations spend a median of $150 per participant per year on wellness. However, budget amounts vary: 25% of organizations spend $50 or less per participant per year, while 25% spend $450 or more per participant per year.

• Fewer organizations report formally tracking the return on investment (ROI) of their wellness initia-tives; this year, just 15% calculated wellness ROI compared with 32% in 2017. Survey results indicate that organizations are measuring many aspects that could be used to assess value on investment (VOI), although only 8% were formally measuring VOI.

• Of the organizations that do track either of these measures, the majority report positive ROI (61%) and VOI (78%).

Barriers to wellness in the workplace

• Time: Time is an issue both for participants and those leading wellness initiatives; 31% of organi-zations said that it is difficult for workers to find enough time to participate in wellness initiatives, and 11% report lack of time for design/implementation.

• Dispersed workforce: Having a workforce that is geographically dispersed is an impediment for 25% of organizations.

• Other common barriers include lack of interest on the part of workers (17%), limited support from management (13%), lack of internal staff (13%), pri-vacy concerns on the part of the participants (11%), lack of data to support the program (12%) and lack of effective communication with workers (8%).

1. Respondents were asked if they were familiar with their organization’s wellness budget; only those familiar with their orga-nization’s wellness budget (29% of respondents) were asked more detailed budget questions.


Workplace Wellness

For today’s workforce, wellness offerings have evolved from being nice-to-have benefits to something workers typically expect as part of a standard employee benefit plan. The current low unemployment rate in many industries has created competition among employers looking for talent in a limited candidate pool. At the same time, workers feeling disengaged or frustrated with their current job may readily look to other opportunities with organizations that offer a broader range of benefits.

Organizations are spending more on health care as both demand and cost continue to rise. As a result, more and more organizations turn to workplace wellness, both to improve worker well-being and to reduce health care expenditures.

How Prevalent Are Wellness Offerings Today?

The International Foundation of Employee Benefit Plans asked organizations about the types of wellness benefits available to workers and whether these benefits were offered as part of an official wellness program or as part of a larger benefits package.

More than half (56%) of organizations provide wellness benefits to workers through a formal wellness program, 28% provide wellness-type benefits outside of a formal program and 16% do not offer any wellness benefits to workers (Table 1). At the same time, nearly all organiza-tions (99%) offer at least one or more wellness-related benefits to workers, even if the organization does not consider the benefits to fall in the wellness category.

Wellness offerings have been in place for an average of 8.3 years; about one-third (34%) of organizations have offered wellness benefits for less than five years, 31% of organizations have run their program between five and nine years, and 34% for ten or more years. The public sector has been offering wellness benefits the longest (an average of 10.3 years), followed by multiemployer plans (9.7 years) and corporate/single employer plans (7.6 years) (Table 3).

6%9%

19%

31%

17%

8% 9%

<1 1 to 2 3 to 4 5 to 9 10 to 14 15 to 19 20+Perc

enta

ge o

f org

aniza

tions

Years

8.3 yearsaverage age of wellness programs

Source: 2019 Workplace Wellness Trends Survey; 2012 Wellness Programs and Value-Based Health Care Survey, 3rd edition.

Number of Years Wellness Programs Have Been in Place


Why Do Organizations Offer Wellness Benefits to Workers?

Over the past seven years, the Interna-tional Foundation has found that the two primary reasons organizations offer wellness-related benefits to plan participants are to improve the overall health and well-being of plan partici-pants and to control/reduce health-related costs.

While the majority of organizations have always reported improving over-all worker health and well-being as the main purpose, there has been a no-table shift in the pattern. In both 2012 and 2014, around three in five orga-nizations reported offering wellness benefits in order to improve overall worker health and well-being. In 2017, that number jumped to 75% of orga-nizations. Although the percentage fell slightly to 71% this year (Table 2), the overall pattern is evident: Organizations are offering wellness benefits in order to improve employees’ overall wellness and not primarily to cut health-related expenses.

At the same time, fewer organizations are tracking the formal return on investment (ROI) of their wellness program. In 2019, 15% of organizations reported track-ing the formal ROI of their wellness program, down from 31% in 2014 (Table 57; also see the ROI section on page 20).

Which Conditions Are the Costliest for Organizations?

Conditions Impacting Overall Health Care Costs

Since the first iteration of the workplace wellness survey in 2011, the International Foundation has asked organizations to indicate which three health care condi-tions have had the most impact on overall health care costs. Diabetes, cardiovascular disease/heart disease, musculoskeletal conditions and cancer (any kind) have consistently reached the top of the list of cost-impacting conditions, and they remain so this year. The categories impacting overall health care costs the most in 2019 are (Table 5):

• Musculoskeletal conditions (arthritis, back, carpal tunnel, etc.) (53%)

• Cancer (any kind) (47%)

• Diabetes (44%)

• Cardiovascular disease/heart disease (32%)

• Mental/behavioral health (28%)

• Hypertension/high blood pressure (25%)

• Obesity (20%)

• High cholesterol (9%)

• Allergies (5%)

• Smoking/tobacco-related diseases (4%)

• High-risk pregnancy (4%)

• Asthma (3%)

• Prescription drug addiction/substance abuse (opioids, fentanyl, oxycodone, morphine, etc.) (2%)

• Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) (2%)

• Nonprescription drug addiction/substance abuse (heroin, cocaine, etc.) (2%)

• Other (6%).

Primary Reason Organizations Offer Wellness Benefits, 2012-2019

58%

71%

40%

29%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

2012 2014 2017 2019

Perc

enta

ge o

f org

aniza

tions

To improve overall worker health and well-being

To control/reduce health-related costs

Source: 2019 Workplace Wellness Trends Survey; Workplace Wellness Trends 2017 Survey Results; Workplace Wellness Trends 2015 Survey Results (data collected in 2014); 2012 Wellness Programs and Value-Based Health Care Survey, 3rd edition.


Comparing survey responses from past years highlights some shifts in health care cost trends. For the first time, a greater share of organizations reported that muscu-loskeletal conditions were impacting health care costs more than any other condition, including diabetes and cancer. At the same time, rates of organizations report-ing that hypertension/high blood pressure is a top cost impactor have dropped. One notable change is that of mental/behavioral health: In 2012, most organiza-tions cited diabetes, heart disease, cancer, high blood pressure and musculoskeletal conditions as having the largest impact on health care costs; mental health was only reported by 15% of organizations. This year, 28% of organizations included it as one of their top condi-tions, surpassing hypertension/high blood pressure.

Just as no two organizations are the same, neither are the type of health care claims they experience. One fac-tor that differentiates workplaces is the physical activity level of their workers. Organizations whose workforce is primarily sedentary (e.g., desk jobs) are more likely to report that conditions such as mental/behavioral health and obesity are among their top three costliest conditions. On the other hand, organizations whose workforce is primarily active are more likely to report cardiovascular disease/heart disease, diabetes and pre-scription drug addiction/substance abuse (5% vs. 1%).

For the first time, the International Foundation also asked organizations to indicate the condition for which they have seen the greatest increase in annual cost over the past five years. Cancer was reported by 25% of organizations, followed by mental/behavioral health (18%), musculoskeletal conditions (17%) and diabetes (16%) (Table 6).

Conditions Having the Most Impact on Organizations’ Overall Health Care Costs, 2012-2019(Respondents selected the top three conditions.)

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

2012 2014 2017 2019

Perc

enta

ge o

f org

aniza

tions

Survey Year

Diabetes

Cardiovascular disease/heart disease

Musculoskeletalconditions

Cancer (any kind)

Hypertension/high blood pressure

Mental/behavioral health

Source: 2019 Workplace Wellness Trends Survey; Workplace Wellness Trends 2017 Survey Results; Workplace Wellness Trends 2015 Survey Results (data collected in 2014); 2012 Wellness Programs and Value-Based Health Care Survey, 3rd edition.

Costliest Conditions* Differ Based on Workforce Characteristic

More costly among sedentary workforce

More costly among active workforce

Mental/behavioral health

Obesity

Cardiovascular disease/heart disease

Diabetes

Prescription drug addiction/substance

abuse

* Respondents selected the top three conditions impacting overall health care costs.


Conditions Impacting Workplace Productivity

The survey explored the cost of additional workplace issues. For the first time, organizations were asked to indicate the top three issues that negatively impact pro-ductivity. Stress led the list of issues, reported by 72% of organizations. In a distant second were the issues of poor work-life balance (33%) and personal financial concerns of workers (29%) (Table 7).

Factors that lead to negative productivity differ by sec-tor. While stress is the top issue across the sectors, mo-rale is more prominent among public employers, and poor work-life balance ranks higher among corporate and multiemployer workforces.

What Are Organizations Doing to Help Improve Worker Wellness?

In order to address the wide range and complex issues affecting workers’ overall health, organizations are offer-ing support in a variety of ways.

Physical Fitness and Nutrition

Nearly all (93%) organizations offer one or more well-ness benefits related to physical fitness and nutrition. The most commonly offered benefits in this category are standing/walking workstations (61%), wellness competitions (walking/fitness challenges) (47%) and ergonomic training/supports/workstations (46%) (Table 8).

Organizations are also encouraging healthier eating by offering benefits such as healthy food choices in the cafeteria or vending machines (37%), health coaching (37%), weight loss or weight management programs (36%), or nutrition counseling (30%).

Organizations tracking participation in fitness and nutrition initiatives report that, on average 31% of their workforce participate in one or more activities per year (Table 9). Nearly all organizations that currently offer physical fitness and nutrition wellness benefits plan to either increase (60%) or maintain (39%) the current level of emphasis on this category of wellness in the future (Table 11).

The majority of organizations that tracked worker behaviors related to physical fitness and nutrition reported that their physical fitness and nutrition wellness offer-ings were effective at improving healthy eating (71%) and increas-ing physical fitness (77%) among plan participants (Table 10).

Top Issues Contributing to Negative Workforce Productivity, by Sector

Corporate Public Employers Multiemployer Plans

Stress (74%)

Poor work-life balance (35%)

Personal financial concerns of workers (30%)

Morale (25%)

Difficulty recruiting new workers (21%)

Stress (73%)

Morale (38%)

Absenteeism (25%)



Stress (57%)



Absenteeism (28%)

Morale (26%)

The percentage of organizations providing standing/walking workstations has increased significantly from past years. Today, 61% of organizations offer this benefit, compared with just 25% in 2014.


7%

8%

17%

18%

19%

24%

26%

27%

30%

32%

33%

34%

36%

37%

37%

40%

40%

41%

46%

47%

61%

None of the above

Nap room

Fitness equipment discounts

Off-site �tness class subsidies

Wearable �tness trackers (provided or subsidized)

Employer/organization-sponsored sports teams

Wellness/engagement worksite design changes**

Massages

Nutrition counseling

On-site exercise classes (yoga, tai chi, aerobics, etc)

On-site walking trails/paths/loops

Organized group run/walk events

Weight loss/management program

Health coaching

Healthy food choices in cafeteria/vending machines

Off-site �tness center/gym membership subsidies

Activity/exercise breaks encouraged

On-site �tness center/equipment

Ergonomic training/supports and/or work stations

Wellness competitions*

Standing/walking work stations

Percentage of organizations

*Wellness competitions such as walking/�tness challenges**Wellness/engagement-related worksite design changes (natural lighting, collaborative spaces, open stairwells, etc.)

Physical Fitness and Nutrition Initiatives Offered

Effectiveness of Physical Fitness/Nutrition Wellness Offerings on Behaviors

9%

6%

68%

65%

23%

29%

Increased physical activity

Improved healthy eating

Very effective Somewhat effective Not effective

79%

83%

Percentage oforganizations

tracking behaviors


Health Screenings and Flu Shots

The majority (86%) of organiza-tions offer one or more of the following preventive health programs: flu shots (either free or discounted) (77%), health screenings (blood pressure checks, cholesterol tests, etc.) (55%) or health risk assessments/appraisals (HRAs) (51%) (Table 13).

The average participation rate among organizations offering health screenings and/or flu shots is 44% (Table 14). Of the organiza-tions offering health screenings and flu shots to workers, nearly all plan to increase (44%) or maintain (54%) their current level of emphasis in the future (Table 15).

Tobacco/Smoking Cessation

Two-thirds (68%) of organizations offer tobacco/smoking-cessation programs to workers (Table 17). Participa-tion rates (tracked by 82% of organizations offering the benefit) indicate that, on average, 11% of eligible workers (those with a tobacco/smoking addiction) take part in the programs (Table 18). Of the organizations that track the effectiveness of the program, 70% rate the program as very (14%) or somewhat (56%) effective (Table 19).

Percentage of Organizations Offering Health Screenings and Flu Shots

Workplace Smoking Policies

14%

51%

55%

77%

None of the above

Health risk assessments/appraisals

Health screenings(blood pressure checks,cholesterol tests, etc).

Flu shot program(free or discounted)


Smoking, Vaping and the Workplace

In recent years, smoking rates have declined in both the United States and Canada. It is standard practice to prohibit smoking in the workplace, but what are employers saying about vaping? Almost half (45%) of organizations have a formal policy regarding vaping at work—and generally it aligns with smoking policies. One-third (33%) of orga-nizations do not have a formal vaping policy, and 22% were not sure (Table 22). Speaking of their vaping policy, one organization said:

“ Vaping is treated the same way as any other tobacco product and is restricted to the designated smoking area that is very, very far away from our buildings.”

—Midsize U.S. corporation in the Midwest

47%

27%

15%

8%

3%

Smoking is limited to speci�c designated outdoor areas

Smoking is prohibited on entire campus(including parking and outdoor areas) Smoking is permitted outside of the building

Smoking policies vary by worksite

We do not prohibit smoking anywhere


Social and Community Health Initiatives

Most organizations (92%) offer one or more well-ness benefits related to social and community health (Table 23). Of the various offerings in this category, on-site events and celebrations are the most common (79%), followed by community charity drives (62%), staff outings (55%) and community volunteer projects (55%).

Organizations tracking participation in social and community health initiatives report that an average of 46% of their workforce participate in one or more activities per year (Table 24). Less than half (44%) of organizations plan to increase their emphasis on these offerings, and 55% will maintain the current level of emphasis over the next two years (Table 25).

Mental/Behavioral Health

Nearly all (97%) organizations offer one or more mental/behavioral health–focused wellness benefits to workers, making this category one of the most widely available benefits overall and across sectors. The most common offerings in this category are employee assis-tance programs (EAPs) (90%), mental health coverage (86%) and substance abuse treatment coverage (67%) (Table 27).

Percentage of Organizations Offering Mental Health Coverage

40%

69%79%

87%

Canada United States2014 2019

Perc

enta

ge o

f org

aniza

tions

Percentage of Organizations That Offer Social and Community Health Initiatives

8%

15%

20%

25%

29%

35%

37%

46%

47%

55%

55%

62%

79%

None of the above

Game leagues (bridge, fantasy sports leagues, etc)

Happy hours

Themed dress-up days

Matching gift/matching donation

Paid time off for volunteer activities

Cultural/diversityinitiatives or training

Team-building activities

Blood drives

Community volunteer projects

Staff outings

Community charity drives/events

On-site events/celebrations



Over the past several years, there has been a noticeable increase in the share of organizations offering mental health coverage in both the United States and Canada. According to the survey results, 87% of U.S. organizations offer mental health coverage, up from 2014 rates of 69%. In Canada, 79% of organizations provide mental health coverage, which is nearly double the rate it was in 2014.

Overall, of the organizations that track participation in mental/behavioral health offerings (83%), an average of about 23% of the workforce participates in one or more mental/behavioral health offerings (Table 28).

At this point, it seems that organizations have not found the “sweet spot” for helping workers with stress levels; 68% of organizations report that their efforts have been somewhat effective in reducing work-related stress, but only 4% reported very effective results. More than a quarter (28%) of organizations felt their offer-ings were not effective (Table 29). Despite this, most organizations plan to either increase (68%) or maintain (32%) their emphasis on mental/behavioral health of-ferings over the next two years (Table 30).

Percentage of Organizations That Offer Mental/Behavioral Health Initiatives

3%

11%

17%

17%

21%

23%

33%

35%

67%

86%

90%

None of the above

Resiliency program

Mental health �rst aid/crisis training

Gratitude/appreciation journals/initiatives

Stress management program

Meditation/mindfulness classes on site

Mental health assessment includedin health risk assessment

Mental health educational/informationalsessions at the workplace

Substance abuse treatment coverage/bene�ts

Mental health coverage

Employee assistance program (EAP)


Effectiveness of Mental/Behavioral Health Wellness Offerings on Reducing Work-Related Stress Levels

4% 68% 28%Reducing Work-RelatedStress Levels 72%

Very effective Somewhat effective Not effective

Percentage oforganizations

tracking


Worker Growth and Individual Purpose

Nearly all organizations (97%) offer benefits aimed to help workers grow professionally. The most common offerings in this broad category include service recogni-tions (69%), professional memberships paid for by orga-nizations (65%) and tuition reimbursement/assistance (64%) (Table 32).

Organizations tracking participation in these initia-tives report that, on average, 45% of their workforce participate in one or more activities per year (Table 33). Nearly half of organizations (47%) plan to increase their emphasis on these offerings, and 52% will main-tain the current level of emphasis over the next two years (Table 34).

Percentage of Organizations That Offer Initiatives Aimed at Enhancing Worker Growth and Individual Purpose

3%

5%

7%

9%

13%

14%

25%

30%

38%

48%

49%

49%

53%

54%

55%

55%

57%

58%

61%

64%

65%

69%

None of the above

Unlimited vacation policy

Concierge service

Student loan payment program

-Creative/autonomous built-in worker time

Stay interviews

Transportation/parking subsidy

Mentorship program

Leadership opportunities available(teams, committees, etc.)

Manager training

Financial educationSubsidized continuing education

for designations (full or partial)

Internal transfers encouragedwhen opportunities arise

Vacation/time off is encouraged

Performance reviews tied toorganizational mission

Subsidized professional development(full or partial)

Lunch and learns

Flexible work arrangements

All staff noti�ed of internal openings and quali�ed candidates encouraged to apply

Tuition reimbursement/tuition assistance

Professional memberships paid for by organization

Service recognition



Who Designs and Implements Wellness Programs?

The vast majority (96%) of organi-zations use internal staff to design and implement wellness programs. Typically, benefits staff (75%) and hu-man resource representatives (52%) are involved. Other commonly used groups include organizational leader-ship (44%), a committee devoted to wellness activities (38%) and work-ers with an interest in wellness (30%) (Table 36).

Most organizations (85%) use external stakeholders as well. Almost half (47%) use a benefits consultant, 43% utilize an insurance provider and 24% use a health care provider (such as a health care system or a clinic). A little more than one-third (34%) of organizations use an external vendor for their needs (Table 37).

How Do Organizations Communicate Wellness Benefits?

Nearly all organizations (93%) send wellness-related communications to their plan participants. All orga-nizations with an official wellness program send out wellness-related communications to plan participants, compared with 92% of organizations that offer wellness benefits outside of a formal plan.

The frequency and targeted audience (recipient) of well-ness communication varies by organization.

According to survey respondents who are involved with their organization’s wellness communication:2

• 94% of organizations target full-time workers in their wellness messaging

• 57% target part-time workers

• 34% target spouses/domestic partners of workers (Table 47).

The frequency with which organizations send wellness-related communication to participants (via email, mailings, etc.) ranges from once or twice a year (13%) to weekly (8%); 15% of organizations send out communi-cations on an as-needed basis (Table 48).

Wellness Stakeholders

Internal Stakeholders External Stakeholders

Benefits staff 75% Benefits consultant 47%

Representative(s) from the human resources department

52% Insurance provider 43%

Organization leadership 44%External vendor (Wellsource, Virgin Pulse, etc.)

34%

Committee devoted to wellness activities

38%Health care provider (health care system, clinic, etc.)

24%

Workers with an interest in wellness

30% Wellness consultant 23%

Workers with a background in wellness

20%Health care professionals (nurse, doctor, etc.)

19%

Trust fund administrators 6% Other 4%

Other 3% No external stakeholders 15%

No internal stakeholders 4%

2. Respondents were asked if they were involved with communicating wellness initiatives to plan participants; only respon-dents who were involved with wellness communication (67% of respondents) were asked more detailed communication questions.


For the first time, the International Foundation asked respondents if they thought the amount of wellness-re-lated emails was sufficient or not. Specifically, respon-dents who are responsible for communicating wellness benefits to participants were asked two questions:

• Do your organization’s workers feel they receive sufficient communication about wellness-related offerings?

• Do you personally feel the communication is suf-ficient?

Nearly three in five (59%) respondents estimated that their workforce felt they received sufficient communica-tion, 28% felt they received too little and 13% too much. However, from the perspective of the respondents (who typically have a role or responsibility related to their organization’s wellness offerings), almost half (48%) felt too little communication was shared with workers (Table 49).

Populations Targeted by Organizations’ Wellness Communication

Frequency of Wellness Communication

3%

6%

11%

16%

34%

57%

94%

Other

Contract workers

Retirees

All belly buttons covered by health plan

Spouses/domestic partners of workers

Part-time workers

Full-time workers


13%16%

29%

18%

8%

1%

15%

1%

Once ortwice a year

Quarterly Monthly 2-3 timesa month

Weekly Daily As needed Other

Perc

enta

ge o

f org

aniza

tions


Determining how often organizations should send wellness communications isn’t a one-size-fits-all answer. However, it seems those who send wellness communica-tions feel that more is better than less. Nearly two-thirds (64%) of respondents from organizations that sent out frequent messages (once a month or more) felt the amount of communication was good, compared with 26% of respondents whose organizations sent wellness communication less often (annually or quarterly).

“ You need to communicate multiple ways, not just one way: company emails, posters, leader distribution of info, lunch and learns, etc.”

—Large U.S. corporation in the Midwest

“ There is no silver bullet. A variety of methods are necessary for the varied plan participants we have.”

—Midsized U.S. corporation in the Midwest

In addition to the above-mentioned communications, 45% of organizations also opt for their health care pro-vider or insurance company to reach out to participants with specific needs, such as workers who have had a prenatal visit or who are heart attack victims.

Communication: Too Much, Too Little, or Just Right?

3% 3%26%

64%39%

70%

33%61%

48%

Annually orquarterly

Once a monthor more often

As needed

Too much communication

The right amount of communication

Too little communication

Frequency of Communication

Perc

enta

ge o

f Res

pond

ents


Budget

Approximately three out of five organizations (59%) that offer wellness-related benefits have a budget spe-cifically devoted to wellness (Table 40). Respondents familiar with their organization’s wellness budget3 re-ported that, on average, organizations spend a median of $150 per participant per year on wellness. However, budget amounts vary: 25% of organizations spend $50 or less per participant per year, while 25% spend $450 or more per participant per year (Table 41).

Some differences in spending amounts can be explained by the presence of a formal wellness program or the size of the organization.

• Organizations with a formal wellness program spend a median of $158 per person per year, compared with a median of $100 per person per year spent by organizations that offer wellness benefits outside of a formal program.

• Small (less than 1,000 employees) and midsize (1,000-4,999) organizations spend slightly more money per participant per year on wellness com-pared with larger organizations (5,000 or more). However, smaller organizations have a lot more vari-ability than larger organizations, with one-quarter of organizations spending $500 or more each year on each participant.

Three-quarters (75%) of respondents feel that their cur-rent wellness budget is sufficient to meet their organiza-tion’s wellness goals (Table 42). The majority of organiza-tions (92%) have maintained (42%) or increased (50%) wellness budgets compared with two years ago (Table 43). More than half (56%) anticipate their organiza-tion increasing wellness budgets, and 41% anticipate no change; just 3% foresee the budget declining (Table 44).

Of the organizations that do not have a wellness budget, half (50%) fund wellness-related expenses through other budget categories, such as human resources, edu-cation or administrative budgets (Table 45). Other or-ganizations use funds provided from a wellness vendor or health insurance company or as part of the medical plan. Looking forward, about two-thirds (66%) of these organizations do not plan on adding a wellness budget within the next two years (Table 46).

How Are Incentives Used in Wellness Programs?

A portion of wellness costs can be attributed to partici-pation incentives. Just over two-thirds (69%) of organi-zations offer incentives to workers for participating in wellness activities. Most incentives are offered directly through the company (54%) and/or through a wellness vendor or health care provider (15%) (Table 50).

Average (Median) Amount Spent on Wellness, per Participant per Year

3. Respondents were asked if they were familiar with their organization’s wellness budget; only those familiar with their orga-nization’s wellness budget (29% of respondents) were asked more detailed budget questions.

$50 $65 $20 $50 $80

$30

$150 $158 $100

$150 $150 $123

$450 $500

$150

$500

$350

$250

$0

$100

$200

$300

$400

$500

$600

Overall Have formalwellness program

Provide wellnessbene�ts

Less than 1,000 1,000-4,999 5000+

Aver

age

dolla

r am

ount

25th percentile Median 75th percentile

Formal vs. Informal Wellness Bene�ts Number of Employees


The five wellness offerings that organizations most com-monly incentivize participation in are (See Table 51 for complete list):

• Health screenings (56%)

• Health risk assessments/appraisals (HRAs) (56%)

• Fitness programs/competitions (47%)

• Flu shot programs (33%)

• Weight loss/management programs (26%).

Organizations offer a range of incentives to wellness participants, including the following (Table 52):

• Gift cards/gift certificates (46%)

• Noncash incentives (prizes/raffles) (40%)

• Insurance premium reductions (36%)

• Cash awards (26%)

• Contributions to health accounts (20%).

Of the organizations that incentivize participation, 87% report that incentives have been very (29%) or some-what (58%) successful in increasing participation; nearly three-quarters (74%) indicate that the incentives are very (6%) or somewhat (68%) successful in changing participation (Table 53).

Wellness Data: What Do Organizations Collect, and What Do They Do With It?

Many respondents shared frustrations about wellness data, such as not knowing what to collect, wanting more data to track efforts or show the effectiveness of initia-tives, trying to gather data into one source and more. Other organizations rely upon vendors or consultants to provide measurements. The following section provides insights into the types of information that organizations collect and/or track and how they use the data.

Tracking Wellness-Related Activities

Approximately four in five (79%) organizations track the wellness-related activities of their workers. Atten-dance and/or participation is the most commonly used measurement, tracked by more than two-thirds (69%) of the organizations polled. Many organizations look to outside sources for data; 55% receive reports from a wellness vendor/company, and 49% receive reports from a health insurance company. Other methods include participant surveys (33%), having a database for workers to track progress and participation (24%), and data from fitness trackers (23%). A small share (15%) of organizations have incorporated gamification into their wellness initiatives and programs (Table 55).

There are numerous data sources that an organization could measure and track to gauge the impact of wellness initiatives on their workers and the organization as a whole. Organizations indicated which measures they tracked, both in general and in relation to wellness ini-tiatives. The majority of organizations track a variety of internal measures. However, a much smaller portion use the data collected to assess the impact of their wellness initiatives. For example, 82% of all organizations track health care costs, but just over half (51%) track them in relation to wellness. Of the organizations that do track health care costs in relation to wellness, 45% report that their wellness initiatives have had a positive impact on costs, 45% have seen no impact and 11% have seen a negative impact (Table 56).

Some of the initiatives that have had positive impacts on the majority of organizations that use and track them are employee surveys (engagement/satisfaction/cul-tural, etc.) (66%), health screenings (62%), health risk assessments (53%) and EAPs (52%). Although just 16% of organizations currently track the number of workers who pursue internal advancement and development opportunities in relation to wellness initiatives, 61% of those organizations report seeing a positive impact as a result of their wellness initiatives (Table 56).


Impact of Wellness Initiatives

Measurement(in order of positive impact)

Organizations that track data

in general

Organizations that track data

in relation to wellness initiatives

Impact of wellness initiative (of organizations tracking in relation to wellness)

(of organizations utilizing initiative) Positive None Negative

Engagement/satisfaction/ cultural surveys*

83% 56% 66% 30% 4%

Health screening** 77% 70% 62% 37% 1%

Workers pursuing internal advancement/development opportunities

47% 16% 61% 35% 4%

Overall organization financials/sustainability and growth

66% 20% 59% 35% 6%

Retirement plan participation, contribution and/or withdrawal rates

60% 21% 56% 34% 10%

Health risk assessment/ appraisal (HRA)***

76% 65% 53% 43% 3%

Employee assistance program (EAP) usage****

66% 37% 52% 47% 1%

Recruitment/job referral rates 56% 15% 49% 45% 6%

Health care costs 82% 51% 45% 45% 11%

Productivity 44% 16% 45% 51% 4%

Absenteeism 45% 12% 43% 48% 8%

Turnover 67% 16% 38% 49% 14%

Exit interview data 56% 16% 35% 57% 8%

Disability/workers’ compensation

59% 18% 30% 56% 14%

Prevalence of diseases 59% 40% 30% 64% 7%

* 43% of organizations report using participant surveys, worker/employee surveys or cultural audits related to wellness. Subsequent numbers are based off of these organizations.

** 55% of organizations offer health screenings to workers. Subsequent numbers are based off of these organizations. ***51% of organizations offer health risk assessments to workers. Subsequent numbers are based off of these organizations.****90% of organizations have an EAP for workers. Subsequent numbers are based off of these organizations.


Using Metrics and Data to Guide Wellness Offerings

Seventy-two percent of organizations use data or metrics to guide their wellness offerings. These or-ganizations most commonly look to health claims data (73%), worker/employee interest surveys (56%) and health risk assessments/appraisals (46%) (Table 54).

Return on Investment (ROI) and Value on Investment (VOI)

The percentage of organizations formally tracking the return on investment (ROI) of their wellness initiatives dropped from 31% in 2014 and 32% in 2017 to just 15% in 2019 (Table 57). The decline may be due to the claims in recent years about low (or negative) ROI results from wellness initiatives. However, it is clear that in many ways wellness benefits are adding value to the workplace outside of lowering health care costs. Some argue a better way to measure the impact of a wellness program is to assess the value on investment (VOI), which could include factors such as employee engage-ment, recruitment, absenteeism, overall financial sustainability, and growth of the organization. Survey results indicate that organizations are mea-suring many aspects that could be used to assess VOI, although only 8% of respondents formally measure VOI.

Data/Metrics Used to Guide Wellness Offerings(of organizations using metrics to guide program)

Percentage of Organizations Measuring ROI and VOI

Overall Direction of VOI and ROI

3%

6%

8%

14%

17%

23%

46%

56%

73%

Productivity rates

Other

Cultural audit

Absenteeism rates

Other worker input (suggestion box, etc.)

Disability or workers’ compensation claims

Health risk assessments/appraisals (HRAs)

Worker/employee interest survey

Health claims data


31% 32%

15%8%

2014 2017 2019ROIROI ROI VOI*Pe

rcen

tage

of o

rgan

izatio

ns

*Organizations were asked if they formally measured value on investment (VOI) for the �rst time in 2019.

78%

22%

61%

37%

1%

VOI

ROI

Of organizations formally measuring VOI (n=36) and ROI (n=67) in 2019.

Positive

Neutral

Negative


Of the organizations that do track either of these measures, the majority report positive returns both on the financial investment (ROI) (61%) and on the value received from that investment (VOI) (78%) (Tables 58-59). Measures of investment are typically calculated by a wellness vendor, provider or consultant (64% for VOI, 75% for ROI) or by internal staff (62% for VOI, 47% for ROI) (Tables 60-61).

What Barriers Do Organizations Face?

Time and money are among the top barriers to imple-menting wellness initiatives and programs. Time is an issue both for participants and those leading wellness initiatives; 31% of organizations said that it is difficult for workers to find enough time to participate in well-ness initiatives, and 11% report lack of time for design/implementation. Having a workforce that is geographi-cally dispersed is an impediment for 25% of organiza-tions. Other common barriers include lack of interest on the part of workers (17%), limited support from upper-level management (13%), lack of internal staff (13%), privacy concerns on the part of the participants (11%), lack of data to support the program (12%) and lack of effective communication with workers (8%) (Table 63).

It is worth noting that the barriers were not focused on just one or two main pain points (the most common bar-rier was reported by less than one-third of respondents). Rather, organizations face a wide range of obstacles when planning and implementing wellness programs. Some common themes to the barriers include:

• Participants/workers: Organizations reported that workers often lack time or interest to participate or may not perceive the need for wellness. In addition, some mentioned a lack of understanding of the ini-tiatives along with personal privacy concerns.

• Lack of resources: Many barriers may originate from within the organizational structure, such as not hav-ing adequate staff to run programs or staff not having time to design and implement programs. Sixteen percent of organizations reported it is difficult to keep the momentum going.

• Lack of support: The lack of management support, from both the senior/executive level and midlevel management, is an issue for organizations.

Methodology

The International Foundation of Employee Benefit Plans conducted this survey from May 16 to June 19, 2019. Survey invitations were sent to International Founda-tion members and nonmember contacts. Responses were received from 619 organizations representing cor-porations (including nonprofits), multiemployer4 plans and public employee plans across the United States and Canada.

4. In the United States, a multiemployer plan is an employee benefit plan maintained under one or more collective bargaining agreements to which more than one employer contributes. These collective bargaining agreements typically involve one or more local unions that are part of the same national or international labor union and more than one employer. If the multiemployer plan is a Taft-Hartley plan in the United States, the plan sponsor is a joint board of trustees consisting of equal representation from labor and management; these trustees are responsible for the overall operation and administration of the plan. The board of trust-ees is generally the named fiduciary and allocates or delegates the administrative functions to persons or entities with expertise regarding the particular function. In Canada, a multiemployer plan is a trust established for multiple employers in the same or related industries. This type of benefit plan covers employees of two or more financially unrelated employers. The plan may be established by collective bargain-ing or statute. Where a multiemployer pension plan is established by a collective bargaining or trust agreement, nearly all prov-inces have legislation requiring at least 50% employee representation on a board of trustees.


While all respondents were asked about the various wellness offerings provided by their organizations, barriers to wellness and organization demographic information, other questions were only displayed to respondents who self-reported familiarity with the subtopic. For example, detailed questions about the wellness budget were posed only to respondents who indicated they were familiar with their organization’s budget associated with wellness or wellness-related of-ferings. All respondents were asked about offerings and barriers.

“Not sure” responses were excluded from analysis at the item level unless a meaningful share of respondents were unsure about the information.

Survey results are designed for plan sponsors to bench-mark their actions against their peers. The reader is cau-tioned that the limited sample size and nonrandomized sampling methodology may restrict the extent to which findings can be generalized. Data was not reported when n<5. Due to rounding, some column percentages may not add up to 100%.

Top Barriers to Implementing Wellness(Respondents selected the top three barriers. For a complete list of barriers, see data breakouts in Table 63 of the appendixes.)

6%

6%

7%

8%

9%

11%

11%

12%

13%

13%

16%

17%

18%

25%

27%

31%

No barriers

Lack of worker/participant understandingof these initiatives

Lack of midlevel management support

Lack of effective communication with workers

Workers feel that they don’t need wellness initiatives

Lack of time for design/implementation

Privacy concerns among workers/participants

Lack of actionable data/dif�cultto obtain and integrate data

Lack of senior/executive management support

Lack of adequate internal staff

Dif�cult to keep momentum going

Lack of interest by workers

Lack of suf�cient �nancial incentivesto encourage participation

Dispersed population

Cost is prohibitive

Dif�cult for workers to �ndenough time to participate



2019 Workplace Wellness Survey Results: Prevalence of Offerings (U.S. and Canada)

Physical Fitness and NutritionPhysical Activities

40% Activity/exercise breaks encouraged during work time

24% Employer-sponsored sports teams

17% Fitness equipment discounts

27% Massages40% Off-site fitness center/gym membership

subsidies

18% Off-site fitness class subsidies

32% On-site exercise classes (e.g., yoga, tai chi, aerobics, etc.)

41% On-site fitness equipment/center

33% On-site walking trails/paths/loops

34% Organized group run/walk events

19% Wearable fitness trackers (provided or subsidized)

47% Wellness competitions such as walking/fitness challenges

Nutrition37% Health coaching37% Healthy food choices in cafeteria or vending

machines30% Nutrition counseling36% Weight loss/management program (on site or

subsidized)

Workplace46% Ergonomic training/supports and/or workstations 8% Nap room61% Standing/walking workstations26% Wellness/engagement-related worksite design

changes (e.g., natural lighting, collaborative spaces, bike racks, open stairwells and walking loops, etc.)

Health Screenings and Flu ShotsScreenings and Prevention77% Flu shot program (free or discounted flu shots)51% Health risk assessments/appraisals (HRAs)55% Health screenings (e.g., blood pressure checks,

cholesterol tests, etc.)

Tobacco/Smoking CessationScreenings and Prevention68% Tobacco/smoking-cessation program (e.g.,

counseling,medication, nicotine patches, etc.)

Social and Community Health

Community Health47% Blood drives62% Community charity drives/events (e.g., food

drives, school supplies, etc.)55% Community volunteer projects37% Cultural/diversity initiatives or training29% Matching gift/matching donation35% Paid time off for volunteer activities

Appendix A: List of Wellness Offerings


Social Activities15% Game leagues (e.g., bridge, chess, fantasy sports

leagues, etc.)20% Happy hours79% On-site events/celebrations (e.g., celebration

lunches, retirement celebrations, wedding/baby showers, cook-offs, bake sales, department parties/potlucks, etc.)

55% Staff outings (e.g., golf, tours, parks, bowling, holiday parties, pro sports games, picnics, etc.)

46% Team-building activities25% Themed dress-up days

Mental/Behavioral HealthCoverage90% Employee assistance program (EAP)33% Mental health assessment included in health risk

assessment (HRA)86% Mental health coverage (as a part of health care

coverage)67% Substance abuse treatment coverage/benefits

Education/Initiatives17% Gratitude/appreciation journals/initiatives23% On-site meditation/mindfulness classes35% Mental health educational/informational sessions

at the workplace11% Resiliency program21% Stress management program17% Mental health first aid/crisis training (training

to identify and help individuals who may be developing a mental health problem or in a mental health crisis)

Worker Growth and Individual Purpose

Professional Development61% All staff are notified of internal job openings, and

qualified candidates are encouraged to apply.38% Leadership opportunities outside job hierarchy

structure via teams, committees and/or councils30% Mentorship programs55% Performance reviews tied to organizational

mission65% Professional memberships paid for by

organization69% Service recognition14% Stay interviews (periodic meeting designed to

keep and engage talented workers)53% Transfers are encouraged when internal

opportunities better fit worker interests.

Education/Training13% Creative/autonomous built-in worker time

(flexibility to spend a certain amount of time on independent/pet projects)

49% Financial education57% Lunch and learns48% Manager training9% Student loan payment program49% Subsidized continuing education for designations

(full or partial)55% Subsidized professional development (full or

partial)64% Tuition reimbursement/tuition assistance

Work-Life Balance 7% Concierge service58% Flexible work arrangements25% Transportation/parking subsidy 5% Unlimited vacation policy54% Vacation/time off is encouraged


Appendix B: Overall

TABLE 1Organizations Offering Wellness to Workers Public Overall Corporate Employer Multiemployer n = 588 n = 433 n = 99 n = 56

Have a formal wellness program 56% 56% 68% 34%

No, but we provide various wellness-type benefits to employees/participants 28% 27% 23% 39%

No 16% 17% 9% 27%

TABLE 2Primary Reason for Offering Wellness Initiatives Overall CP PE ME n = 612 n = 446 n = 107 n = 59

To improve overall worker health and well-being 71% 74% 69% 58%

Control/reduce health-related costs 29% 26% 31% 42%

TABLE 3Number of Years Offering Wellness Initiatives Overall CP PE ME n = 519 n = 389 n = 88 n = 42

Less than 1 year 6% 7% 2% 2%

1-2 years 9% 11% 5% 7%

3-4 years 19% 21% 13% 19%

5-9 years 31% 31% 34% 31%

10-14 years 17% 18% 16% 17%

15-19 years 8% 6% 22% 0%

20 or more years 9% 7% 9% 24%

Average number of years offering wellness initiatives 8.3 7.6 10.3 9.7


Appendix B: Overall

TABLE 4Plan to Implement Wellness Program Within Next Two Years Overall CP PE ME n = 260 n = 191 n = 32 n = 37

Yes 30% 32% 38% 11%

No 28% 27% 22% 43%

Not sure 42% 41% 41% 46%

Of organizations that do not currently have a formal wellness program.

TABLE 5Conditions in Worker Population That Have the Most Impact on Overall Health Care Costs Overall CP PE ME n = 539 n = 385 n = 97 n = 57

Musculoskeletal conditions (arthritis, back, carpal tunnel, etc.) 53% 56% 49% 44%

Cancer (any kind) 47% 50% 44% 33%

Diabetes 44% 43% 48% 42%

Cardiovascular disease/heart disease 32% 31% 33% 39%

Mental/behavioral health 28% 27% 33% 26%

Hypertension/high blood pressure 25% 25% 27% 19%

Obesity 20% 19% 27% 12%

High cholesterol 9% 8% 12% 12%

Allergies 5% 5% 3% 9%

Smoking/tobacco-related diseases 4% 3% 4% 12%

High-risk pregnancy 4% 5% 2% 2%

Asthma 3% 3% 2% 5%

Prescription drug addiction/substance abuse (opioids, fentanyl, oxycodone, morphine, etc.) 2% 1% 1% 14%

Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) 2% 2% 1% 0%

Nonprescription drug addiction/substance abuse (heroin, cocaine, etc.) 2% 1% 0% 7%

Not sure 13% 15% 9% 7%

Other 6% 6% 4% 5%

Respondents were asked to select the top three conditions impacting plan costs.


Appendix B: Overall

TABLE 6Largest Increase in Health Care Cost Over Past Five Years Overall CP PE ME n = 480 n = 342 n = 90 n = 48

Cancer (any kind) 25% 27% 22% 19%

Mental/behavioral health (including depression, anxiety disorders, PTSD, bipolar disorder, etc.) 18% 16% 27% 15%

Musculoskeletal conditions (including arthritis/back pain) 17% 17% 17% 15%

Diabetes 16% 17% 14% 13%

Obesity 5% 5% 4% 0%









Asthma 0% 0% 0% 2%


Other 4% 4% 1% 4%

Respondents were asked to select the condition with the greatest increase in annual cost over the past five years.


Appendix B: Overall

TABLE 7Issues Negatively Impacting Worker Productivity Overall CP PE ME n = 550 n = 397 n = 100 n = 53

Stress 72% 74% 73% 57%

Poor work-life balance 33% 35% 22% 40%

Personal financial concerns of workers 29% 30% 24% 28%

Morale 28% 25% 38% 26%

Difficulty recruiting new workers 20% 21% 17% 19%

Absenteeism 16% 12% 25% 28%

Low retention of current workers 15% 17% 13% 6%

Low worker engagement 15% 14% 15% 17%

Presenteeism 14% 13% 18% 8%

Sleep deprivation 14% 14% 12% 17%

Poor interpersonal relationships between co-workers (lack of cohesion) 13% 12% 12% 23%

Other 3% 3% 1% 2%

Respondents were asked to select the top three issues negatively impacting worker productivity.


Appendix B: Overall

FITNESS/NUTRITION WELLNESS INITIATIVES

TABLE 8Fitness/Nutrition Initiatives Offered Overall CP PE ME n = 610 n = 446 n = 106 n = 58

Standing/walking workstations 61% 61% 73% 36%

Wellness competitions such as walking/fitness challenges 47% 49% 53% 22%

Ergonomic training/supports and/or workstations 46% 47% 55% 26%

On-site fitness center/equipment 41% 40% 52% 28%

Activity/exercise breaks encouraged during work time 40% 39% 55% 16%

Off-site fitness center/gym membership subsidies 40% 42% 39% 24%

Healthy food choices in cafeteria or vending machines 37% 41% 28% 19%

Health coaching 37% 37% 45% 24%

Weight loss/management program (on site or subsidized) 36% 36% 46% 16%

Organized group run/walk events 34% 35% 42% 14%

On-site walking trails/paths/loops 33% 33% 42% 12%

On-site exercise classes (yoga, tai chi, aerobics, etc.) 32% 32% 43% 10%

Nutrition counseling 30% 29% 42% 21%

Massages 27% 30% 20% 22%

Wellness/engagement-related worksite design changes (natural lighting, collaborative spaces, open stairwells, etc.) 26% 28% 24% 12%

Employer/organization-sponsored sports teams 24% 27% 18% 10%

Wearable fitness trackers (provided or subsidized) 19% 21% 18% 5%

Off-site fitness class subsidies 18% 19% 17% 12%

Fitness equipment discounts 17% 18% 16% 9%

Nap room 8% 9% 6% 5%

None of the above 7% 5% 2% 26%

Respondents were asked to select all that apply.


Appendix B: Overall

TABLE 9Fitness/Nutrition Initiative Participation Overall CP PE ME n = 530 n = 391 n = 97 n = 42

Track fitness/nutrition participation 92% 93% 90% 88%

n = 486 n = 362 n = 87 n = 37

Average participation rates* 31% 32% 30% 21%

None 2% 2% 0% 5%

1-10% 23% 23% 18% 32%

11-20% 20% 19% 23% 22%

21-30% 13% 10% 23% 14%

31-40% 11% 12% 11% 5%

41-50% 7% 7% 5% 11%

51-60% 6% 7% 2% 5%

61-70% 8% 8% 8% 5%

71-80% 4% 4% 5% 0%

81-90% 4% 5% 2% 0%

91-100% 2% 2% 2% 0%

*Of organizations that offer fitness/nutrition initiatives and track participation.


Appendix B: Overall

TABLE 10Effectiveness of Fitness and Nutrition Initiatives on Worker Behavior Overall CP PE ME n = 518 n = 385 n = 96 n = 37

Track effectiveness of fitness/ nutrition on increasing physical activity 83% 83% 85% 73%

n = 429 n = 320 n = 82 n = 27

Very effective 9% 8% 12% 4%

Somewhat effective 68% 69% 70% 56%

Not effective 23% 23% 18% 41%

n = 496 n = 366 n = 94 n = 36

Track effectiveness of fitness/ nutrition on improved healthy eating 79% 80% 79% 67%

n = 392 n = 294 n = 74 n = 24




Of organizations tracking participation.

TABLE 11Future Emphasis for Physical Fitness Wellness Program Over Next Two Years Total CP PE ME n = 466 n = 352 n = 84 n = 30

Increase emphasis 60% 61% 61% 50%

Maintain current emphasis 39% 38% 39% 50%

Decrease emphasis 1% 1% 0% 0%

Of organizations that currently offer one or more fitness and nutrition programs.

TABLE 12Plan to Add Physical Fitness Wellness Offerings Within Next Two Years Total CP PE ME n = 17† n = 9† n = 1†† n = 7†

Yes 29% 56% — 0%

No 71% 44% — 100%

Of organizations that do not currently offer one or more fitness and nutrition offerings. † Due to the small number of respondents, please use caution when generalizing findings to a particular population.†† Insufficient data to report for this item.


Appendix B: Overall

HEALTH SCREENING AND FLU SHOT WELLNESS INITIATIVES

TABLE 13Health Screening and Flu Shot Offerings Total CP PE ME n = 609 n = 443 n = 106 n = 60

Provide one or more health screenings/ flu shot initiatives 86% 86% 92% 78%

Flu shot program (free or discounted flu shots) 77% 77% 86% 65%

Health screenings (blood pressure checks, cholesterol tests, etc.) 55% 53% 67% 47%

Health risk assessments/appraisals (HRAs) 51% 51% 60% 32%


TABLE 14Health Screening and Flu Shot Participation Overall CP PE ME n = 483 n = 350 n = 89 n = 44

Track participation 95% 95% 93% 93%

n = 457 n = 333 n = 83 n = 41


None 2% 3% 1% 2%

1-10% 11% 11% 10% 17%

11-20% 13% 12% 16% 15%

21-30% 12% 12% 10% 17%

31-40% 12% 10% 10% 27%

41-50% 8% 9% 7% 2%

51-60% 7% 7% 10% 5%

61-70% 10% 11% 11% 0%

71-80% 13% 15% 10% 7%

81-90% 7% 6% 13% 2%

91-100% 5% 6% 4% 5%

*Of organizations that offer health screenings and/or flu shots and track participation.


Appendix B: Overall

TABLE 15Future Emphasis for Health Screening and Flu Shot Offerings Over Next Two Years Total CP PE ME n = 432 n = 319 n = 78 n = 35




Of organizations that currently offer one or more health screenings and/or flu shot offerings.

TABLE 16Plan to Add Health Screening and Flu Shot Offerings Within Next Two Years Total CP PE ME n = 83 n = 62 n = 8† n = 13†

Yes 16% 19% 13% 0%

No 40% 32% 75% 54%

Not sure 45% 48% 13% 46%

Of organizations that do not currently offer one or more health screenings and/or flu shot offerings.

† Due to the small number of respondents, please use caution when generalizing findings to a particular population.

TOBACCO/SMOKING-CESSATION WELLNESS INITIATIVES

TABLE 17Organizations That Offer Tobacco/Smoking-Cessation Programs Total CP PE ME n = 550 n = 408 n = 91 n = 51

Provide tobacco/smoking-cessation program 68% 68% 74% 63%


Appendix B: Overall

TABLE 18Tobacco/Smoking-Cessation Program Participation Total CP PE ME n = 311 n = 234 n = 51 n = 26


n = 254 n = 191 n = 43 n = 20


None 10% 12% 2% 10%

1-10% 65% 63% 67% 70%

11-20% 13% 12% 14% 15%

21-30% 5% 5% 7% 5%

31-40% 2% 2% 2% 0%

41-50% 1% 2% 0% 0%

51-60% 1% 1% 0% 0%

61-70% 1% 1% 0% 0%

71-80% 2% 2% 2% 0%

81-90% 0% 1% 0% 0%

91-100% 1% 1% 5% 0%

*Of organizations that currently offer tobacco/smoking-cessation programs. Participation rates reflect workers who currently use tobacco products.

TABLE 19Effectiveness of Tobacco/Smoking-Cessation Initiatives at Reducing Tobacco Use Total CP PE ME n = 304 n = 221 n = 59 n = 24

Track effectiveness of tobacco/smoking-cessation initiatives on reducing tobacco usage 70% 69% 76% 71%

n = 214 n = 152 n = 45 n = 17†




Of organizations that currently offer and track effectiveness of tobacco/smoking-cessation programs. Effectiveness reflects workers who enroll in the program.



Appendix B: Overall

TABLE 20Plan to Add Tobacco/Smoking-Cessation Wellness Offerings Within Next Two Years Total CP PE ME n = 176 n = 133 n = 24 n = 19†

Yes 11% 11% 17% 5%

No 51% 52% 38% 63%

Not sure 38% 37% 46% 32%

Of organizations that do not currently offering tobacco/smoking-cessation initiatives.


SMOKING AND VAPING POLICIES

TABLE 21Smoking Policy for Workplace Overall CP PE ME n = 619 n = 451 n = 107 n = 61

Smoking is prohibited on entire campus (including parking and outdoor areas) 27% 27% 33% 16%

Smoking is limited to designated outdoor areas 47% 49% 44% 38%

Smoking is permitted outside of the building 15% 14% 16% 20%

Smoking policies vary by worksite 8% 6% 5% 26%

We do not prohibit smoking anywhere 3% 4% 3% 0%

TABLE 22Formal Vaping Policy Overall CP PE ME n = 619 n = 451 n = 107 n = 61

Yes 45% 45% 55% 25%

No 33% 34% 21% 41%

Not sure 22% 20% 23% 34%


Appendix B: Overall

SOCIAL AND COMMUNITY HEALTH WELLNESS INITIATIVES

TABLE 23Social/Community Wellness Initiatives Offered Total CP PE ME n = 606 n = 447 n = 105 n = 54

Provide one or more social and community health initiatives 92% 94% 94% 70%

On-site events/celebrations 79% 82% 82% 50%

Community charity drives/events (food drives, school supplies, etc.) 62% 65% 64% 31%

Staff outings 55% 60% 43% 35%

Community volunteer projects 55% 60% 45% 28%

Blood drives 47% 46% 65% 17%

Team-building activities 46% 50% 40% 22%

Cultural/diversity initiatives or training 37% 35% 50% 20%

Paid time off for volunteer activities 35% 41% 22% 13%

Matching gift/matching donation 29% 35% 10% 17%

Themed dress-up days 25% 27% 21% 17%

Happy hours 20% 25% 6% 4%

Game leagues (bridge, chess, fantasy sports leagues, etc.) 15% 17% 10% 11%




Appendix B: Overall

TABLE 24Social and Community Wellness Initiative Participation Overall CP PE ME n = 511 n = 385 n = 89 n = 37


n = 468 n = 351 n = 83 n = 34


None 0% 0% 1% 0%

1-10% 12% 11% 11% 21%

11-20% 13% 11% 24% 12%

21-30% 11% 11% 14% 9%

31-40% 10% 11% 12% 0%

41-50% 9% 7% 12% 21%

51-60% 9% 9% 10% 6%

61-70% 8% 9% 1% 12%

71-80% 10% 11% 7% 6%

81-90% 9% 11% 5% 3%

91-100% 8% 9% 2% 12%

*Of organizations that offer social/community wellness offerings and track participation.

TABLE 25Future Emphasis for Social/Community Wellness Program Over Next Two Years Total CP PE ME n = 469 n = 358 n = 80 n = 31




Of organizations that currently offer social/community wellness offerings.


Appendix B: Overall

TABLE 26Plan to Add Social/Community Wellness Offerings Within Next Two Years CP PE ME Total n = 26 n = 6† n = 16† n = 48

Yes 15% 17% 6% 13%

No 23% 33% 56% 35%

Not sure 62% 50% 38% 52%

Of organizations that do not currently offer social/community wellness offerings.


MENTAL/BEHAVIORAL HEALTH WELLNESS INITIATIVES

TABLE 27Mental/Behavioral Health Wellness Initiatives Offered Total CP PE ME n = 602 n = 439 n = 105 n = 58

Provide one or more mental/behavioral health initiatives 97% 96% 100% 93%

Employee assistance program (EAP) 90% 90% 96% 76%

Mental health coverage 86% 86% 88% 81%

Substance abuse treatment coverage/benefits 67% 65% 80% 64%

Mental health educational/informational sessions at the workplace 35% 32% 51% 31%

Mental health assessment included in health risk assessment (HRA) 33% 31% 49% 26%

Meditation/mindfulness classes on site 23% 23% 30% 12%

Stress management program 21% 20% 33% 10%

Gratitude/appreciation journals/initiatives 17% 19% 18% 5%

Mental health first aid/crisis training 17% 13% 37% 17%

Resiliency program 11% 10% 16% 5%

We offer all of these 1% 1% 4% 0%




Appendix B: Overall

TABLE 28Mental/Behavioral Health Initiative Participation Overall CP PE ME n = 511 n = 370 n = 94 n = 47


n = 425 n = 307 n = 77 n = 41


None 2% 3% 1% 2%

1-10% 36% 36% 32% 37%

11-20% 21% 23% 17% 12%

21-30% 15% 10% 25% 27%

31-40% 9% 8% 9% 17%

41-50% 6% 7% 4% 2%

51-60% 4% 4% 5% 0%

61-70% 2% 2% 1% 0%

71-80% 3% 3% 3% 0%

81-90% 2% 2% 1% 2%

91-100% 2% 2% 1% 0%

*Of organizations that offer mental/behavioral wellness offerings and track participation.

TABLE 29Effectiveness of Mental/Behavioral Health Wellness Initiatives at Reducing Work-Related Stress Levels Total CP PE ME n = 490 n = 356 n = 90 n = 44

Track effectiveness 72% 70% 77% 80%

n = 352 n = 248 n = 69 n = 35




Of organizations that offer mental/behavioral wellness offerings and track participation.


Appendix B: Overall

TABLE 30Future Emphasis for Mental/Behavioral Health Wellness Program Over Next Two Years Total CP PE ME n = 482 n = 357 n = 88 n = 37




Of organizations currently offering mental/behavioral health wellness programs.

TABLE 31Plan to Add Mental/Behavioral Health Wellness Offerings Within Next Two Years Total CP PE ME n = 21 n = 17† n = 0†† n = 4††

Yes 5% 6% — —

No 29% 12% — —

Not sure 67% 82% — —

Of organizations not currently offering mental/behavioral health offerings.

† Due to the small number of respondents, please use caution when generalizing findings to a particular population.†† Insufficient data to report for this item.


Appendix B: Overall

PROFESSIONAL GROWTH WELLNESS INITIATIVES

TABLE 32Professional Growth Initiatives Offered Total CP PE ME n = 594 n = 439 n = 103 n = 52

Provide one or more worker growth and individual purpose initiatives 97% 98% 100% 83%

Service recognition 69% 70% 76% 48%

Professional memberships paid for by organization 65% 70% 59% 29%

Tuition reimbursement/tuition assistance 64% 67% 65% 38%

All staff are notified of internal job openings, and qualified candidates are encouraged to apply 61% 61% 68% 48%

Flexible work arrangements 58% 64% 50% 27%

Lunch and learns 57% 59% 61% 37%

Subsidized professional development (full or partial) 55% 57% 58% 33%

Performance reviews tied to organizational mission 55% 61% 46% 23%

Vacation/time off is encouraged 54% 56% 54% 37%

Transfers are encouraged when internal opportunities better fit worker interests 53% 56% 50% 27%

Financial education 49% 49% 57% 25%

Subsidized continuing education for designations (full or partial) 49% 52% 46% 33%

Manager training 48% 51% 52% 23%

Leadership opportunities outside job hierarchy structure via teams, committees and/or councils 38% 41% 33% 13%

Mentorship program 30% 32% 31% 15%

Transportation/parking subsidy 25% 25% 28% 17%

Stay interviews 14% 15% 13% 6%

Creative/autonomous built-in worker time 13% 13% 13% 12%

Student loan payment program 9% 9% 14% 2%

Concierge service 7% 7% 6% 4%

Unlimited vacation policy 5% 6% 3% 0%




Appendix B: Overall

TABLE 33Professional Growth Wellness Initiative Participation Overall CP PE ME n = 506 n = 373 n = 94 n = 39


n = 440 n = 322 n = 82 n = 36


None 1% 1% 1% 6%

1-10% 13% 13% 9% 31%

11-20% 11% 10% 17% 6%

21-30% 14% 11% 26% 11%

31-40% 9% 10% 7% 8%

41-50% 10% 10% 7% 22%

51-60% 8% 8% 10% 3%

61-70% 8% 8% 10% 0%

71-80% 7% 7% 5% 6%

81-90% 7% 8% 2% 3%

91-100% 12% 14% 6% 6%

*Of organizations that offer professional growth wellness initiatives and track participation.

TABLE 34Future Emphasis for Professional Growth Wellness Program Over Next Two Years Total CP PE ME n = 475 n = 356 n = 85 n = 34




Of organizations that currently offer professional growth wellness initiatives.


Appendix B: Overall

TABLE 35Plan to Add Professional Growth Wellness Offerings Within Next Two Years Total CP PE ME n = 16† n = 7† n = 0†† n = 9†

Yes 0% 0% — 0%

No 63% 57% — 67%

Not sure 38% 43% — 33%

Of organizations that do not currently offer professional growth wellness initiatives.

† Due to the small number of respondents, please use caution when generalizing findings to a particular population.†† Insufficient data to report for this item.

WELLNESS STAKEHOLDERS

TABLE 36Internal Stakeholders Working With Wellness Program Overall CP PE ME n = 582 n = 429 n = 101 n = 52

Benefits staff 75% 77% 78% 56%

Representative(s) from the human resources department 52% 52% 61% 29%

Organization leadership 44% 45% 46% 29%

Committee devoted to wellness activities 38% 36% 52% 25%

Workers with an interest in wellness 30% 28% 42% 27%

Workers with a background in wellness 20% 18% 30% 15%

Trust fund administrators 6% 1% 12% 37%

No internal stakeholders 4% 3% 3% 10%

Other 3% 3% 3% 4%



Appendix B: Overall

TABLE 37External Stakeholders Working With Wellness Program Overall CP PE ME n = 559 n = 413 n = 96 n = 50

Benefits consultant 47% 48% 47% 42%

Insurance provider 43% 44% 50% 24%

External vendor (Wellsource, Virgin Pulse, etc.) 34% 37% 34% 16%

Health care provider (health care system, clinic, etc.) 24% 21% 33% 28%

Wellness consultant 23% 23% 24% 24%

Health care professionals (nurse, doctor, etc.) 19% 16% 26% 24%

No external stakeholders 15% 15% 14% 20%

Other 4% 3% 3% 6%


WORKFORCE CHARACTERISTICS

TABLE 38The Majority of Workers . . . Overall CP PE ME n = 619 n = 451 n = 107 n = 61

Location of workforce

Work at one central location 40% 43% 32% 34%

Work at several worksites in various locations 60% 57% 68% 66%

Consistent or changing location

Work at the same location year-round 87% 91% 86% 56%

Change jobsites based on work assignment 13% 9% 14% 44%

Physical activity level

Sedentary 60% 66% 49% 31%

Active 40% 34% 51% 69%

For each statement, respondents were asked which description fits the majority of their workforce.


Appendix B: Overall

WORKFORCE ENVIRONMENT

TABLE 39Workforce Environment Overall CP PE ME n = 619 n = 451 n = 107 n = 61

Culture/environment

Very negative/unhealthy 2% 2% 2% 3%

Somewhat negative/unhealthy 17% 15% 21% 31%

Somewhat positive/healthy 55% 56% 59% 46%

Very positive/healthy 25% 28% 18% 20%

Engagement/productivity





Worker trust in management/organization





Health literacy/knowledge





Participation in wellness initiatives





Recruitment/retention levels





(continued on next page)


Appendix B: Overall

TABLE 39Workforce Environment (continued from previous page) Overall CP PE ME n = 619 n = 451 n = 107 n = 61

Stress levels





Mental health





BUDGET

TABLE 40Have Budget Specific to Wellness Overall CP PE ME n = 523 n = 384 n = 93 n = 46

Yes 59% 60% 68% 33%

No 41% 40% 32% 67%

Note: The following questions were only asked of respondents familiar with their organization’s wellness budget.

TABLE 41Average Amount Budgeted for Wellness per Participant per Year Overall CP PE ME n = 166 n = 122 n = 36 n = 8†

Mean $ 330 $ 346 $ 303 $ 203

Percentile 25 $ 50 $ 60 $ 50 $ 14

Median $ 150 $ 150 $ 163 $ 123

Percentile 75 $ 450 $ 450 $ 388 $ 400



Appendix B: Overall

TABLE 42Organization’s Wellness Budget Is Sufficient to Meet the Organization’s Wellness Goals Overall CP PE ME n = 178 n = 128 n = 41 n = 9†

Strongly agree 28% 27% 27% 33%

Somewhat agree 47% 47% 46% 44%

Somewhat disagree 19% 20% 17% 22%

Strongly disagree 7% 6% 10% 0%


TABLE 43Change in Wellness Budget Compared With Two Years Ago Overall CP PE ME n = 179 n = 128 n = 42 n = 9†

Increased significantly 16% 16% 14% 22%

Increased somewhat 34% 34% 26% 67%

Stayed the same 42% 42% 48% 11%

Decreased somewhat 7% 6% 12% 0%

Decreased significantly 1% 1% 0% 0%


TABLE 44Anticipated Wellness Budget Changes for the Next Two Years Overall CP PE ME n = 173 n = 123 n = 41 n = 9†

Increase significantly 5% 4% 5% 11%

Increase somewhat 51% 52% 44% 67%

Stay the same 41% 41% 46% 22%

Decrease somewhat 3% 3% 5% 0%

Decrease significantly 0% 0% 0% 0%



Appendix B: Overall

TABLE 45Wellness-Related Expenses Funded by Other Budget Categories Overall CP PE ME n = 156 n = 114 n = 22 n = 20

Yes 50% 51% 50% 45%

No 50% 49% 50% 55%

Of organizations that do not have a budget specific to wellness.

TABLE 46Likelihood of Adopting Wellness Budget in the Next Two Years Overall CP PE ME n = 214 n = 153 n = 30 n = 31

Extremely likely 6% 7% 3% 0%

Somewhat likely 28% 29% 37% 13%

Somewhat unlikely 38% 39% 27% 45%

Not at all likely 21% 18% 20% 39%

A wellness budget is not necessary because wellness- related items are funded through other budget categories 7% 7% 13% 3%


COMMUNICATIONNote: The following questions were only asked of respondents familiar with their organization’s wellness communi-

cation strategies.

TABLE 47Groups of Workers Targeted by Wellness Communication Overall CP PE ME n = 413 n = 302 n = 77 n = 34

Full-time workers 94% 95% 92% 82%

Part-time workers 57% 61% 55% 35%

Retirees 11% 5% 25% 32%

Contract workers 6% 6% 5% 6%

Spouses/domestic partners of workers 34% 34% 35% 32%

All belly buttons covered by health plan 16% 16% 19% 18%

Other 3% 3% 3% 3%



Appendix B: Overall

TABLE 48Frequency of Wellness Communication Overall CP PE ME n = 413 n = 302 n = 77 n = 34

Once or twice a year 13% 13% 9% 21%

Once a quarter 16% 16% 12% 29%

Once a month 29% 31% 23% 15%

2-3 times a month 18% 19% 21% 3%

Weekly 8% 6% 17% 3%

Daily 1% 0% 1% 3%

As needed 15% 13% 17% 24%

Other 1% 1% 0% 3%

TABLE 49Sufficiency of Wellness Communication Overall CP PE ME

How do your organization’s workers feel about the frequency of communication about wellness-related offerings? n = 283 n = 202 n = 59 n = 22

Too much communication 13% 12% 19% 5%

The right amount of communication 59% 57% 64% 59%

Too little communication 28% 30% 17% 36%

How do you personally feel about the frequency of communication? n = 400 n = 293 n = 75 n = 32




Does your organization target special messaging/outreach through your health care provider for specific groups (workers with prenatal visits, heart attack victims, etc.)? n = 392 n = 285 n = 74 n = 33

Yes 45% 44% 49% 48%

No 55% 56% 51% 52%

We do not offer health care coverage 0% 0% 0% 0%


Appendix B: Overall

INCENTIVES

TABLE 50Use of Wellness Incentives Overall CP PE ME n = 582 n = 427 n = 101 n = 54

Incentives offered through organization 54% 54% 61% 35%

Incentives offered through third party (vendor or health care provider) 15% 16% 15% 6%

Do not offer 36% 34% 31% 59%


Note: The following questions were only asked of respondents familiar with their organization’s wellness incentive program.

TABLE 51Initiatives With Attached Incentives Overall CP PE ME n = 340 n = 258 n = 63 n = 19†

Health screening 56% 56% 57% 47%

Health risk assessment/appraisal (HRA) 56% 55% 57% 58%

Fitness program/competition 47% 45% 60% 32%

Flu shot program 33% 32% 38% 32%

Weight loss/management program 26% 26% 35% 5%

Health care coach/advocate 25% 25% 25% 21%

Nutrition program 23% 23% 29% 11%

Health fair 21% 19% 25% 32%

Tobacco/smoking-cessation program 0% 0% 0% 0%

Other 14% 15% 11% 16%





Appendix B: Overall

TABLE 52Types of Incentives Offered Overall CP PE ME n = 341 n = 258 n = 63 n = 20

Gift cards or gift certificates 46% 48% 43% 30%

Noncash incentives (prizes/raffles) 40% 38% 49% 25%

Insurance premium reductions 36% 37% 37% 20%

Cash awards 26% 27% 27% 20%

Contributions to health accounts (HSAs, HRAs or FSAs in the U.S. or HCSAs in Canada)* 20% 21% 17% 10%

Shared recognition of participant progress 12% 12% 11% 10%

Reimbursement of worker costs upon completion of outside wellness initiative 8% 7% 10% 10%

Additional time off 8% 7% 10% 5%

Charitable contributions on behalf of workers 4% 5% 2% 10%

Waivers or reductions for health plan deductibles or copayments 3% 2% 3% 15%

Other 6% 6% 5% 15%


Respondents were asked to select all that apply.*HSA—Health Spending Account, HRA—Health Reimbursement Arrangement, FSA—Flexible Spending Account, HCSA—Health Care Spending Account

TABLE 53Success of Wellness Incentives Overall CP PE ME n = 339 n = 257 n = 64 n = 18†

Increasing participation

Very successful 29% 29% 30% 28%

Somewhat successful 58% 57% 56% 72%

Somewhat unsuccessful 11% 12% 11% 0%

Very unsuccessful 2% 2% 3% 0%

Changing behaviors





Of organizations that offer incentives.† Due to the small number of respondents, please use caution when generalizing findings to a particular population.


Appendix B: Overall

DATA AND METRICS

TABLE 54Percentage of Organizations That Use Data/Metrics to Guide Wellness Offerings Overall CP PE ME n = 526 n = 392 n = 92 n = 42

Use one or more data/metrics to guide wellness offerings 72% 70% 80% 69%

n = 377 n = 274 n = 74 n = 29

Health claims data 73% 73% 77% 66%

Worker/employee interest survey 56% 58% 54% 41%


Disability or workers’ compensation claims 23% 23% 26% 10%

Other worker input (suggestion box, etc.) 17% 18% 20% 7%

Absenteeism rates 14% 14% 12% 14%

Cultural audit 8% 8% 5% 7%

Productivity rates 3% 3% 1% 0%

Other 6% 5% 8% 3%

TABLE 55Percentage of Organizations Tracking Wellness-Related Activities (Including Participation) Overall CP PE ME n = 555 n = 412 n = 94 n = 49


n = 437 n = 321 n = 78 n = 38

Attendance and/or participation in wellness events 69% 70% 74% 50%

Reports from wellness vendor/company 55% 59% 45% 42%

Reports from health insurance company 49% 48% 50% 61%

Participant surveys 33% 31% 47% 29%

Database for workers to track wellness activities/participation 24% 26% 26% 5%

Automatic loading of fitness tracker and app data 23% 23% 26% 16%

Gamification incorporated into programs/initiatives 15% 17% 13% 11%

Other 2% 2% 4% 0%

Only includes organizations that collect wellness activity participation.


Appendix B: Overall

TABLE 56Impact of Wellness Initiatives on Measures (of Organizations Tracking for Purposes of Wellness) Overall CP PE ME

Absenteeism n = 60 n = 37 n = 16† n = 7†

Seeing positive impact 43% 43% 50% 29%

Seeing no impact 48% 54% 38% 43%

Seeing negative impact 8% 3% 13% 29%

Disability/workers’ compensation n = 90 n = 57 n = 18† n = 15†




Employee assistance program (EAP) usage* n = 175 n = 120 n = 34 n = 21




Engagement/satisfaction/culture surveys* n = 122 n = 88 n = 25 n = 9†




Exit interview data n = 77 n = 58 n = 13† n = 6†




Health care costs n = 265 n = 188 n = 50 n = 27




Health risk assessment/appraisal (HRA)* n = 176 n = 125 n = 40 n = 11†




Health screening* n = 203 n = 146 n = 44 n = 13†






Appendix B: Overall

TABLE 56 Impact of Wellness Initiatives on Measures (of Organizations Tracking for Purposes of Wellness) (continued from previous page) Overall CP PE ME

Number of workers pursuing internal advancement and development opportunities n = 77 n = 55 n = 11† n = 11†




Overall organization financials/sustainability and growth n = 97 n = 66 n = 17† n = 14†




Prevalence of diseases n = 192 n = 131 n = 44 n = 17†




Productivity n = 76 n = 55 n = 12† n = 9†




Recruitment/job referral rates n = 71 n = 53 n = 11† n = 7†




Retirement plan participation, contribution and/or withdrawal rates n = 102 n = 77 n = 14† n = 11†




Turnover n = 80 n = 60 n = 11† n = 9†




Does not include “not sure” responses; does not include respondents that track measurements but not in regard to wellness.

*Only organizations that offer this benefit were asked about tracking.



Appendix B: Overall

RETURN ON INVESTMENT (ROI) AND VALUE ON INVESTMENT (VOI)

TABLE 57Organizations Measuring ROI and/or VOI of Wellness Initiatives Overall CP PE ME n = 480 n = 360 n = 80 n = 40

We measure VOI 8% 6% 16% 10%

We measure ROI 15% 15% 18% 13%

We do not track VOI or ROI 79% 81% 71% 80%

Not sure 22% 19% 25% 32%

TABLE 58Direction of ROI Overall CP PE ME n = 67 n = 49 n = 13† n = 5†

Positive 61% 57% 85% 40%

Neutral 37% 43% 15% 40%

Negative 1% 0% 0% 20%

Of organizations that track ROI.


TABLE 59Direction of VOI Overall CP PE ME n = 36 n = 20 n = 13† n = 3††

Positive 78% 75% 85% —

Neutral 22% 25% 15% —

Negative 0% 0% 0% —

Of organizations that track VOI. † Due to the small number of respondents, please use caution when generalizing findings to a particular population.†† Insufficient data to report for this item.


Appendix B: Overall

TABLE 60Who Measures the VOI of Wellness Initiatives Overall CP PE ME n = 39 n = 22 n = 13† n = 4††

Wellness vendor, provider or consultant 64% 59% 77% —

Actuary 10% 9% 15% —

Internal staff 62% 64% 62% —

Other 5% 5% 8% —

Of organizations that track VOI. † Due to the small number of respondents, please use caution when generalizing findings to a particular population.†† Insufficient data to report for this item.

TABLE 61Who Measures the ROI of Wellness Initiatives Overall CP PE ME n = 75 n = 56 n = 14† n = 5†

Wellness vendor, provider or consultant 75% 70% 93% 80%

Actuary 16% 7% 43% 40%

Internal staff 47% 48% 36% 60%

Other 1% 2% 0% 0%

Of organizations that track ROI.† Due to the small number of respondents, please use caution when generalizing findings to a particular population.

LEADERSHIP SUPPORT OF WELLNESS PROGRAMS

TABLE 62Leadership Support of Wellness Programs Overall CP PE ME n = 610 n = 445 n = 107 n = 58

Leaders actively participate in program 40% 42% 38% 28%

Leaders act as role models for prioritizing health and work-life balance 25% 26% 22% 22%

Leaders are held accountable for supporting the wellness vision 12% 13% 7% 9%

Leaders recognize workers for their healthy actions and outcomes 20% 20% 18% 16%

Leaders do not support the organization’s wellness program and do not actively participate 18% 18% 19% 12%

Other 7% 7% 8% 7%



Appendix B: Overall

BARRIERS TO IMPLEMENTING WELLNESS

TABLE 63Barriers to Implementing Wellness Overall CP PE ME n = 607 n = 443 n = 106 n = 58

Difficult for workers to find enough time to participate 31% 30% 36% 33%

Cost is prohibitive 27% 27% 25% 24%

Dispersed population 25% 24% 25% 33%

Lack of sufficient financial incentives to encourage participation in programs 18% 16% 23% 21%

Lack of interest by workers 17% 17% 16% 22%

Difficult to keep momentum going 16% 17% 16% 12%

Lack of adequate internal staff 13% 14% 15% 7%

Lack of senior/executive management support 13% 13% 16% 2%

Lack of actionable data/difficult to obtain and integrate data 12% 14% 10% 5%

Privacy concerns among workers/participants 11% 10% 17% 12%

Lack of time for design/implementation 11% 12% 9% 5%

Workers feel that they don’t need wellness initiatives 9% 8% 7% 19%

Lack of effective communication with workers 8% 8% 9% 3%

Lack of midlevel management support 7% 6% 11% 2%

Lack of worker/participant understanding of these initiatives 6% 6% 8% 5%

Lack of information about best evidence-based practices 5% 5% 3% 3%

Management doesn’t believe initiatives will change worker behavior 4% 4% 5% 9%

Management doesn’t believe initiatives will change cost/quality of care 4% 5% 2% 2%

Lack of facility space 4% 4% 4% 0%

Lack of union support 2% 1% 3% 7%

Organizational concerns about maintaining adequate health information privacy 1% 2% 0% 2%

Lack of provisions to accommodate culturally diverse or non-English-speaking workers 1% 1% 0% 0%

Other 2% 1% 2% 4%

No barriers 6% 7% 4% 3%

Respondents were asked to select the top three barriers to implementing wellness.


Appendix B: Overall

DEMOGRAPHICS

TABLE 64Organization Location Overall CP PE ME n = 610 n = 443 n = 60 n = 107

n = 96 n = 61 n = 19† n = 16†

Canada 16% 14% 18% 27%

Alberta 16% 15% 16% 19%

British Columbia 19% 13% 26% 31%

Manitoba 9% 10% 11% 6%

New Brunswick 1% 0% 5% 0%

Newfoundland and Labrador 0% 0% 0% 0%

Nova Scotia 6% 5% 11% 6%

Ontario 36% 44% 16% 31%

Prince Edward Island 0% 0% 0% 0%

Quebec 4% 5% 5% 0%

Saskatchewan 8% 8% 11% 6%

n = 515 n = 383 n = 88 n = 44

United States 84% 86% 82% 73%

Midwest 31% 34% 18% 23%

Northeast 27% 29% 15% 36%

South 23% 22% 30% 18%

West 19% 15% 38% 23%

Multiple states <1% <1% 0% 0%


TABLE 65Number of Employees Overall CP PE ME n = 619 n = 451 n = 107 n = 61

50 or fewer 11% 13% 4% 8%

51-99 4% 4% 4% 2%

100-999 34% 34% 30% 41%

1,000-4,999 30% 29% 36% 23%

5,000-9,999 9% 9% 11% 7%

10,000 or more 13% 11% 15% 20%


Appendix B: Overall

TABLE 66Organization Sector Public n = 619 Corporate Employer Multiemployer

73% 17% 10%

TABLE 67Primary Industry Overall CP ME n = 512 n = 451 n = 61

Accommodation and food services 1% 1% 0%

Arts, entertainment and recreation 1% 1% 3%

Banking and finance 6% 6% 5%

Communications/telecommunications and high technology 5% 5% 0%

Construction 7% 3% 39%

Education 4% 4% 8%

Energy, utilities and mining 4% 5% 0%

Health care and medicine 8% 8% 10%

Insurance 19% 21% 5%

Manufacturing/distribution 12% 12% 10%

Nonprofit 7% 7% 5%

Professional service firm (accounting, law, consulting) 9% 10% 0%

Retail/wholesale trade 3% 3% 5%

Transportation 3% 2% 7%

Other 11% 12% 3%

TABLE 68Primary Jurisdiction PE n = 107

Municipality (city, village, township, etc.) 31%

County/district 21%

Province 22%

Federal 1%

College/university 8%

Other 17%



TABLE 1AOrganizations Offering Wellness to Workers Public Overall Corporate Employer Multiemployer n = 492 n = 368 n = 83 n = 41



No 16% 15% 11% 32%

TABLE 2APrimary Reason for Offering Wellness Initiatives Overall CP PE ME n = 508 n = 378 n = 88 n = 42


To control/reduce health-related costs 31% 28% 33% 48%

TABLE 3ANumber of Years Offering Wellness Initiatives Overall CP PE ME n = 438 n = 334 n = 74 n = 30


1-2 years 9% 10% 5% 3%

3-4 years 19% 20% 12% 17%

5-9 years 33% 32% 38% 40%

10-14 years 17% 17% 15% 13%

15-19 years 8% 5% 22% 0%

20 or more years 9% 8% 5% 27%


Appendix C: United States



TABLE 4APlan to Implement Wellness Program Within Next Two Years Overall CP PE ME n = 204 n = 153 n = 23 n = 28

Yes 30% 33% 35% 7%

No 27% 25% 26% 43%

Not sure 43% 42% 39% 50%


TABLE 5AConditions in Worker Population That Have the Most Impact on Overall Health Care Costs Overall CP PE ME n = 460 n = 337 n = 82 n = 41


Cancer (any kind) 51% 55% 44% 39%

Diabetes 45% 45% 51% 39%



Obesity 21% 20% 32% 15%






Asthma 3% 3% 2% 7%




Not sure 11% 12% 7% 7%

Other 6% 6% 4% 7%




TABLE 6ALargest Increase in Health Care Cost Over Past Five Years Overall CP PE ME n = 405 n = 296 n = 74 n = 35

Cancer (any kind) 29% 29% 27% 26%

Diabetes 18% 18% 18% 14%



Obesity 5% 5% 5% 0%








Asthma 0% 0% 0% 3%



Other 4% 4% 1% 6%




TABLE 7AIssues Negatively Impacting Worker Productivity Overall CP PE ME n = 459 n = 338 n = 84 n = 37

Stress 72% 74% 71% 54%



Morale 27% 25% 37% 27%








Other 2% 3% 0% 3%





TABLE 8AFitness/Nutrition Initiatives Offered Overall CP PE ME n = 508 n = 379 n = 88 n = 41















Massages 24% 27% 19% 10%





Nap room 8% 9% 5% 5%





TABLE 9AFitness/Nutrition Initiative Participation Overall CP PE ME n = 446 n = 338 n = 82 n = 26


n = 415 n = 316 n = 76 n = 23


None 2% 2% 0% 9%

1-10% 23% 24% 17% 39%

11-20% 20% 19% 22% 17%

21-30% 13% 10% 24% 13%

31-40% 12% 12% 13% 4%

41-50% 7% 7% 4% 9%

51-60% 7% 8% 3% 4%

61-70% 8% 8% 9% 4%

71-80% 4% 4% 4% 0%

81-90% 4% 4% 3% 0%

91-100% 2% 2% 1% 0%




TABLE 10AEffectiveness of Fitness and Nutrition Initiatives on Worker Behavior Overall CP PE ME n = 434 n = 331 n = 81 n = 22

Track effectiveness of fitness/nutrition on increasing physical activity 83% 83% 86% 73%

n = 362 n = 276 n = 70 n = 16†




n = 417 n = 316 n = 80 n = 21

Track effectiveness of fitness/nutrition on improved healthy eating 80% 80% 80% 71%

n = 333 n = 254 n = 64 n = 15†




Of organizations tracking participation.† Due to the small number of respondents, please use caution when generalizing findings to a particular population.

TABLE 11AFuture Emphasis for Physical Fitness Wellness Program Over Next Two Years Overall CP PE ME n = 392 n = 305 n = 72 n = 15†




Of organizations that currently offer one or more fitness and nutrition programs.† Due to the small number of respondents, please use caution when generalizing findings to a particular population.

TABLE 12APlans to Add Physical Fitness Wellness Offerings Within Next Two Years Overall CP PE ME n = 14† n = 7† n = 0†† n = 7†

Yes 29% 57% — 0%

No 71% 43% — 100%

Of organizations that do not currently offer one or more fitness and nutrition offerings. † Due to the small number of respondents, please use caution when generalizing findings to a particular population.†† Insufficient data to report for this item.




TABLE 13AHealth Screening and Flu Shot Offerings Overall CP PE ME n = 508 n = 378 n = 87 n = 43






TABLE 14AHealth Screening and Flu Shot Participation Overall CP PE ME n = 427 n = 315 n = 78 n = 34


n = 409 n = 302 n = 75 n = 32


None 2% 2% 0% 0%

1-10% 10% 10% 7% 19%

11-20% 12% 11% 16% 13%

21-30% 12% 12% 9% 19%

31-40% 11% 10% 11% 25%

41-50% 8% 9% 8% 3%

51-60% 7% 7% 11% 3%

61-70% 10% 11% 11% 0%

71-80% 14% 16% 9% 9%

81-90% 8% 7% 15% 3%

91-100% 6% 6% 4% 6%




TABLE 15AFuture Emphasis for Health Screening and Flu Shot Offerings Over Next Two Years Overall CP PE ME n = 385 n = 290 n = 71 n = 24




Of organizations that currently offer one or more health screenings and/or flu shot offerings.

TABLE 16APlans to Add Health Screening and Flu Shot Offerings Within Next Two Years Overall CP PE ME n = 54 n = 41 n = 4†† n = 9†

Yes 17% 20% — 0%

No 37% 32% — 56%

Not sure 46% 49% — 44%

Of organizations that do not currently offer one or more health screenings and/or flu shot offerings.


†† Insufficient data to report for this item.

TOBACCO/SMOKING-CESSATION AND WELLNESS INITIATIVES

TABLE 17AOrganizations That Offer Tobacco/Smoking-Cessation Programs Overall CP PE ME n = 463 n = 350 n = 75 n = 38

Provide smoking-cessation programs 69% 69% 76% 61%



TABLE 18ATobacco/Smoking-Cessation Program Participation Total CP PE ME n = 271 n = 208 n = 45 n = 18†


n = 233 n = 178 n = 40 n = 15†


None 9% 11% 3% 13%

1-10% 64% 64% 68% 60%

11-20% 14% 13% 15% 20%

21-30% 4% 4% 5% 7%

31-40% 2% 2% 3% 0%

41-50% 1% 2% 0% 0%

51-60% 1% 1% 0% 0%

61-70% 1% 1% 0% 0%

71-80% 2% 2% 3% 0%

81-90% 0% 1% 0% 0%

91-100% 1% 1% 5% 0%



TABLE 19AEffectiveness of Tobacco/Smoking-Cessation Initiatives at Reducing Tobacco Use Overall CP PE ME n = 266 n = 197 n = 51 n = 18†


n = 192 n = 140 n = 40 n = 12†




Of organizations that currently offer and track effectiveness of tobacco/smoking-cessation programs. Effectiveness reflect workers who enroll in the program.




TABLE 20APlan to Add Tobacco/Smoking-Cessation Wellness Offerings Within Next Two Years (of Organizations Not Currently Offering Tobacco/Smoking Cessation) Overall CP PE ME n = 143 n = 110 n = 18† n = 15†

Yes 12% 12% 17% 7%

No 51% 52% 33% 67%

Not sure 37% 36% 50% 27%

Of organizations that do not currently offer tobacco/smoking-cessation initiatives.



TABLE 21ASmoking Policy for Workplace Overall CP PE ME n = 514 n = 382 n = 88 n = 44






TABLE 22AFormal Vaping Policy Overall CP PE ME n = 514 n = 382 n = 88 n = 44

Yes 46% 47% 53% 20%

No 34% 35% 24% 45%

Not sure 21% 19% 23% 34%




TABLE 23ASocial/Community Wellness Initiatives Offered Overall CP PE ME n = 506 n = 381 n = 88 n = 37






Blood drives 50% 50% 68% 14%












TABLE 24ASocial and Community Wellness Initiative Participation Overall CP PE ME n = 424 n = 327 n = 75 n = 22


n = 393 n = 299 n = 72 n = 22


None 1% 0% 1% 0%

1-10% 13% 12% 13% 23%

11-20% 13% 11% 19% 14%

21-30% 12% 11% 15% 9%

31-40% 11% 11% 11% 0%

41-50% 9% 7% 14% 18%

51-60% 9% 9% 8% 9%

61-70% 8% 9% 1% 9%

71-80% 9% 10% 8% 0%

81-90% 9% 10% 6% 5%

91-100% 7% 8% 3% 14%


TABLE 25AFuture Emphasis for Social/Community Wellness Program Over Next Two Years Overall CP PE ME n = 394 n = 308 n = 69 n = 17†








TABLE 26APlan to Add Social/Community Wellness Offerings Within Next Two Years Overall CP PE ME n = 44 n = 24 n = 5† n = 15†

Yes 14% 17% 20% 7%

No 32% 21% 20% 53%

Not sure 55% 63% 60% 40%

Of organizations that do not currently offer social/community wellness offerings.



TABLE 27AMental/Behavioral Health Wellness Initiatives Offered Overall CP PE ME n = 503 n = 375 n = 87 n = 41

Provide one or more mental/behavioral health initiatives 97% 97% 100% 90%
















TABLE 28AMental/Behavioral Health Initiative Participation Overall CP PE ME n = 433 n = 322 n = 78 n = 33


n = 367 n = 271 n = 66 n = 30


None 3% 3% 2% 3%

1-10% 35% 36% 30% 33%

11-20% 21% 24% 15% 10%

21-30% 16% 11% 26% 33%

31-40% 8% 7% 9% 17%

41-50% 6% 7% 5% 3%

51-60% 4% 4% 6% 0%

61-70% 2% 2% 2% 0%

71-80% 3% 3% 3% 0%

81-90% 1% 1% 2% 0%

91-100% 1% 1% 2% 0%


TABLE 29AEffectiveness of Mental/Behavioral Health Wellness Initiatives at Reducing Work-Related Stress Levels Overall CP PE ME n = 410 n = 306 n = 74 n = 30

Track effectiveness 71% 69% 77% 77%

n = 292 n = 212 n = 57 n = 23







TABLE 30AFuture Emphasis for Mental/Behavioral Health Wellness Program Over Next Two Years Overall CP PE ME n = 408 n = 312 n = 72 n = 24





TABLE 31APlan to Add Mental/Behavioral Health Wellness Offerings Within Next Two Years Overall CP PE ME n = 17† n = 13† n = 0†† n = 4††

Yes 6% 8% — —

No 35% 15% — —

Not sure 59% 77% — —

Of organizations not currently offering mental/behavioral health offerings.






TABLE 32AProfessional Growth Initiatives Offered Overall CP PE ME n = 494 n = 373 n = 85 n = 36



























TABLE 33AProfessional Growth Wellness Initiatives Participation Overall CP PE ME n = 422 n = 319 n = 77 n = 26


n = 373 n = 279 n = 70 n = 24


None 1% 0% 1% 8%

1-10% 13% 13% 6% 33%

11-20% 12% 10% 17% 8%

21-30% 14% 13% 23% 4%

31-40% 10% 10% 9% 4%

41-50% 10% 9% 7% 25%

51-60% 8% 8% 11% 0%

61-70% 8% 8% 10% 0%

71-80% 6% 7% 6% 4%

81-90% 7% 8% 3% 4%

91-100% 13% 14% 7% 8%


TABLE 34AFuture Emphasis for Professional Growth Wellness Program Over Next Two Years Overall CP PE ME n = 394 n = 303 n = 70 n = 21







TABLE 35APlan to Add Professional Growth Wellness Offerings Within Next Two Years Overall CP PE ME n = 14† n = 6† n = 0†† n = 8†

Yes 0% 0% — 0%

No 57% 50% — 63%

Not sure 43% 50% — 38%

Of organizations that do not currently offer professional growth wellness initiatives.




TABLE 36AInternal Stakeholders Working With Wellness Program Overall CP PE ME n = 485 n = 365 n = 83 n = 37









Other 3% 3% 2% 3%




TABLE 37AExternal Stakeholders Working With Wellness Program Overall CP PE ME n = 475 n = 359 n = 79 n = 37








Other 3% 3% 1% 8%



TABLE 38AThe Majority of Workers . . . Overall CP PE ME n = 514 n = 382 n = 88 n = 44

Location of workforce




Work at the same location year-round 87% 91% 88% 50%



Sedentary 58% 63% 48% 32%

Active 42% 37% 52% 68%





TABLE 39AWorkforce Environment Overall CP PE ME n = 514 n = 382 n = 88 n = 44

Culture/environment

































TABLE 39AWorkforce Environment (continued on next page) Overall CP PE ME n = 514 n = 382 n = 88 n = 44

Stress levels





Mental health





BUDGET

TABLE 40AHave Budget Specific to Wellness Overall CP PE ME n = 452 n = 335 n = 81 n = 36

Yes 58% 60% 67% 22%

No 42% 40% 33% 78%


TABLE 41AAverage Amount Budgeted for Wellness per Participant per Year Overall CP PE ME n = 147 n = 112 n = 32 n = 3††

Mean $ 324 $ 323 $ 331 —

Percentile 25 $ 60 $ 60 $ 70 —

Median $ 150 $ 150 $ 197 —

Percentile 75 $ 400 $ 350 $ 500 —




TABLE 42AOrganization’s Wellness Budget Is Sufficient to Meet the Organization’s Wellness Goals Overall CP PE ME n = 159 n = 118 n = 37 n = 4††

Strongly agree 30% 28% 30% —

Somewhat agree 47% 48% 46% —

Somewhat disagree 17% 18% 16% —

Strongly disagree 6% 6% 8% —


TABLE 43AChange in Wellness Budget Compared With Two Years Ago Overall CP PE ME n = 160 n = 118 n = 38 n = 4††

Increased significantly 15% 15% 16% —

Increased somewhat 35% 36% 26% —

Stayed the same 42% 42% 45% —

Decreased somewhat 8% 6% 13% —

Decreased significantly 1% 1% 0% —


TABLE 44AAnticipated Wellness Budget Changes for the Next Two Years Overall CP PE ME n = 155 n = 114 n = 37 n = 4††

Increase significantly 5% 4% 5% —

Increase somewhat 50% 52% 43% —

Stay the same 42% 41% 46% —

Decrease somewhat 4% 4% 5% —

Decrease significantly 0% 0% 0% —




TABLE 45AWellness-Related Expenses Funded by Other Budget Categories Overall CP PE ME n = 144 n = 104 n = 22 n = 18†

Yes 51% 52% 50% 44%

No 49% 48% 50% 56%



TABLE 46ALikelihood of Adopting Wellness Budget in the Next Two Years Overall CP PE ME n = 189 n = 134 n = 27 n = 28

Extremely likely 6% 7% 4% 0%

Somewhat likely 26% 28% 33% 11%

Somewhat unlikely 38% 39% 26% 46%

Not at all likely 21% 17% 22% 39%

A wellness budget is not necessary because wellness- related items are funded through other budget categories 8% 8% 15% 4%



cation strategies.

TABLE 47AGroups of Workers Targeted by Wellness Communication Overall CP PE ME n = 366 n = 268 n = 71 n = 27



Retirees 12% 5% 27% 41%




Other 3% 3% 3% 0%




TABLE 48AFrequency of Wellness Communication Overall CP PE ME n = 366 n = 268 n = 71 n = 27



Once a month 28% 31% 23% 19%

2-3 times a month 19% 20% 21% 4%

Weekly 9% 7% 18% 0%

Daily 1% 0% 1% 4%

As needed 14% 13% 15% 22%

Other 0% 0% 0% 0%

TABLE 49ASufficiency of Wellness Communication Overall CP PE ME

How do your organization’s workers feel about the frequency of communication about wellness-related offerings? n = 253 n = 180 n = 55 n = 18†




How do you personally feel about the frequency of communication? n = 355 n = 260 n = 69 n = 26




Does your organization target special messaging/outreach through your health care provider for specific groups (workers with prenatal visits, heart attack victims, etc.)? n = 351 n = 256 n = 68 n = 27

Yes 48% 46% 50% 59%

No 52% 53% 50% 41%





INCENTIVES

TABLE 50AUse of Wellness Incentives Overall CP PE ME n = 488 n = 365 n = 84 n = 39



Do not offer 30% 29% 20% 56%



TABLE 51AInitiatives With Attached Incentives Overall CP PE ME n = 319 n = 244 n = 61 n = 14†

Health screening 57% 57% 59% 57%

Health risk assessment/appraisal (HRA) 56% 55% 57% 71%

Fitness program/competition 47% 45% 61% 29%

Flu shot program 33% 32% 38% 36%

Weight loss/management program 27% 25% 36% 7%

Health care coach/advocate 25% 25% 26% 29%

Nutrition program 23% 22% 28% 14%

Health fair 21% 19% 26% 36%

Tobacco/smoking-cessation program 0% 0% 0% 0%

Other 15% 16% 11% 14%






TABLE 52ATypes of Incentives Offered Overall CP PE ME n = 321 n = 245 n = 61 n = 15†

Gift cards or gift certificates 45% 48% 43% 20%

Noncash incentives (prizes/raffles) 39% 37% 49% 27%

Insurance premium reductions 38% 38% 38% 27%

Cash awards 26% 27% 28% 20%

Contributions to health accounts (HSAs, HRAs or FSAs)* 19% 20% 16% 7%

Shared recognition of participant progress 12% 12% 11% 7%

Reimbursement of worker costs upon completion of outside wellness initiative 8% 7% 10% 13%

Additional time off 7% 7% 10% 0%

Charitable contributions on behalf of workers 4% 4% 2% 7%

Waivers or reductions for health plan deductibles or copayments 3% 2% 3% 20%

Other 7% 6% 5% 20%



*HSA—Health Spending Account, HRA—Health Reimbursement Arrangement, FSA—Flexible Spending Account† Due to the small number of respondents, please use caution when generalizing findings to a particular population.

TABLE 53ASuccess of Wellness Incentives Overall CP PE ME n = 320 n = 243 n = 62 n = 15†






Changing behaviors





Of organizations that offer incentives.




DATA AND METRICS

TABLE 54APercentage of Organizations That Use Data/Metrics to Guide Wellness Offerings Overall CP PE ME n = 449 n = 339 n = 78 n = 32


n = 324 n = 243 n = 61 n = 20









Other 6% 6% 8% 0%

TABLE 55APercentage of Organizations Tracking Wellness-Related Activities (Including Participation) Overall CP PE ME n = 471 n = 354 n = 80 n = 37


n = 381 n = 285 n = 69 n = 27








Other 2% 2% 4% 0%




TABLE 56AImpact of Wellness Initiatives on Measures (of Organizations Tracking for Purposes of Wellness) Overall CP PE ME

Absenteeism n = 46 n = 31 n = 12† n = 3††

Seeing positive impact 43% 39% 67% —

Seeing no impact 48% 58% 17% —

Seeing negative impact 9% 3% 17% —

Disability/workers’ compensation n = 68 n = 46 n = 12† n = 10†




Employee assistance program (EAP) usage* n = 148 n = 107 n = 27 n = 14†




Engagement/satisfaction/culture surveys* n = 108 n = 80 n = 22 n = 6†




Exit interview data n = 67 n = 51 n = 12† n = 4††




Health care costs n = 240 n = 172 n = 46 n = 22




Health risk assessment/appraisal (HRA)* n = 164 n = 117 n = 38 n = 9†




Health screening* n = 195 n = 142 n = 42 n = 11†







TABLE 56AImpact of Wellness Initiatives on Measures (of Organizations Tracking for Purposes of Wellness) (continued from previous page) Overall CP PE ME

Number of workers pursuing internal advancement and development opportunities n = 67 n = 49 n = 10† n = 8†




Overall organization financials/sustainability and growth n = 85 n = 59 n = 15† n = 11†




Prevalence of diseases n = 175 n = 124 n = 39 n = 12†




Productivity n = 65 n = 48 n = 11† n = 6†




Recruitment/job referral rates n = 63 n = 48 n = 10† n = 5†




Retirement plan participation, contribution and/or withdrawal rates n = 93 n = 72 n = 12† n = 9†




Turnover n = 68 n = 54 n = 8† n = 6†











TABLE 57AOrganizations Measuring ROI and/or VOI of Wellness Initiatives Overall CP PE ME n = 413 n = 313 n = 69 n = 31




Not sure 19% 17% 22% 26%

TABLE 58ADirection of ROI Overall CP PE ME n = 59 n = 44 n = 12† n = 3††

Positive 58% 52% 83% —

Neutral 42% 48% 17% —





TABLE 59ADirection of VOI Overall CP PE ME n = 32 n = 18† n = 12† n = 2††

Positive 75% 72% 83% —

Neutral 25% 28% 17% —


Of organizations that track VOI.





TABLE 60AWho Measures the VOI of Wellness Initiatives Overall CP PE ME n = 35 n = 20 n = 12† n = 3††


Actuary 9% 5% 17% —


Other source 6% 5% 8% —

Of organizations that track VOI.



TABLE 61AWho Measures the ROI of Wellness Initiatives Overall CP PE ME n = 67 n = 51 n = 13† n = 3††


Actuary 16% 6% 46% —


Other 1% 2% 0% —





TABLE 62ALeadership Support of Wellness Programs Overall CP PE ME n = 506 n = 377 n = 88 n = 41






Other 7% 7% 9% 5%





TABLE 63ABarriers to Implementing Wellness Overall CP PE ME n = 503 n = 375 n = 87 n = 41























Other 1% 1% 2% 5%

No barriers 6% 6% 5% 5%




DEMOGRAPHICS

TABLE 64AOrganization Location Overall CP PE ME n = 514 n = 382 n = 88 n = 44

Midwest 31% 35% 18% 23%

Northeast 27% 29% 15% 36%

South 23% 22% 30% 18%

West 19% 15% 38% 23%

Multiple states <1% <1% 0% 0%

TABLE 65ANumber of Employees Overall CP PE ME n = 514 n = 382 n = 88 n = 44

50 or fewer 9% 10% 5% 11%

51-99 4% 4% 5% 0%

100-999 34% 34% 31% 39%

1,000-4,999 32% 31% 39% 25%

5,000-9,999 9% 9% 11% 7%

10,000 or more 12% 11% 10% 18%

TABLE 66AOrganization Sector Public n = 514 Corporate Employer Multiemployer

74% 17% 9%



TABLE 67APrimary Industry Overall CP ME n = 426 n = 382 n = 44






Education 4% 4% 2%





Nonprofit 8% 8% 7%




Other 11% 12% 2%

TABLE 68APrimary Jurisdiction PE n = 88


County/district 24%

State 20%

Federal 1%


Other 17%



Appendix D: Canada

WELLNESS OFFERINGS

TABLE 1BOrganizations Offering Wellness to Workers Public Overall Corporate Employer Multiemployer n = 87 n = 57 n = 16† n = 14†



No 17% 23% 0% 14%


TABLE 2BPrimary Reason for Offering Wellness Initiatives Overall CP PE ME n = 95 n = 60 n = 19† n = 16†


To control/reduce health-related costs 18% 15% 21% 25%


TABLE 3BNumber of Years Offering Wellness Initiatives Overall CP PE ME n = 74 n = 49 n = 14† n = 11†


1-2 years 11% 14% 0% 9%

3-4 years 23% 24% 14% 27%

5-9 years 20% 24% 14% 9%

10-14 years 22% 20% 21% 27%

15-19 years 12% 12% 21% 0%

20 or more years 9% 2% 29% 18%


Excludes respondents who are “not sure.”



Appendix D: Canada

TABLE 4BPlan to Implement Wellness Program Within Next Two Years Overall CP PE ME n = 51 n = 34 n = 9† n = 8†

Yes 27% 24% 44% 25%

No 31% 35% 11% 38%

Not sure 41% 41% 44% 38%



TABLE 5BConditions in Worker Population That Have the Most Impact on Overall Health Care Costs Overall CP PE ME n = 73 n = 43 n = 15† n = 15†



Diabetes 34% 30% 33% 47%


Cancer (any kind) 23% 16% 47% 20%


Obesity 10% 14% 0% 7%





Asthma 3% 5% 0% 0%




Not sure 24% 30% 21% 6%

Other 4% 5% 7% 0%




Appendix D: Canada

TABLE 6BLargest Increase in Health Care Cost Over Past Five Years Overall CP PE ME n = 69 n = 41 n = 16† n = 12†



Diabetes 9% 12% 0% 8%



Cancer (any kind) 3% 5% 0% 0%



Obesity 3% 5% 0% 0%




Asthma 0% 0% 0% 0%



Other 1% 2% 0% 0%




Appendix D: Canada

TABLE 7BIssues Negatively Impacting Worker Productivity Overall CP PE ME n = 83 n = 52 n = 16† n = 15†

Stress 76% 77% 81% 67%

Morale 31% 29% 44% 27%










Other 4% 4% 6% 0%




Appendix D: Canada


TABLE 8BFitness/Nutrition Initiatives Offered Overall CP PE ME n = 93 n = 59 n = 18† n = 16†



Massages 46% 51% 22% 56%

















Nap room 9% 8% 11% 6%





Appendix D: Canada

TABLE 9BFitness/Nutrition Initiative Participation Overall CP PE ME n = 79 n = 49 n = 15† n = 15†


n = 68 n = 43 n = 11† n = 14†


None 1% 2% 0% 0%

1-10% 22% 21% 27% 21%

11-20% 21% 16% 27% 29%

21-30% 12% 9% 18% 14%

31-40% 9% 12% 0% 7%

41-50% 10% 9% 9% 14%

51-60% 3% 2% 0% 7%

61-70% 9% 12% 0% 7%

71-80% 7% 9% 9% 0%

81-90% 3% 5% 0% 0%

91-100% 3% 2% 9% 0%




Appendix D: Canada

TABLE 10BEffectiveness of Fitness and Nutrition Initiatives on Worker Behavior Overall CP PE ME n = 78 n = 49 n = 15† n = 14†

Track effectiveness of fitness/nutrition initiatives on increasing physical activity 79% 82% 80% 71%

n = 62 n = 40 n = 12† n = 10†




n = 73 n = 45 n = 14† n = 14†

Track effectiveness of fitness/nutrition initiatives on improved healthy eating 74% 80% 71% 57%

n = 54 n = 36 n = 10† n = 8†




Of organizations tracking participation.


TABLE 11BFuture Emphasis for Physical Fitness Wellness Program Over Next Two Years Total CP PE ME n = 69 n = 43 n = 12† n = 14†




Of organizations that currently offer one or more fitness and nutrition programs.† Due to the small number of respondents, please use caution when generalizing findings to a particular population.

Note: Table 12B was omitted due to insufficient data.


Appendix D: Canada


TABLE 13BHealth Screening and Flu Shot Offerings Total CP PE ME n = 93 n = 58 n = 19† n = 16†







TABLE 14BHealth Screening and Flu Shot Participation Overall CP PE ME n = 52 n = 32 n = 11† n = 9†


n = 44 n = 28 n = 8† n = 8†


None 9% 7% 13% 13%

1-10% 20% 18% 38% 13%

11-20% 16% 14% 13% 25%

21-30% 9% 7% 13% 13%

31-40% 11% 11% 0% 25%

41-50% 7% 11% 0% 0%

51-60% 11% 14% 0% 13%

61-70% 9% 11% 13% 0%

71-80% 5% 4% 13% 0%

81-90% 0% 0% 0% 0%

91-100% 2% 4% 0% 0%




Appendix D: Canada

TABLE 15BFuture Emphasis for Health Screening and Flu Shot Offerings Over Next Two Years Total CP PE ME n = 42 n = 25 n = 7† n = 10†




Of organizations that currently offer one or more health screenings and/or flu shot offerings.† Due to the small number of respondents, please use caution when generalizing findings to a particular population.

TABLE 16BPlan to Add Health Screening and Flu Shot Offerings Within Next Two Years Total CP PE ME n = 27 n = 19† n = 4†† n = 4††

Yes 7% 11% — —

No 48% 37% — —

Not sure 44% 53% — —

Of organizations that do not currently offer one or more health screenings and/or flu shot offerings. † Due to the small number of respondents, please use caution when generalizing findings to a particular population.


TOBACCO/SMOKING-CESSATION WELLNESS INITIATIVES

TABLE 17BOrganizations That Offer Tobacco/Smoking-Cessation Programs Total CP PE ME n = 80 n = 52 n = 16† n = 12†

Provide tobacco/smoking-cessation programs 60% 58% 63% 67%



Appendix D: Canada

TABLE 18BTobacco/Smoking-Cessation Program Participation Total CP PE ME n = 36 n = 23 n = 6† n = 7†


n = 18† n = 11† n = 3†† n = 4††

Average participation rates* 6% 5% — —

None 22% 36% — —

1-10% 67% 55% — —

11-20% 0% 0% — —

21-30% 11% 9% — —

31-40% 0% 0% — —

41-50% 0% 0% — —

51-60% 0% 0% — —

61-70% 0% 0% — —

71-80% 0% 0% — —

81-90% 0% 0% — —

91-100% 0% 0% — —




TABLE 19BEffectiveness of Tobacco/Smoking-Cessation Initiatives at Reducing Tobacco Use Total CP PE ME n = 34 n = 21 n = 8† n = 5†


n = 19† n = 10† n = 5† n = 4††

Very effective 21% 10% 60% —

Somewhat effective 47% 40% 20% —

Not effective 32% 50% 20% —

Of organizations that currently offer and track effectiveness of tobacco/smoking-cessation programs. Effectiveness reflects workers who enroll in the program.




Appendix D: Canada

TABLE 20BPlan to Add Tobacco/Smoking-Cessation Wellness Offerings Within Next Two Years Total CP PE ME n = 32 n = 22 n = 6† n = 4††

Yes 6% 5% 17% —

No 53% 55% 50% —

Not sure 41% 41% 33% —

Of organizations that do not currently offer tobacco/smoking-cessation initiatives.




TABLE 21BSmoking Policy for Workplace Overall CP PE ME n = 96 n = 61 n = 19† n = 16†







TABLE 22BFormal Vaping Policy Overall CP PE ME n = 96 n = 61 n = 19† n = 16†

Yes 44% 41% 63% 31%

No 29% 34% 11% 31%

Not sure 27% 25% 26% 38%



Appendix D: Canada


TABLE 23BSocial/Community Wellness Initiatives Offered Total CP PE ME n = 92 n = 59 n = 17† n = 16†









Blood drives 29% 25% 47% 25%









Appendix D: Canada

TABLE 24BSocial and Community Wellness Initiative Participation Overall CP PE ME n = 81 n = 53 n = 14† n = 14†


n = 69 n = 47 n = 11† n = 11†


None 0% 0% 0% 0%

1-10% 7% 6% 0% 18%

11-20% 14% 6% 55% 9%

21-30% 6% 6% 9% 0%

31-40% 9% 9% 18% 0%

41-50% 10% 9% 0% 27%

51-60% 6% 4% 18% 0%

61-70% 10% 11% 0% 18%

71-80% 14% 17% 0% 18%

81-90% 9% 13% 0% 0%

91-100% 14% 19% 0% 9%



TABLE 25BFuture Emphasis for Social/Community Wellness Program Over Next Two Years Total CP PE ME n = 68 n = 44 n = 11† n = 13†








Appendix D: Canada


TABLE 27BMental/Behavioral Health Wellness Initiatives Offered Total CP PE ME n = 91 n = 57 n = 18† n = 16†

Provide one or more mental/ behavioral health initiatives 96% 93% 100% 100%
















Appendix D: Canada

TABLE 28BMental/Behavioral Health Participation Overall CP PE ME n = 72 n = 43 n = 16† n = 13†


n = 53 n = 31 n = 11† n = 11†


None 0% 0% 0% 0%

1-10% 38% 32% 45% 45%

11-20% 19% 16% 27% 18%

21-30% 8% 3% 18% 9%

31-40% 15% 16% 9% 18%

41-50% 6% 10% 0% 0%

51-60% 6% 10% 0% 0%

61-70% 0% 0% 0% 0%

71-80% 0% 0% 0% 0%

81-90% 4% 3% 0% 9%

91-100% 6% 10% 0% 0%




Appendix D: Canada

TABLE 29BEffectiveness of Mental/Behavioral Health Wellness Initiatives at Reducing Work-Related Stress Levels Total CP PE ME n = 73 n = 44 n = 16† n = 13†

Track effectiveness 75% 70% 75% 92% n = 55 n = 31 n = 12† n = 12†






TABLE 30BFuture Emphasis for Mental/Behavioral Health Wellness Program Over Next Two Years Total CP PE ME n = 67 n = 39 n = 16† n = 12†








Appendix D: Canada


TABLE 32BProfessional Growth Initiatives Offered Total CP PE ME n = 91 n = 58 n = 18† n = 15†



























Appendix D: Canada

TABLE 33BProfessional Growth Wellness Initiative Participation Overall CP PE ME n = 77 n = 48 n = 17† n = 12†


n = 61 n = 38 n = 12† n = 11†


None 2% 3% 0% 0%

1-10% 16% 13% 25% 18%

11-20% 7% 5% 17% 0%

21-30% 16% 5% 42% 27%

31-40% 5% 3% 0% 18%

41-50% 16% 18% 8% 18%

51-60% 8% 11% 0% 9%

61-70% 8% 11% 8% 0%

71-80% 10% 13% 0% 9%

81-90% 8% 13% 0% 0%

91-100% 3% 5% 0% 0%



TABLE 34BFuture Emphasis for Professional Growth Wellness Program Over Next Two Years Total CP PE ME n = 74 n = 46 n = 15† n = 13†








Appendix D: Canada


TABLE 36BInternal Stakeholders Working With Wellness Program Overall CP PE ME n = 88 n = 56 n = 18† n = 14†








Other 5% 4% 6% 7%




TABLE 37BExternal Stakeholders Working With Wellness Program Overall CP PE ME n = 77 n = 48 n = 17† n = 12†








Other 5% 4% 12% 0%




Appendix D: Canada


TABLE 38BThe Majority of Workers . . . Overall CP PE ME n = 96 n = 61 n = 19† n = 16†

Location of Workforce




Work at the same location year round 88% 95% 79% 69%



Sedentary 70% 85% 53% 31%

Active 30% 15% 47% 69%




TABLE 39BWorkforce Environment Overall CP PE ME n = 96 n = 61 n = 19† n = 16†

Culture/environment
















Appendix D: Canada

TABLE 39BWorkforce Environment Overall CP PE ME
















Stress levels





Mental health







Appendix D: Canada

BUDGET

TABLE 40BHave Budget Specific to Wellness Overall CP PE ME n = 63 n = 42 n = 12† n = 9†

Yes 68% 67% 75% 67%

No 32% 33% 25% 33%



TABLE 41BAverage Amount Budgeted for Wellness per Participant per Year Overall CP PE ME n = 18† n = 9† n = 4†† n = 5†

Mean $ 384 $ 652 — $ 145

Percentile 25 $ 25 $ 33 — $ 13

Median $ 123 $ 500 — $ 15

Percentile 75 $ 500 $ 650 — $ 145



TABLE 42BOrganization’s Wellness Budget Is Sufficient to Meet the Organization’s Wellness Goals Overall CP PE ME n = 18† n = 9† n = 4†† n = 5†

Strongly agree 11% 22% — 0%

Somewhat agree 44% 33% — 60%

Somewhat disagree 33% 33% — 40%

Strongly disagree 11% 11% — 0%




Appendix D: Canada

TABLE 43BChange in Wellness Budget Compared With Two Years Ago Overall CP PE ME n = 18† n = 9† n = 4†† n = 5†

Increased significantly 28% 33% — 40%

Increased somewhat 28% 22% — 40%

Stayed the same 44% 44% — 20%

Decreased somewhat 0% 0% — 0%

Decreased significantly 0% 0% — 0%



TABLE 44BAnticipated Wellness Budget Change for the Next Two Years Overall CP PE ME n = 17† n = 8† n = 4†† n = 5†

Increase significantly 6% 13% — 0%

Increase somewhat 59% 50% — 80%

Stay the same 35% 38% — 20%

Decrease somewhat 0% 0% — 0%

Decrease significantly 0% 0% — 0%



TABLE 45BWellness-Related Expenses Funded by Other Budget Categories Overall CP PE ME n = 9† n = 7† n = 0 n = 2††

Yes 44% 43% — —

No 56% 57% — —





Appendix D: Canada

TABLE 46BLikelihood of Adopting Wellness Budget in the Next Two Years Overall CP PE ME n = 20 n = 14† n = 3†† n = 3††

Extremely likely 0% 0% — —

Somewhat likely 40% 36% — —

Somewhat unlikely 35% 36% — —

Not at all likely 25% 29% — —

A wellness budget is not necessary because wellness-related items are funded through other budget categories 0% 0% — —





cation strategies.

TABLE 47BGroups of Workers Targeted by Wellness Communication Overall CP PE ME n = 44 n = 31 n = 6† n = 7†



Retirees 0% 0% 0% 0%




Other 2% 0% 0% 14%




Appendix D: Canada

TABLE 48BFrequency of Wellness Communication Overall CP PE ME n = 44 n = 31 n = 6† n = 7†



Once a month 30% 35% 33% 0%

2-3 times a month 11% 13% 17% 0%

Weekly 2% 0% 0% 14%

Daily 0% 0% 0% 0%

As needed 20% 16% 33% 29%

Other 7% 6% 0% 14%


TABLE 49BSufficiency of Wellness Communication Overall CP PE ME

How do your organization’s workers feel about the frequency of communication about wellness-related offerings? n = 27 n = 19† n = 4†† n = 4††

Too much communication 0% 0% — —

The right amount of communication 74% 79% — —

Too little communication 26% 21% — —

How do you personally feel about the frequency of communication? n = 42 n = 30 n = 6† n = 6†




Does your organization target special messaging/outreach through your health care provider for specific groups (workers with prenatal visits, heart attack victims, etc.)? n = 39 n = 27 n = 6† n = 6†

Yes 15% 15% 33% 0%

No 85% 85% 67% 100%





Appendix D: Canada

INCENTIVES

TABLE 50BUse of Wellness Incentives Overall CP PE ME n = 86 n = 55 n = 17† n = 14†



Do not offer 71% 67% 82% 71%

Respondents were asked about select all that apply.



TABLE 51BInitiatives With Attached Incentives Overall CP PE ME n = 17† n = 11† n = 2†† n = 4††

Health risk assessment/appraisal (HRA) 41% 45% — —

Fitness program/competition 35% 36% — —

Flu shot program 24% 18% — —

Nutrition program 18% 18% — —

Health fair 12% 9% — —

Weight loss/management program 12% 18% — —

Health screening 12% 18% — —

Health care coach/advocate 0% 0% — —

Smoking-cessation program 0% 0% — —

Other 6% 0% — —

None of the above 18% 18% — —





Appendix D: Canada

TABLE 52BTypes of Incentives Offered Overall CP PE ME n = 16† n = 10† n = 2†† n = 4††

Gift cards or gift certificates 63% 70% — —

Noncash incentives (prizes/raffles) 56% 70% — —

Contributions to health accounts (HCSAs)* 31% 30% — —

Shared recognition of participant progress 25% 30% — —

Cash awards 19% 30% — —

Additional time off 13% 10% — —

Charitable contributions on behalf of workers 13% 10% — —

Insurance premium reductions 6% 10% — —

Reimbursement of worker costs upon completion of outside wellness initiative 6% 10% — —

Waivers or reductions for health plan deductibles or copayments 0% 0% — —

Other 0% 0% — —

None of the above 6% 10% — —

Respondents were asked to select all that apply.*HCSA—Health Care Spending Account † Due to the small number of respondents, please use caution when generalizing findings to a particular population.†† Insufficient data to report for this item.

TABLE 53BSuccess of Wellness Incentives Overall CP PE ME n = 15† n = 11† n = 2†† n = 2††


Very successful 33% 36% — —

Somewhat successful 60% 55% — —

Somewhat unsuccessful 0% 0% — —

Very unsuccessful 7% 9% — —

Changing behaviors

Very successful 0% 0% — —

Somewhat successful 80% 73% — —

Somewhat unsuccessful 13% 18% — —

Very unsuccessful 7% 9% — —

Of organizations that offer incentives. † Due to the small number of respondents, please use caution when generalizing findings to a particular population.†† Insufficient data to report for this item.


Appendix D: Canada

DATA AND METRICS

TABLE 54BPercentage of Organizations That Use Data/Metrics to Guide Wellness Offerings Overall CP PE ME n = 71 n = 47 n = 14† n = 10†


n = 50 n = 28 n = 13† n = 9†









Other 6% 4% 8% 11%


TABLE 55BPercentage of Organizations Tracking Wellness-Related Activities (Including Participation) Overall CP PE ME n = 76 n = 51 n = 14† n = 11†


n = 51 n = 32 n = 9† n = 10†








Other 0% 0% 0% 0%




Appendix D: Canada

TABLE 56BImpact of Wellness Initiatives on Measures (of Organizations Tracking for Purposes of Wellness) Overall CP PE ME

Absenteeism n = 13† n = 5† n = 4†† n = 4††

Seeing positive impact 38% 60% — —

Seeing no impact 54% 40% — —

Seeing negative impact 8% 0% — —

Disability/workers’ compensation n = 19† n = 9† n = 6† n = 4††




Employee assistance program (EAP) usage* n = 24 n = 11† n = 7† n = 6†




Engagement/satisfaction/culture surveys* n = 14† n = 8† n = 3†† n = 3††




Exit interview data n = 10† n = 7† n = 1†† n = 2††




Health care costs n = 21 n = 13† n = 4†† n = 4††




Health risk assessment/appraisal (HRA)* n = 10† n = 6† n = 2†† n = 2††




Health screening* n = 5† n = 2†† n = 2†† n = 1††

Seeing positive impact 60% — — —

Seeing no impact 40% — — —

Seeing negative impact 0% — — —



Appendix D: Canada

TABLE 56BImpact of Wellness Initiatives on Measures (of Organizations Tracking for Purposes of Wellness) (continued from previous page) Overall CP PE ME

Number of workers pursuing internal advancement and development opportunities n = 10† n = 6† n = 1†† n = 3††




Overall organization financials/ sustainability and growth n = 11† n = 6† n = 2†† n = 3††




Prevalence of diseases n = 14† n = 5† n = 5† n = 4††




Productivity n = 10† n = 6† n = 1†† n = 3††




Recruitment/job referral rates n = 8† n = 5† n = 1†† n = 2††




Retirement plan participation, contribution and/or withdrawal rates n = 9† n = 5† n = 2†† n = 2††




Turnover n = 12† n = 6† n = 3†† n = 3††









Appendix D: Canada


TABLE 57BOrganizations Measuring ROI and/or VOI of Wellness Initiatives Overall CP PE ME n = 60 n = 41 n = 11† n = 8†




Not sure 37% 32% 42% 50%


Note: Tables 58B-60B were omitted due to insufficient data.

TABLE 61BWho Measures the ROI of Wellness Initiatives Overall CP PE ME n = 6† n = 4†† n = 1†† n = 1††

Wellness vendor, provider or consultant 33% — — —

Actuary 17% — — —

Internal staff 83% — — —

Other 0% — — —




Appendix D: Canada


TABLE 62BLeadership Support of Wellness Programs Overall CP PE ME n = 95 n = 60 n = 19† n = 16†






Other 6% 5% 5% 13%




Appendix D: Canada


TABLE 63BBarriers to Implementing Wellness Total CP PE ME n = 95 n = 60 n = 19† n = 16†























Other 5% 8% 0% 0%





Appendix D: Canada

DEMOGRAPHICS

TABLE 64BOrganization Location Overall CP PE ME n = 96 n = 61 n = 19† n = 16†

Alberta 16% 15% 16% 19%

British Columbia 19% 13% 26% 31%

Manitoba 9% 10% 11% 6%

New Brunswick 1% 0% 5% 0%

Newfoundland and Labrador 0% 0% 0% 0%

Nova Scotia 6% 5% 11% 6%

Ontario 36% 44% 16% 31%

Prince Edward Island 0% 0% 0% 0%

Quebec 4% 5% 5% 0%

Saskatchewan 8% 8% 11% 6%


TABLE 65BNumber of Employees Overall CP PE ME n = 96 n = 61 n = 19† n = 16†

50 or fewer 20% 31% 0% 0%

51-99 5% 7% 0% 6%

100-999 35% 34% 26% 50%

1,000-4,999 18% 15% 26% 19%

5,000-9,999 9% 10% 11% 6%

10,000 or more 13% 3% 37% 19%


TABLE 66BOrganization Sector Public n = 96 Corporate Employer Multiemployer

64% 20% 17%


Appendix D: Canada

TABLE 67BPrimary Industry Overall CP ME n = 77 n = 61 n = 16†






Education 6% 2% 25%





Nonprofit 5% 7% 0%




Other 8% 8% 6%


TABLE 68BPrimary Jurisdiction PE n = 19†


County/district 5%

Province 32%

Federal 0%


Other 16%


Date post:	10-Jun-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	1 times
Download:	0 times

Workplace Wellness Trends: 2019 Survey Report · Workplace Wellness Trends | 2019 Survey Report |3...

Documents