September 2013 - Announce - mailman3.cels.anl.gov

Re: [MCS Staff] wellness
by Todd Munson 30 Sep '13

30 Sep '13

> 1) Next year, a two-tier system will be implemented. The current numbers+HRA system will continue to be an annual requirement to maintain the reduced rate. Additionally, success in reaching a target value for a yet-to-be-decided health metric (or taking some action if target is not met) will be used to evaluate eligibility for an even lower rate. If I reduce one of my metrics (blood pressure), I could end up in the morgue. The doctors are talking about increasing it because its too low (their current advice -- eat lots of salt). Meanwhile, after having lost a lot of weight, my cholesterol has done nothing but sky rocket and just looking at the raw numbers one would say its way too high. However, its perfectly reasonable given my fitness level. "Health" cannot be boiled down to a number that makes sense for everyone; its highly individual and depends on a lot of factors. Argonne's formula may want me to reduce metrics to an unhealthy level in order for me to be eligible for the even lower rate. Moreover, the role of genetics in some of these numbers cannot be ignored and there are people who will not respond to medications to reduce blood pressure or cholesterol. I'm not sure Argonne should be wading into these waters -- I have a feeling this would result in discrimination lawsuits. Health should be between the employee and their doctor. Argonne's involvement should be restricted to something like encouraging employees and their dependents to see the doctor once a year for a wellness check. Todd. > 2) Argonne has a tobacco cessation program. No success rate was discussed. > > 3) The two leading costs are cardiological and musculoskeletal visits. A Physiotherapy clinic has been opened to address the costs emanating from the second category. > > Krishna > > On Sep 30, 2013, at 4:12 PM, Todd Munson wrote: > >> >> I don't think there is a dispute on the science. The question is, will any realized reductions >> in health care costs result in a reduction in the overhead we pay? Or will management simply >> take health care savings to pay for something else? >> >> Next, what will the lab require in subsequent years to keep the reduced rates? We already need >> to have validated numbers. When are we going to have to do the same for our dependents? Is >> there a plan for people to demonstrate improvements in their vital statistics? Argonne >> blindly mandating we reduce cholesterol levels or blood pressure to obtain the reduced >> rates is not reasonable. >> >> Is there anecdotal evidence the program is working? Has anyone has taken the validated >> results and implemented changes or gone to see their doctor? The program seems to be >> about informing people on potential health problems. Why don't go back to requiring >> physicals at regular intervals? Was that not effective at reducing health care >> costs? >> >> Regarding the program itself, are we even targeting the right costs? I have heard that >> we pay a lot for visits to cardiologists. Does Argonne know why? Its not all related >> to obesity and hypertension (which is what the vitals are targeting). According to >> webmd, "almost 20% of all deaths from heart disease in the U.S. are directly related >> to cigarette smoking". Is Argonne targeting this cause? >> >> On health and wellness, if Argonne mandates we reduce our weight and become healthier, >> why do the cafeteria and vending machines serve unhealthy foods? >> >> I would note that one reading of vital statistics is an inaccurate indicator of health, >> particularly blood pressure. A single bad result may indicate something is going on, >> but a single good results does not imply you are fine. In my opinion, its just a >> matter of time before a costly lawsuit ensues because Argonne says someone is >> fine, when they are not. >> >> Todd. >> >> On Sep 30, 2013, at 3:12 PM, Marc Snir <snir(a)mcs.anl.gov> wrote: >> >>> Health costs affect our lab overhead. If you think that lower overheads mean more research then, yes, money saved by lowering the payments of the lab toward health insurance will go to support research. >>> >>> As for the claim that obesity or bad nutrition or many other unhealthy habits lead to higher medical expenses -- I think there is good scientific evidence. They also lead to more sick days, which lower productivity. >>> Marc Snir >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Sep 30, 2013, at 1:31 PM, Robert Olson <olson(a)mcs.anl.gov> wrote: >>> >>>> The labcast makes this assertion: >>>> >>>>> The goal of this program is to promote a culture of awareness and wellness among the laboratory’s employees. A healthier work population will result in higher productivity and lower overall health care costs. If the laboratory can reduce the amount it spends on health care costs — close to $40 million this year — more money will be available for research and supporting the lab’s mission. >>>> >>>> Is anyone familiar with the research backing up this assertion? And would money not spent on health really be turned back into the science mission of the lab? >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Subscription to this list is automatic based on your appointment in the MCS division. >>> >>> >>> >>> [Sent to announce(a)mcs.anl.gov.] >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Subscription to this list is automatic based on your appointment in the MCS division. >> >> >> >> [Sent to announce(a)mcs.anl.gov.] >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Subscription to this list is automatic based on your appointment in the MCS division. >

1 0

Re: [MCS Staff] wellness
by Dan Olson 30 Sep '13

30 Sep '13

Since we're having this open discussion: How do we know this data won't be used by our health plan vendors for underwriting if we ever wind up in the individual market? Personally, I would be less concerned with providing this data if our HIPAA policy was more limited. ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Robert Olson" <olson(a)mcs.anl.gov> > To: "Craig Stacey" <stace(a)mcs.anl.gov> > Cc: mcs(a)mcs.anl.gov > Sent: Monday, September 30, 2013 4:56:48 PM > Subject: Re: [MCS Staff] wellness > > > They want the numbers, not an assertion of wellness care being > covered. I don't see any reason for anyone but my physician to have > that data. > > > > On Sep 30, 2013, at 4:55 PM, Craig Stacey wrote: > > > > I thought they specifically allowed for your physician to do that. > > > > > You can get those numbers by signing up for a free screening in the > Building 201 Medical Clinic or by having your personal health care > provider fill out this form . > > > -- > Craig > > > On Sep 30, 2013, at 4:36 PM, Robert Olson < olson(a)mcs.anl.gov > > wrote: > > > It seems it would be an overall cost savings to allow employees to > have their physician send a letter saying "This employee is under my > care. No employer wellness costs need be spent here". > > That's about as far as I think an employer needs to go with this. I > don't need to have a repeat of my discussions with my physician done > here at the lab, paid for by the taxpayer or by a fine from my > monthly paycheck. > > On Sep 30, 2013, at 4:27 PM, Sri Hari Krishna Narayanan wrote: > > > > A few of the points Todd has raised were touched upon at the Town > Hall meeting: > > 1) Next year, a two-tier system will be implemented. The current > numbers+HRA system will continue to be an annual requirement to > maintain the reduced rate. Additionally, success in reaching a > target value for a yet-to-be-decided health metric (or taking some > action if target is not met) will be used to evaluate eligibility > for an even lower rate. > > 2) Argonne has a tobacco cessation program. No success rate was > discussed. > > 3) The two leading costs are cardiological and musculoskeletal > visits. A Physiotherapy clinic has been opened to address the costs > emanating from the second category. > > Krishna > > On Sep 30, 2013, at 4:12 PM, Todd Munson wrote: > > > > > I don't think there is a dispute on the science. The question is, > will any realized reductions > in health care costs result in a reduction in the overhead we pay? Or > will management simply > take health care savings to pay for something else? > > Next, what will the lab require in subsequent years to keep the > reduced rates? We already need > to have validated numbers. When are we going to have to do the same > for our dependents? Is > there a plan for people to demonstrate improvements in their vital > statistics? Argonne > blindly mandating we reduce cholesterol levels or blood pressure to > obtain the reduced > rates is not reasonable. > > Is there anecdotal evidence the program is working? Has anyone has > taken the validated > results and implemented changes or gone to see their doctor? The > program seems to be > about informing people on potential health problems. Why don't go > back to requiring > physicals at regular intervals? Was that not effective at reducing > health care > costs? > > Regarding the program itself, are we even targeting the right costs? > I have heard that > we pay a lot for visits to cardiologists. Does Argonne know why? Its > not all related > to obesity and hypertension (which is what the vitals are targeting). > According to > webmd, "almost 20% of all deaths from heart disease in the U.S. are > directly related > to cigarette smoking". Is Argonne targeting this cause? > > On health and wellness, if Argonne mandates we reduce our weight and > become healthier, > why do the cafeteria and vending machines serve unhealthy foods? > > I would note that one reading of vital statistics is an inaccurate > indicator of health, > particularly blood pressure. A single bad result may indicate > something is going on, > but a single good results does not imply you are fine. In my opinion, > its just a > matter of time before a costly lawsuit ensues because Argonne says > someone is > fine, when they are not. > > Todd. > > On Sep 30, 2013, at 3:12 PM, Marc Snir < snir(a)mcs.anl.gov > wrote: > > > > Health costs affect our lab overhead. If you think that lower > overheads mean more research then, yes, money saved by lowering the > payments of the lab toward health insurance will go to support > research. > > As for the claim that obesity or bad nutrition or many other > unhealthy habits lead to higher medical expenses -- I think there is > good scientific evidence. They also lead to more sick days, which > lower productivity. > Marc Snir > > > > > > On Sep 30, 2013, at 1:31 PM, Robert Olson < olson(a)mcs.anl.gov > > wrote: > > > > The labcast makes this assertion: > > > > The goal of this program is to promote a culture of awareness and > wellness among the laboratory’s employees. A healthier work > population will result in higher productivity and lower overall > health care costs. If the laboratory can reduce the amount it spends > on health care costs — close to $40 million this year — more money > will be available for research and supporting the lab’s mission. > > Is anyone familiar with the research backing up this assertion? And > would money not spent on health really be turned back into the > science mission of the lab? > > _______________________________________________ > Subscription to this list is automatic based on your appointment in > the MCS division. > > > > [Sent to announce(a)mcs.anl.gov .] > > _______________________________________________ > Subscription to this list is automatic based on your appointment in > the MCS division. > > > > [Sent to announce(a)mcs.anl.gov .] > > _______________________________________________ > Subscription to this list is automatic based on your appointment in > the MCS division. > > > > [Sent to announce(a)mcs.anl.gov .] > > _______________________________________________ > Subscription to this list is automatic based on your appointment in > the MCS division. > > > > [Sent to announce(a)mcs.anl.gov .] > > _______________________________________________ > Subscription to this list is automatic based on your appointment in > the MCS division. > > > > > > [Sent to announce(a)mcs.anl.gov.] > > > _______________________________________________ > Subscription to this list is automatic based on your appointment in > the MCS division.

1 0

Re: [MCS Staff] wellness
by Robert Olson 30 Sep '13

30 Sep '13

They want the numbers, not an assertion of wellness care being covered. I don't see any reason for anyone but my physician to have that data. On Sep 30, 2013, at 4:55 PM, Craig Stacey wrote: > I thought they specifically allowed for your physician to do that. > >> You can get those numbers by signing up for a free screening in the Building 201 Medical Clinic or by having your personal health care provider fill out this form. > > -- > Craig > > On Sep 30, 2013, at 4:36 PM, Robert Olson <olson(a)mcs.anl.gov> wrote: > >> It seems it would be an overall cost savings to allow employees to have their physician send a letter saying "This employee is under my care. No employer wellness costs need be spent here". >> >> That's about as far as I think an employer needs to go with this. I don't need to have a repeat of my discussions with my physician done here at the lab, paid for by the taxpayer or by a fine from my monthly paycheck. >> >> On Sep 30, 2013, at 4:27 PM, Sri Hari Krishna Narayanan wrote: >> >>> A few of the points Todd has raised were touched upon at the Town Hall meeting: >>> >>> 1) Next year, a two-tier system will be implemented. The current numbers+HRA system will continue to be an annual requirement to maintain the reduced rate. Additionally, success in reaching a target value for a yet-to-be-decided health metric (or taking some action if target is not met) will be used to evaluate eligibility for an even lower rate. >>> >>> 2) Argonne has a tobacco cessation program. No success rate was discussed. >>> >>> 3) The two leading costs are cardiological and musculoskeletal visits. A Physiotherapy clinic has been opened to address the costs emanating from the second category. >>> >>> Krishna >>> >>> On Sep 30, 2013, at 4:12 PM, Todd Munson wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> I don't think there is a dispute on the science. The question is, will any realized reductions >>>> in health care costs result in a reduction in the overhead we pay? Or will management simply >>>> take health care savings to pay for something else? >>>> >>>> Next, what will the lab require in subsequent years to keep the reduced rates? We already need >>>> to have validated numbers. When are we going to have to do the same for our dependents? Is >>>> there a plan for people to demonstrate improvements in their vital statistics? Argonne >>>> blindly mandating we reduce cholesterol levels or blood pressure to obtain the reduced >>>> rates is not reasonable. >>>> >>>> Is there anecdotal evidence the program is working? Has anyone has taken the validated >>>> results and implemented changes or gone to see their doctor? The program seems to be >>>> about informing people on potential health problems. Why don't go back to requiring >>>> physicals at regular intervals? Was that not effective at reducing health care >>>> costs? >>>> >>>> Regarding the program itself, are we even targeting the right costs? I have heard that >>>> we pay a lot for visits to cardiologists. Does Argonne know why? Its not all related >>>> to obesity and hypertension (which is what the vitals are targeting). According to >>>> webmd, "almost 20% of all deaths from heart disease in the U.S. are directly related >>>> to cigarette smoking". Is Argonne targeting this cause? >>>> >>>> On health and wellness, if Argonne mandates we reduce our weight and become healthier, >>>> why do the cafeteria and vending machines serve unhealthy foods? >>>> >>>> I would note that one reading of vital statistics is an inaccurate indicator of health, >>>> particularly blood pressure. A single bad result may indicate something is going on, >>>> but a single good results does not imply you are fine. In my opinion, its just a >>>> matter of time before a costly lawsuit ensues because Argonne says someone is >>>> fine, when they are not. >>>> >>>> Todd. >>>> >>>> On Sep 30, 2013, at 3:12 PM, Marc Snir <snir(a)mcs.anl.gov> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Health costs affect our lab overhead. If you think that lower overheads mean more research then, yes, money saved by lowering the payments of the lab toward health insurance will go to support research. >>>>> >>>>> As for the claim that obesity or bad nutrition or many other unhealthy habits lead to higher medical expenses -- I think there is good scientific evidence. They also lead to more sick days, which lower productivity. >>>>> Marc Snir >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Sep 30, 2013, at 1:31 PM, Robert Olson <olson(a)mcs.anl.gov> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> The labcast makes this assertion: >>>>>> >>>>>>> The goal of this program is to promote a culture of awareness and wellness among the laboratory’s employees. A healthier work population will result in higher productivity and lower overall health care costs. If the laboratory can reduce the amount it spends on health care costs — close to $40 million this year — more money will be available for research and supporting the lab’s mission. >>>>>> >>>>>> Is anyone familiar with the research backing up this assertion? And would money not spent on health really be turned back into the science mission of the lab? >>>>>> >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> Subscription to this list is automatic based on your appointment in the MCS division. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> [Sent to announce(a)mcs.anl.gov.] >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> Subscription to this list is automatic based on your appointment in the MCS division. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> [Sent to announce(a)mcs.anl.gov.] >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Subscription to this list is automatic based on your appointment in the MCS division. >>> >>> >>> >>> [Sent to announce(a)mcs.anl.gov.] >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Subscription to this list is automatic based on your appointment in the MCS division. >> >> >> >> [Sent to announce(a)mcs.anl.gov.] >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Subscription to this list is automatic based on your appointment in the MCS division. >

1 0

Re: [MCS Staff] wellness
by Craig Stacey 30 Sep '13

30 Sep '13

I thought they specifically allowed for your physician to do that. > You can get those numbers by signing up for a free screening in the Building 201 Medical Clinic or by having your personal health care provider fill out this form. -- Craig On Sep 30, 2013, at 4:36 PM, Robert Olson <olson(a)mcs.anl.gov> wrote: > It seems it would be an overall cost savings to allow employees to have their physician send a letter saying "This employee is under my care. No employer wellness costs need be spent here". > > That's about as far as I think an employer needs to go with this. I don't need to have a repeat of my discussions with my physician done here at the lab, paid for by the taxpayer or by a fine from my monthly paycheck. > > On Sep 30, 2013, at 4:27 PM, Sri Hari Krishna Narayanan wrote: > >> A few of the points Todd has raised were touched upon at the Town Hall meeting: >> >> 1) Next year, a two-tier system will be implemented. The current numbers+HRA system will continue to be an annual requirement to maintain the reduced rate. Additionally, success in reaching a target value for a yet-to-be-decided health metric (or taking some action if target is not met) will be used to evaluate eligibility for an even lower rate. >> >> 2) Argonne has a tobacco cessation program. No success rate was discussed. >> >> 3) The two leading costs are cardiological and musculoskeletal visits. A Physiotherapy clinic has been opened to address the costs emanating from the second category. >> >> Krishna >> >> On Sep 30, 2013, at 4:12 PM, Todd Munson wrote: >> >>> >>> I don't think there is a dispute on the science. The question is, will any realized reductions >>> in health care costs result in a reduction in the overhead we pay? Or will management simply >>> take health care savings to pay for something else? >>> >>> Next, what will the lab require in subsequent years to keep the reduced rates? We already need >>> to have validated numbers. When are we going to have to do the same for our dependents? Is >>> there a plan for people to demonstrate improvements in their vital statistics? Argonne >>> blindly mandating we reduce cholesterol levels or blood pressure to obtain the reduced >>> rates is not reasonable. >>> >>> Is there anecdotal evidence the program is working? Has anyone has taken the validated >>> results and implemented changes or gone to see their doctor? The program seems to be >>> about informing people on potential health problems. Why don't go back to requiring >>> physicals at regular intervals? Was that not effective at reducing health care >>> costs? >>> >>> Regarding the program itself, are we even targeting the right costs? I have heard that >>> we pay a lot for visits to cardiologists. Does Argonne know why? Its not all related >>> to obesity and hypertension (which is what the vitals are targeting). According to >>> webmd, "almost 20% of all deaths from heart disease in the U.S. are directly related >>> to cigarette smoking". Is Argonne targeting this cause? >>> >>> On health and wellness, if Argonne mandates we reduce our weight and become healthier, >>> why do the cafeteria and vending machines serve unhealthy foods? >>> >>> I would note that one reading of vital statistics is an inaccurate indicator of health, >>> particularly blood pressure. A single bad result may indicate something is going on, >>> but a single good results does not imply you are fine. In my opinion, its just a >>> matter of time before a costly lawsuit ensues because Argonne says someone is >>> fine, when they are not. >>> >>> Todd. >>> >>> On Sep 30, 2013, at 3:12 PM, Marc Snir <snir(a)mcs.anl.gov> wrote: >>> >>>> Health costs affect our lab overhead. If you think that lower overheads mean more research then, yes, money saved by lowering the payments of the lab toward health insurance will go to support research. >>>> >>>> As for the claim that obesity or bad nutrition or many other unhealthy habits lead to higher medical expenses -- I think there is good scientific evidence. They also lead to more sick days, which lower productivity. >>>> Marc Snir >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Sep 30, 2013, at 1:31 PM, Robert Olson <olson(a)mcs.anl.gov> wrote: >>>> >>>>> The labcast makes this assertion: >>>>> >>>>>> The goal of this program is to promote a culture of awareness and wellness among the laboratory’s employees. A healthier work population will result in higher productivity and lower overall health care costs. If the laboratory can reduce the amount it spends on health care costs — close to $40 million this year — more money will be available for research and supporting the lab’s mission. >>>>> >>>>> Is anyone familiar with the research backing up this assertion? And would money not spent on health really be turned back into the science mission of the lab? >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> Subscription to this list is automatic based on your appointment in the MCS division. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> [Sent to announce(a)mcs.anl.gov.] >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Subscription to this list is automatic based on your appointment in the MCS division. >>> >>> >>> >>> [Sent to announce(a)mcs.anl.gov.] >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Subscription to this list is automatic based on your appointment in the MCS division. >> >> >> >> [Sent to announce(a)mcs.anl.gov.] >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Subscription to this list is automatic based on your appointment in the MCS division. > > > > [Sent to announce(a)mcs.anl.gov.] > > _______________________________________________ > Subscription to this list is automatic based on your appointment in the MCS division.

1 0

Re: [MCS Staff] wellness
by Robert Olson 30 Sep '13

30 Sep '13

It seems it would be an overall cost savings to allow employees to have their physician send a letter saying "This employee is under my care. No employer wellness costs need be spent here". That's about as far as I think an employer needs to go with this. I don't need to have a repeat of my discussions with my physician done here at the lab, paid for by the taxpayer or by a fine from my monthly paycheck. On Sep 30, 2013, at 4:27 PM, Sri Hari Krishna Narayanan wrote: > A few of the points Todd has raised were touched upon at the Town Hall meeting: > > 1) Next year, a two-tier system will be implemented. The current numbers+HRA system will continue to be an annual requirement to maintain the reduced rate. Additionally, success in reaching a target value for a yet-to-be-decided health metric (or taking some action if target is not met) will be used to evaluate eligibility for an even lower rate. > > 2) Argonne has a tobacco cessation program. No success rate was discussed. > > 3) The two leading costs are cardiological and musculoskeletal visits. A Physiotherapy clinic has been opened to address the costs emanating from the second category. > > Krishna > > On Sep 30, 2013, at 4:12 PM, Todd Munson wrote: > >> >> I don't think there is a dispute on the science. The question is, will any realized reductions >> in health care costs result in a reduction in the overhead we pay? Or will management simply >> take health care savings to pay for something else? >> >> Next, what will the lab require in subsequent years to keep the reduced rates? We already need >> to have validated numbers. When are we going to have to do the same for our dependents? Is >> there a plan for people to demonstrate improvements in their vital statistics? Argonne >> blindly mandating we reduce cholesterol levels or blood pressure to obtain the reduced >> rates is not reasonable. >> >> Is there anecdotal evidence the program is working? Has anyone has taken the validated >> results and implemented changes or gone to see their doctor? The program seems to be >> about informing people on potential health problems. Why don't go back to requiring >> physicals at regular intervals? Was that not effective at reducing health care >> costs? >> >> Regarding the program itself, are we even targeting the right costs? I have heard that >> we pay a lot for visits to cardiologists. Does Argonne know why? Its not all related >> to obesity and hypertension (which is what the vitals are targeting). According to >> webmd, "almost 20% of all deaths from heart disease in the U.S. are directly related >> to cigarette smoking". Is Argonne targeting this cause? >> >> On health and wellness, if Argonne mandates we reduce our weight and become healthier, >> why do the cafeteria and vending machines serve unhealthy foods? >> >> I would note that one reading of vital statistics is an inaccurate indicator of health, >> particularly blood pressure. A single bad result may indicate something is going on, >> but a single good results does not imply you are fine. In my opinion, its just a >> matter of time before a costly lawsuit ensues because Argonne says someone is >> fine, when they are not. >> >> Todd. >> >> On Sep 30, 2013, at 3:12 PM, Marc Snir <snir(a)mcs.anl.gov> wrote: >> >>> Health costs affect our lab overhead. If you think that lower overheads mean more research then, yes, money saved by lowering the payments of the lab toward health insurance will go to support research. >>> >>> As for the claim that obesity or bad nutrition or many other unhealthy habits lead to higher medical expenses -- I think there is good scientific evidence. They also lead to more sick days, which lower productivity. >>> Marc Snir >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Sep 30, 2013, at 1:31 PM, Robert Olson <olson(a)mcs.anl.gov> wrote: >>> >>>> The labcast makes this assertion: >>>> >>>>> The goal of this program is to promote a culture of awareness and wellness among the laboratory’s employees. A healthier work population will result in higher productivity and lower overall health care costs. If the laboratory can reduce the amount it spends on health care costs — close to $40 million this year — more money will be available for research and supporting the lab’s mission. >>>> >>>> Is anyone familiar with the research backing up this assertion? And would money not spent on health really be turned back into the science mission of the lab? >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Subscription to this list is automatic based on your appointment in the MCS division. >>> >>> >>> >>> [Sent to announce(a)mcs.anl.gov.] >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Subscription to this list is automatic based on your appointment in the MCS division. >> >> >> >> [Sent to announce(a)mcs.anl.gov.] >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Subscription to this list is automatic based on your appointment in the MCS division. > > > > [Sent to announce(a)mcs.anl.gov.] > > _______________________________________________ > Subscription to this list is automatic based on your appointment in the MCS division.

1 0

Re: [MCS Staff] wellness
by Sri Hari Krishna Narayanan 30 Sep '13

30 Sep '13

A few of the points Todd has raised were touched upon at the Town Hall meeting: 1) Next year, a two-tier system will be implemented. The current numbers+HRA system will continue to be an annual requirement to maintain the reduced rate. Additionally, success in reaching a target value for a yet-to-be-decided health metric (or taking some action if target is not met) will be used to evaluate eligibility for an even lower rate. 2) Argonne has a tobacco cessation program. No success rate was discussed. 3) The two leading costs are cardiological and musculoskeletal visits. A Physiotherapy clinic has been opened to address the costs emanating from the second category. Krishna On Sep 30, 2013, at 4:12 PM, Todd Munson wrote: > > I don't think there is a dispute on the science. The question is, will any realized reductions > in health care costs result in a reduction in the overhead we pay? Or will management simply > take health care savings to pay for something else? > > Next, what will the lab require in subsequent years to keep the reduced rates? We already need > to have validated numbers. When are we going to have to do the same for our dependents? Is > there a plan for people to demonstrate improvements in their vital statistics? Argonne > blindly mandating we reduce cholesterol levels or blood pressure to obtain the reduced > rates is not reasonable. > > Is there anecdotal evidence the program is working? Has anyone has taken the validated > results and implemented changes or gone to see their doctor? The program seems to be > about informing people on potential health problems. Why don't go back to requiring > physicals at regular intervals? Was that not effective at reducing health care > costs? > > Regarding the program itself, are we even targeting the right costs? I have heard that > we pay a lot for visits to cardiologists. Does Argonne know why? Its not all related > to obesity and hypertension (which is what the vitals are targeting). According to > webmd, "almost 20% of all deaths from heart disease in the U.S. are directly related > to cigarette smoking". Is Argonne targeting this cause? > > On health and wellness, if Argonne mandates we reduce our weight and become healthier, > why do the cafeteria and vending machines serve unhealthy foods? > > I would note that one reading of vital statistics is an inaccurate indicator of health, > particularly blood pressure. A single bad result may indicate something is going on, > but a single good results does not imply you are fine. In my opinion, its just a > matter of time before a costly lawsuit ensues because Argonne says someone is > fine, when they are not. > > Todd. > > On Sep 30, 2013, at 3:12 PM, Marc Snir <snir(a)mcs.anl.gov> wrote: > >> Health costs affect our lab overhead. If you think that lower overheads mean more research then, yes, money saved by lowering the payments of the lab toward health insurance will go to support research. >> >> As for the claim that obesity or bad nutrition or many other unhealthy habits lead to higher medical expenses -- I think there is good scientific evidence. They also lead to more sick days, which lower productivity. >> Marc Snir >> >> >> >> >> >> On Sep 30, 2013, at 1:31 PM, Robert Olson <olson(a)mcs.anl.gov> wrote: >> >>> The labcast makes this assertion: >>> >>>> The goal of this program is to promote a culture of awareness and wellness among the laboratory’s employees. A healthier work population will result in higher productivity and lower overall health care costs. If the laboratory can reduce the amount it spends on health care costs — close to $40 million this year — more money will be available for research and supporting the lab’s mission. >>> >>> Is anyone familiar with the research backing up this assertion? And would money not spent on health really be turned back into the science mission of the lab? >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Subscription to this list is automatic based on your appointment in the MCS division. >> >> >> >> [Sent to announce(a)mcs.anl.gov.] >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Subscription to this list is automatic based on your appointment in the MCS division. > > > > [Sent to announce(a)mcs.anl.gov.] > > _______________________________________________ > Subscription to this list is automatic based on your appointment in the MCS division.

1 0

Re: [MCS Staff] wellness
by Todd Munson 30 Sep '13

30 Sep '13

I don't think there is a dispute on the science. The question is, will any realized reductions in health care costs result in a reduction in the overhead we pay? Or will management simply take health care savings to pay for something else? Next, what will the lab require in subsequent years to keep the reduced rates? We already need to have validated numbers. When are we going to have to do the same for our dependents? Is there a plan for people to demonstrate improvements in their vital statistics? Argonne blindly mandating we reduce cholesterol levels or blood pressure to obtain the reduced rates is not reasonable. Is there anecdotal evidence the program is working? Has anyone has taken the validated results and implemented changes or gone to see their doctor? The program seems to be about informing people on potential health problems. Why don't go back to requiring physicals at regular intervals? Was that not effective at reducing health care costs? Regarding the program itself, are we even targeting the right costs? I have heard that we pay a lot for visits to cardiologists. Does Argonne know why? Its not all related to obesity and hypertension (which is what the vitals are targeting). According to webmd, "almost 20% of all deaths from heart disease in the U.S. are directly related to cigarette smoking". Is Argonne targeting this cause? On health and wellness, if Argonne mandates we reduce our weight and become healthier, why do the cafeteria and vending machines serve unhealthy foods? I would note that one reading of vital statistics is an inaccurate indicator of health, particularly blood pressure. A single bad result may indicate something is going on, but a single good results does not imply you are fine. In my opinion, its just a matter of time before a costly lawsuit ensues because Argonne says someone is fine, when they are not. Todd. On Sep 30, 2013, at 3:12 PM, Marc Snir <snir(a)mcs.anl.gov> wrote: > Health costs affect our lab overhead. If you think that lower overheads mean more research then, yes, money saved by lowering the payments of the lab toward health insurance will go to support research. > > As for the claim that obesity or bad nutrition or many other unhealthy habits lead to higher medical expenses -- I think there is good scientific evidence. They also lead to more sick days, which lower productivity. > Marc Snir > > > > > > On Sep 30, 2013, at 1:31 PM, Robert Olson <olson(a)mcs.anl.gov> wrote: > >> The labcast makes this assertion: >> >>> The goal of this program is to promote a culture of awareness and wellness among the laboratory’s employees. A healthier work population will result in higher productivity and lower overall health care costs. If the laboratory can reduce the amount it spends on health care costs — close to $40 million this year — more money will be available for research and supporting the lab’s mission. >> >> Is anyone familiar with the research backing up this assertion? And would money not spent on health really be turned back into the science mission of the lab? >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Subscription to this list is automatic based on your appointment in the MCS division. > > > > [Sent to announce(a)mcs.anl.gov.] > > _______________________________________________ > Subscription to this list is automatic based on your appointment in the MCS division.

1 0

Re: [MCS Staff] wellness
by Marc Snir 30 Sep '13

30 Sep '13

Health costs affect our lab overhead. If you think that lower overheads mean more research then, yes, money saved by lowering the payments of the lab toward health insurance will go to support research. As for the claim that obesity or bad nutrition or many other unhealthy habits lead to higher medical expenses -- I think there is good scientific evidence. They also lead to more sick days, which lower productivity. Marc Snir On Sep 30, 2013, at 1:31 PM, Robert Olson <olson(a)mcs.anl.gov> wrote: > The labcast makes this assertion: > >> The goal of this program is to promote a culture of awareness and wellness among the laboratory’s employees. A healthier work population will result in higher productivity and lower overall health care costs. If the laboratory can reduce the amount it spends on health care costs — close to $40 million this year — more money will be available for research and supporting the lab’s mission. > > Is anyone familiar with the research backing up this assertion? And would money not spent on health really be turned back into the science mission of the lab? > > _______________________________________________ > Subscription to this list is automatic based on your appointment in the MCS division.

1 0

Marc to receive Seymour Cray Award
by Rajeev Thakur 23 Sep '13

23 Sep '13

As some of you already know, Marc has been selected as the recipient of this year's IEEE Computer Society Seymour Cray Computer Engineering Award, which will be presented at SC13. The news announcement from IEEE is now out: http://www.hpcwire.com/hpcwire/2013-09-23/marc_snir_to_receive_2013_ieee_co… . It is a big award and great for Marc, Argonne, and DOE. Congrats to Marc! Rajeev

1 0

cv template, again
by Marc Snir 22 Sep '13

22 Sep '13

Just to clarify: For the purpose of tracking, it is important to collect the detailed information as we go forward. It is less important to add missing information for previous years (unless you expect a promotion...) Marc Snir

1 0