Category: Benefits

The benefits and wellness world is so rich that it’s hard to dig deep into every topic that comes up. That said, here are the stories that struck my interest recently.

Health Risks and Health Benefits of Genetic Tests: The genetic testing space fascinates me for many reasons, especially from an overall ethical standpoint. It’s such a recent area of scientific advancement that I find it curious to read about new innovations and trends and the larger moral questions they bring up.

I’ve written before about employees’ concerns about HR 1313 and how some feared they’d be coerced into taking tests they don’t to, and I’ve written about why employers should take issues like genetic discrimination in life insurance into account when they try to market genetic testing benefits to employees. But a recent New York Times article brought a much more basic angle to mind: genetic testing’s actual impact on public health.

The article highlighted many employers like Levi Strauss & Co., SAP, OpenTable and Salesforce that offer genetic testing as an employee benefit. There are many positive effects that can come out of this, the author acknowledges, but we should also consider some basic scientific facts about genetics before we hail genetic testing too enthusiastically as some flawless health innovation.

Many parties — including employers, the Food and Drug Administration and many genetics companies — are embracing broader consumer use of genetic tests, but groups like physicians, doctors and federal health agencies are uncertain if these tests are ready for public adoption. The reasoning? In a generally healthy population or group of people, there’s no evidence that systematic screening has “a net benefit in terms of health outcomes.”

To reiterate, there can definitely be value to genetic testing for certain people, but I wonder, could the same logic about on-average healthy public populations be said about on-average healthy employee populations? Would broad systematic genetic screening truly have a significant impact on the workplace, in terms of overall health or health care costs?

Work-Life Harmony and American Values: The Washington Post just published what I found to be a fascinating op-ed, “America is Obsessed with the Virtue of Work. What About the Virtue of Rest?” Given all the talk about work-life balance or work-life boundaries, many of the ideas in this piece were especially relevant.

Pro-work policies and rhetoric are common on both the left and right, the author writes, but meanwhile there are few pro-rest policies. For example, paid parental leave is lacking for most employees; more than half of workers leave vacation days unused either because they can’t afford to take time off or because they don’t want to look bad to their employers; and retirement isn’t a certainty for many older individuals.

The article also argues that although there is dignity and value in work, the majority of one’s life should not be made up of work. For example, the labor movement of the late 1800s championed the eight-hour workday so that workers could have time to get the proper amount of sleep and to pursue their own interests.

None of this is to say that people should be lazy or that work isn’t important. But in a time when burnout, balance and holistic well-being are common corporate talking points, it’s worth pointing out that people do deserve to have time to take care of themselves.

An excerpt from the article: “… Trump isn’t wrong, after all, in identifying work as a cardinal American virtue — and infractions against virtue are the stuff of vice. But in terms of our wider cultural context, it doesn’t appear to me that a lack of respect for work is the No. 1 threat to American dignity. If we undervalue anything to the detriment of dignity, it is the virtue of rest.”

Geography and HDHPs: The prevalence of employers offering high-deductible health plans varies by geography, reported news site HealthPayerIntelligence.com. The site was referring to findings from the BenefitFocus report State of Employee Benefits 2018 — Regional Edition.

I found this report valuable because with so much media attention given to diversity now and how different benefits might appeal to different people depending on age, gender, etc., rarely do I see geography as part of the definition of diversity. But, obviously, people who live in different regions will have different problems or issues that require different solutions, and health care plans are no exception.

An excerpt from the article: “Regional insights may help employers identify the gaps in value of their health plans. Employers could capitalize on these gaps by redesigning health plan offerings, financial contributions and additional benefits to fill these gaps in value.”

Final Read: Last week I wrote about the impact of art on employee stress. So this week I was happy to see the Chicago Tribune publish something about the impact of art on loneliness.

The loneliness epidemic is a talking point in the wellness community (Workforce writer Rita Pyrillis, explored this topic more deeply in the latest issue of the magazine), and although the Tribune article focuses on student mental health and loneliness, the same ideas apply to the workplace. For example, the article mentions that there is a biweekly support group for students with disabilities and their allies. That’s the college version of an employee resource group!

Andie Burjek is a Workforce associate editor. Comment below or email editors@workforce.com.

My company recently announced that it’s hosting a wine and paint afternoon for employees this spring. It’s an opportunity to eat some cheese, make anything you can hang up and appreciate your coworkers’ artwork. I’m looking forward to this because one of my coworkers and I regularly talk about paintings we’re working on and art shows she’s planning to attend.

It’s also good for us because our walls are boringly off white, blank and a general bummer to look at. We need something for those walls. I think back to when I interned at a news station and found a painting stashed in a supply closet. It was an image of Rod Blagojevich’s face on a rat’s body with some dark, underworld-esque backdrop. Even that would be better on our walls than nothing.

This got me thinking about the impact creating art can have on your brain, stress levels and overall health, and there’s a lot to be optimistic about.

According to one article on the benefits of art therapy — “a form of expressive psychotherapy that uses the creative process of making art to improve a person’s physical, mental, and emotional well-being” —  the benefits of creating art include a general sense of relief, overall better mental health, decreased stress and the chance to process complicated emotions. It’s a tool that individuals can use for their own benefit or a legitimate type of therapy that professionals use to treat people with a variety of emotional or mental disorders like cancer, PTSD, emotional abuse and bipolar disorder.

I’ve been through this myself. I took a figure drawing class in college while I studied abroad in Rome, and it’d often be my favorite part of the week. After sitting on some ancient church’s steps nearby for half an hour and people-watching, I’d get three hours in a quiet, dusty studio. There’d be nothing to listen to but the rustling of my classmates’ sketchbooks or the sound of their charcoal breaking. It was a wonderful opportunity to focus on one task for three hours straight and clear my head of to-do lists and obligations.

A different article from Business Insider also listed several benefits of making art for the average person. Noteworthy here is that “making art” doesn’t have to mean painting or drawing; it can be sculpting, dancing, making music or any other creative pursuit. Also, there are many scientific studies that have been conducted to support the potential benefits of creating art.

There’s still further research to be done, but many of these study results show promise. A 2016 Journal of American Art Therapy Association study found that participants who made visual art for 45 minutes saw a reduction in cortisol, a hormone associated with stress. A Journal of Applied Cognitive Psychology study found that when people doodle while listening to dull information, they’re more likely to remember that information and stay focused. And a 2015 study conducted by Gottfried Schlaug, a neurologist at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center and Harvard Medical School, found that people who played music regularly saw improvement in academic performance, language skills and memory.

I think the workplace could learn a thing or two from these lessons. Sleeping enough, having a healthy diet and exercising more can help with stress relief, of course, but something on the more creative side can help, too.

The focus of wellness initiatives is so often something physical. Take this many steps; lose that many pounds; take a yoga class this many times a week; track your blood pressure or some other body measurement on this app. There is a trend moving toward mental or emotional well-being in wellness programs, but there’s still more to be seen what happens in that area.

I once asked a wellness professional I met at a conference if employees could use funds given to them through an employer-sponsored wellness program on activities like art classes. Her response was that although that idea was fine in theory, it’s difficult to measure the impact of the something like that.

So often it seems like corporate wellness programs are much more focused on what can be counted. Of course, there’s a reason for this. That way results can be measured, which allows a company to quantify the impact of the program. But I don’t think we should underestimate the potential of the creative or the qualitative.

Has your company ever incorporated something creative or art-based in your wellness program? Also, feel free to share in the comments some projects you’ve created to relieve stress!

For More Information Related to These Topics:

• A comprehensive guide to the benefits of art therapy for different types of people. (arttherapyblog.com)
• Health insurance and mental health services. (MentalHealth.gov)
• 7 reasons to create art no matter your talent level. (Business Insider)
•   The cognitive benefits and limitations of doodling. (The Atlantic)

Andie Burjek is a Workforce associate editor. Comment below or email editors@workforce.com.

I recently was reminded of just how new the field of genetics is and how the discussions about genetic privacy are fascinating and relevant in the workplace. That’s where genetic-testing benefits or perks are sometimes touted as a way for employees to learn about genetic risks they have and plan for them accordingly.

I finally started reading The Gene — a New York Times bestseller by Siddhartha Mukherjee from 2016. The Gene is about the history of genetic theory and history from Aristotle and Pythagoras to Charles Darwin and Gregor Mendel and beyond. It also explores darker parts of genetic history like the eugenics movement in America and Nazi Germany’s attempt to create a so-called genetically superior race.

This 550-page-long page-turner was in part a celebration of significant scientific discoveries in genetics and in part a warning that people are capable of using these discoveries and theories to do major harm.

In 1976, Herb Boyer and Robert Swanson founded biotech company Genentech and created many important medicines out of genes, including insulin, and patented these creations. But their contemporaries wondered, is it right to patent a method you discovered while funded by public research money? Also, can you patent something that naturally is a part of every person’s body? Even now, many people have ethical objections to patenting genes.

In the 1800s Charles Darwin observed different-looking finches of the same species. He was fixated on their similarities, not their differences. This led to important discoveries in hereditary theory, mainly that these different-looking birds came from the same ancestor and adapted over time to different environments. The same could be applied to people, who were more similar than different and came from the same common ancestor.

On the other side of the coin, Darwin had a cousin, Francis Galton, who was also a scientist. He was more fixated on people’s differences than similarities and coined the term “eugenics” in 1883, according to The Gene. This was the idea that some people’s genes were better than other’s and that through selective breeding, humankind could keep only the best genes in its genepool. His idea eventually led to a eugenics movement in America in which undesirable people were forcibly made infertile so that their inferior genes were not continued. These “undesirables” included African Americans, white European immigrants and anyone deemed “feebleminded” by the courts, the book notes.

These are older examples from the book, but obviously a lot has happened from the 1980s on, like the Human Genome Project, experiments (some more successful than others) in gene therapy and many services that offer easy-to-use genetic testing kits like 23andMe, Ancestry DNA and Vitagene.

Genetic tech has entered the workplace. Some companies are offering genetic testing as a perk. Last March, Rep. Virginia Foxx introduced a bill, HR 1313, which would allow employers to offer health insurance premium rebates to employees who take part in workplace wellness programs, many of which include genetic screenings.

This led to some controversial reactions when some people worried that their companies could financially coerce them into genetic testing. News site Vox reported that those who opt out would have to pay $5,400 more a year for the average family plan than those who opt in, based off 2016 insurance price data. This sum might make opting out not viable to some employees. Advocates of the bill stressed that employees would have the option of opting in or opting out.

Let’s take this scenario above. The fundamental question, it seems, is that if this participating employee pays $5,000 less than a non-participating employee, is it truly optional? Is there a difference between a penalty and a reward in this context?

I’m inclined to say no, especially if genetic information is involved. Others would strongly disagree.

Here’s the most recent news on HR 1313 I could find, according to the DNA Geek:

“The bill has been lingering in various committees in the House of Representatives since it was introduced in March [2017]. It passed the Committee on Education and the Workforce back in the spring, but it’s been stagnating in the committees on Ways and Means and on Energy and Commerce since then. … On 11 December 2017, both committees ‘discharged’ the bill, meaning that they released it to be considered by the full House of Representatives without voting on it themselves. The bill is now on the House schedule to be considered for passage.”

The next steps would be passed by the House, passed by the Senate and then signed by the president.

Whatever your take is on HR 1313, it shows how tricky and messy issues involving genetic security and privacy are. There are others more qualified than me to talk about the controversies and disagreements in the genetics space. But for employers and employees, this debate over personal health and genetic information is noteworthy.

In the United States, the law that governs genetic privacy is the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act. GINA makes it illegal to discriminate people based on their genes in certain employment decisions and health insurance, but not outside those realms, like in life, disability or long-term care insurance. There have been cases, for example, where women have been denied life insurance as recently as 2016 because they tested positive for the breast cancer gene, BRCA1.

As LifeInsurance Post, a community of life insurance experts, warns, “The negatives of genetic discrimination far outweigh the positives. Thus, it’s important that you seriously consider whether you need to go for genetic testing or not. At the end of the day, it’s comes down to choosing between your life and life insurance.”

Even if you take a test in the workplace and your results cannot impact your employment or your health insurance, it could impact other types of insurance.

To get the life insurance industry’s point of view, by the way, read this Economist article, “The gene is out of the bottle: Genetic Testing Threatens Insurance Industry.”

“Asymmetry of information — when the consumer knows more than the insurer — is the industry’s worst nightmare. If predictive tests further improve and become more common while non-disclosure rules stay in place, some insurance products might eventually die out,” writes the author. This article does a good job at explaining the concerns of the insurance industry, while it also acknowledges what a tricky ethical area this is. Since the role of genes in disease development is still being studied, many people could be wrongly penalized for having a certain gene. The truth is that many other factors, like environment and chance, also impact whether or not a person will ultimately develop the disease.

Genetic privacy isn’t a fear that’s going away; it’ll only grow as our capability and understanding of genetics increases. It’s also not a fear based in fiction. Historically influential forces in society have used genetics to rationalize doing horrific things.

As someone who talks to employers on a regular basis, I believe most companies would not lean toward unethical use of their employees’ genomes. That being said, even a few bad eggs would be troublesome.

“This book is the story of the birth, growth, and future of one of the most powerful and dangerous ideas in the history of science,” writes Mukherjee in The Gene. Let’s not underestimate the power of this idea. As employers increasingly see a place for genetic tests somewhere in their organization, some employees may be very enthusiastic to take advantage of them while others may be justifiably weary.

Andie Burjek is an associate editor at Workforce. Comment below or email editors@workforce.com.

Kaiser Health News held a Facebook Live conversation Feb. 13 about living well with dementia, which is “one of the most challenging chronic conditions for individuals and their caregivers,” according to the health news site.

Although this conversation was more about the caregiver and individual as citizens, not as employees, I still found some valuable insights for employers. If none of your employees have this chronic condition, they could be caregivers for someone who does.

Since the aging workforce is a ubiquitous workplace topic nowadays (and, hey, so is chronic disease management and sandwich generation caregivers), it’s worth understanding that conditions like dementia, in most cases, happen after the age of 65.

Some background: the people in the Facebook discussion provided a wide range of points of view. Mary L. Radnofsky is a former professor who was diagnosed 12 years ago with dementia and now acts as an advocate for people with dementia. Yvotte Latty is a journalist and a professor currently caregiving for her mother who has dementia. Nancy A. Hodgson, Helen Kales and Katie Maslow are experts on dementia at the University of Pennsylvania, University of Michigan and Gerontological Society of America, respectively. That combination of personal experience and medical expertise made for a fascinating conversation.

[Also read: Early-Onset Alzheimer’s: Too Soon to Forget]

One point the panelists stressed is that Alzheimer’s, the most common type of dementia, is more than just memory loss. It also means hallucinations, depression, anger and verbal abuse, according to Latty. It’s not like how pop culture often represents it. Movies and books like “The Notebook” or “Still Alice” don’t give people a realistic picture of what dementia looks like. It’s not a quiet, elegant, gradual loss of memory. “There’s nothing quiet about it. It’s been raging,” said Latty.

Radnofsky said that when a person has dementia and is acting in a way that society considers odd, it’s not because that person is trying to misbehave or be difficult. For example, if you tell them something and they throw something in response. “It’s because we’re trying to communicate,” she said, adding that if you’ve gone a decade of being misdiagnosed or misunderstood, sometimes your frustration levels might be high. “If you treat [it] like communication and not a behavior, things will go better in the future,” she said.

Finally, another point I found valuable is a discussion about caregiver challenges, especially isolation. In one example, the panelists said that in the case where a parent with dementia has multiple children, the child closest to the parent can end up being isolated even from their own siblings. Things like a family counseling program is one way to help siblings solve friction among one another.

Communication can also be a challenge for the caregiver, not just the patient. One panelist, both a caregiver and a doctor, talked about when patients lose the ability to communicate, they also lose the ability to advocate for themselves. The caregiver then becomes the main advocate for that patient, but even that can be tricky. The woman found that doctors did not seem to listen to her concerns until they found out she was also a doctor, and what helped her was that she knew the right things to get a response from health care professionals. There needs to be a way for caregivers to know the right language and terminology to use with the patient’s health-care team.

My takeaways for employers: If your employee is a caregiver, he or she could be dealing with social isolation, estrangement from family members, communication barriers/confusion and not knowing what terminology to use with the patient’s physician, among others.

If your employee has dementia or is beginning to show signs of dementia, remember a few things. It’s not just a memory disorder and there could be other symptoms. What you might perceive as poor behavior might be communication. And many of these people are still capable of performing many aspects of their jobs.

Hopefully this helps clarify some misconceptions of dementia. I know it helped me. Since I am not expert on the topic, here are additional resources on more practical steps employers could take moving forward if someone in their organization is impacted by dementia:

• How to Identify, Approach and Assist Employees with Young Onset Dementia: A Guide for Employers
• Dementia Response (Note: this includes a case study of an employer who found out an employee had dementia, the steps they took to offer accommodations and eventually the steps they had to take to ultimately terminate the employee.)
• 4 Takeaways from ‘The Lancet’ Report on Alzheimer’s Disease Burden (Note: This includes a list of caregiver intervention and training programs/ options.)
• The Alzheimer’s-Employment Conundrum
• The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Alzheimer’s Fact Sheet (Note: This includes some further information on the health risks unpaid, family caregivers have. In 2017, the value of this unpaid caregiver activity is an estimated $230.1 billion, according to the CDC)

Andie Burjek is an associate editor at Workforce. Comment below or email editors@workforce.com.