> Case studies
CASE STUDIES
Several studies show that Health Promotion actions may also generate a financial benefit, especially related to limiting medical costs and absenteeism. The ROI (Return Of Investment) has been quantified at about 1:2,3, considering the medical costs savings, and 1:10,1 with regard to the reduction in staff absenteeism(1).
 
Medical Costs
Many studies have shown that health promotion actions generate a reduction in short and medium-term medical costs (3-4 years). In the long term such reductions may be even greater.
Almost all the investigations performed on the economic impact of Health Promotion underline a direct correlation with medical costs. The results frequently observed are: fewer doctors' consultations, less hospital admissions and shorter hospitalisation periods. According to these studies, the ROI on the saving made in medical costs is between 2.3€ and 5.9€ saved per euro invested(2). Other reliable findings from investigations carried out in this sector demonstrate the possibility of saving up to 26.1% on medical costs(3). In addition, it is important to point out that this economic effect lasts for many years after the risk has been reduced or eliminated, which makes the previously mentioned short term effects even more desirable. The cost/efficiency relationship is even greater if these actions are carried out in groups of individuals at high and medium health risk. This consideration is very important if we take into account that 20% of patients are responsible for 80% of total health-related costs(4).
Top
 
Absenteeism and Staff turnover
It has been shown that Health Promotion actions may generate a reduction in staff absenteeism. A comprehensive revision of more than 50 investigations carried out on this subject(2,3,5) shows that Prevention and Health Promotion programmes can generate a decrease of between 12% and 36% in staff absenteeism, as well as a saving of 34% in costs related to absence from work due to illness. Many investigations have even been able to quantify the cost/benefit ratio and the ROI of these actions at between 1:2.5 and 1:10.1. That is to say, for every euro invested in these actions, a saving of between 2.5€ and 10,1€ is made on absenteeism-related costs.
Other studies, carried out in Norway, Canada and the United States, have concluded that Health Promotion actions also have an important impact on staff loyalty and turnover(8).
Top
 
Health Results
The investigations carried out demonstrate the effectiveness of the Health Promotion programmes in relation to the reduction of risk factors, although the evidence is clearer in some specific areas(1), such as the consumption of tobacco, diet, weight control, stress, cardiovascular risks and alcohol abuse. For example, it has been proven that the risk factors related to cardiovascular diseases are particularly sensitive to Health Promotion actions: reductions are reported of between 35% and 45% in the risks related to blood pressure, cholesterol and smoking(6). Many studies agree in emphasising the positive impact of Health Promotion programmes. The investigations carried out on the decrease in the incidence of back pain are particularly important, given that this is one of the most frequent health-related causes of absenteeism(7).
Top
 
Bibliography
(1)Kreis J., Bödeker W. Health related and economic benefits of workplace health promotion and prevention. BBK Bundesverband, 2004:10.
(2)Aldana StG. Financial impact of health promotion programs: a comprehensive review of literature. American Journal of Health Promotion 2001; 15(5):296-320.
(3)Chapman LS: Meta evaluation of worksite health promotion Economic return studies. The art of health promotion 2003; 6(6):1-10.
(4)Pelletier KR. A review and analysis of the clinical and cost-effectiveness outcome studies of comprehensive health promotion and disease prevention programs at the worksite: 1993-2000. American Journal of Health Promotion 1996; 10(5):380-388 – 1999; 13(6):333-345 – 2001; 16(2):107-116.
(5)Golaszewski T. Shining lights: studies that have most influenced the understanding of health promotion’s financial impact. American Journal of Health Promotion 2001; 15(5):332-341
(6)Shepard RJ. Worksite fitness and exercise programs: a review of the methodology and health impact. American Journal of Health Promotion 1996; 10(6):436-452.
(7)Netwig CG. Effektivität der Rückenschule- ein Überblick über die Ergebnisse der evidenz-basierten Evaluation. Der Orthopäde 1999; 28(11): 958-965.
(8)De Greef M., Van den Broek C. Making the Case for Workplace Health Promotion: WHP leads to an improved human resources management. ENWHP 2004; 42-43.