Critique 

Marriott International - Wellness & You

The following assessment of program strengths and weaknesses has been abstracted from reviews by the Task Force on Program Selection of The Health Project. Where weaknesses are postulated, it must be taken into account that the review Task Force is very critical, that no programs are perfect, that the Award Winning programs have been selected from over 300 candidate programs and represent the very best, that the materials reviewed may have been incomplete, that suggested deficiencies may have resulted from incomplete understanding of the program by the reviewers or that any problems may have been corrected since the time of review.

Evaluation: Marriott International Inc's "Wellness & You" program ranges from smoking cessation to ergonomic assessment. Risk levels were reduced by 57 percent for blood pressure, 33 percent for driving and 25 percent for alcohol while participants with multiple risks migrated from six or greater risks to two or fewer. The return on investment is conservatively estimated at 2.5 to 1. "Their Health Expectations" program avoided pre-term births, savings $342,000.

Thorough program design with documented savings projections. Dedicated staff. The prenatal program may save dollars but the evaluation is not sophisticated. There is a documented change in risk factors for repeat HRA participants. Wellpoints provides a good incentive program approach. The program has been generally well received by employees. It targets the Healthy 2000 goals directly. Risk reduction analysis by pre post design is convincing. An informal study shows fewer sick days for participants. Most reviewers felt there was good cost data for the "Healthy Expectations Program". There were positive evaluations from participants. The repeat HRA evaluation was a good design. Participation at nearly 50 percent was good for a pilot program but perhaps can be improved over time. The pilot study group showed savings of $44,800 annually.

We would like to see higher HRA participation rates. The pre post design is quasi-experimental rather than experimental. Participation rates in programs besides the incentive program where seen to be relatively low. The evaluation program does not have sufficient rigor to allow financial savings projections to be unequivocally accepted. The StayWell cost modeling from the pre-and-post-HRAs may not be related to actual cost experience now or in the future. There are no peer-reviewed articles nor long-term follow-up. Pilot study was only a one year duration.