I'd like to take back what I said last week about how a little personal responsibility can get you in shape and save your company money. The data just doesn't bear fruit – or Twinkies, as it were.
I wanted to take a look at how much companies were paying for their health care, and whether or not it correlated with obesity rates in that state. Based on my assumption that being healthy saves money, I predicted that companies in healthier states like Connecticut and Colorado would be paying fewer premiums per participant than their counterparts in states like Mississippi and Alabama.
Nope.
Recommended For You
Of the ten states with the lowest median premiums per participant, six are also the fattest (sorry, "most big-boned"). And the trend just continues. With a very high average of $8,957 in premiums per individual, Massachusetts also happens to be the 2nd healthiest state in the nation.
In fact, this trend correlates with 95 percent confidence.
Of course, correlation does not imply causation. While it could certainly be argued that spending less on health care can make people overall less "healthy," I can't see why spending more would make people thinner. These premiums are not going to liposuction and personal trainers (except maybe in California – 8th highest premiums, 9th healthiest, by the by).
So obviously my study is a flop. All it tells me is what I already know: Less healthy states spend less on health care. It doesn't tell me anything about the impact that getting in shape can have on that spending, and certainly others have varied opinions on the impacts of things like "wellness committees".
Until I figure it out, though, I'll just be sitting here eating bacon with one hand and doing bicep curls with the other.
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
