The concept and practice of wellness as a corporate-sponsored benefit is well-known and understood, but not without question and debate. Countless studies on program and plan efficacy, ROI, long-term impact, etc., have been performed, yielding mixed and conflicted results at best. Even the EEOC can't seem to establish an acceptable definition of wellness.

For every positive benefit of such programs, it seems you can find an equally compelling negative. With that in mind, let's examine some common sense factors that we do know.

1. No overarching strategy

There is no mature, overarching strategy that prevails at the national level. Some employers view wellness as a recruitment and retention element, while others see it as a compliance model to measure health status and associated costs.

Yes, the ultimate goal of any wellness program is to improve the health and wellbeing of participating members. And the executable steps in terms of program design and action have to be tailored to an individual population (no one cookie-cutter approach will work for everyone). However, there should be some agreement on how the program is designed and the results yielded; read that to be health-contingent outcomes based models.

2.  Purpose and usage of data

As with the numerous variations of wellness program designs, the purpose, collection, and usage of associated performance data is equally as widely varied. Take for example biometric testing. First, there is a medium to high level of cost that employers invest in this valuable process. Plan participants, then, go through the process and receive their results. What happens next? Is the collected data delivered at the individual level for educational purposes only; is it actionable in terms of insurance premium contribution costs; is it used for coaching engagement to mitigate risk factors; etc.?