Tracking the Market Performance of Companies That Integrate a Culture of Health and Safety: An Assessment of Corporate Health Achievement Award Applicants.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to assess the hypothesis that stock market performance of companies achieving high scores on either health or safety in the Corporate Health Achievement Award (CHAA) process will be superior to average index performance. METHODS: The stock market performance of portfolios of CHAA winners was examined under six different scenarios using simulation and past market performance in tests of association framed to inform the investor community. RESULTS: CHAA portfolios out-performed the S&P average on all tests. CONCLUSIONS: This study adds to the growing evidence that a healthy and safe workforce correlates with a company's performance and its ability to provide positive returns to shareholders. It advances the idea that a proven set of health and safety metrics based on the CHAA evaluation process merits inclusion with existing measures for market valuation.

Medical evacuations from oil rigs off the Gulf Coast of the United States from 2008 to 2012: reasons and cost implications.

OBJECTIVE: To identify reasons for air medical evacuations from oil rigs/platforms. METHODS: Retrospective review of data of medical calls from 102 rigs/platforms in the US Gulf Coast from 2008 through 2012 with specific analysis of medevacs. RESULTS: On average, 1609 total calls per year relating to illness or injury on the 102 oil rigs/platforms with 4% to 7% requiring medical air evacuation. On average, 77% of medevacs were for nonoccupational medical injury or illness. CONCLUSIONS: Illness, not occupational injuries, is identified as the major reason for medical evacuations from oil rigs. Heart disease is the leading cause of chronic health conditions resulting in a medevac.

The link between workforce health and safety and the health of the bottom line: tracking market performance of companies that nurture a "culture of health".

OBJECTIVE: To test the hypothesis that comprehensive efforts to reduce a workforce's health and safety risks can be associated with a company's stock market performance. METHODS: Stock market performance of Corporate Health Achievement Award winners was tracked under four different scenarios using simulation and past market performance. RESULTS: A portfolio of companies recognized as award winning for their approach to the health and safety of their workforce outperformed the market. Evidence seems to support that building cultures of health and safety provides a competitive advantage in the marketplace. This research may have also identified an association between companies that focus on health and safety and companies that manage other aspects of their business equally well. CONCLUSIONS: Companies that build a culture of health by focusing on the well-being and safety of their workforce yield greater value for their investors.

Advancing workplace health protection and promotion for an aging workforce.

OBJECTIVE: To explore issues related to the aging workforce, including barriers to integrating health protection and promotion programs, and provide recommendations for best practices to maximize contributions by aging workers. METHODS: Workgroups reviewed literature and case studies to develop consensus statements and recommendations for a national approach to issues related to older workers. RESULTS: Consensus statements and actions steps were identified for each of the Summit goals and call-to-action statements were developed. CONCLUSIONS: A national dialogue to build awareness of integrated health protection and promotion for the aging workforce is needed. Workers will benefit from improved health and performance; employers will realize a more engaged and productive workforce; and the nation will gain a vital, competitive workforce.

Exploring national surveillance for health-related workplace absenteeism: lessons learned from the 2009 influenza A pandemic.

BACKGROUND: During the 2009 influenza A (H1N1) virus pandemic, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention did a pilot study to test the feasibility of using national surveillance of workplace absenteeism to assess the pandemic's impact on the workplace to plan for preparedness and continuity of operations and to contribute to health awareness during the emergency response. METHODS: Population-based and sentinel worksite approaches were used. Monthly measures of the 1-week prevalence of health-related absenteeism among full-time workers were estimated using nationally representative data from the Current Population Survey. Enhanced passive surveillance of absenteeism was conducted using weekly data from a convenience sample of sentinel worksites. RESULTS: Nationally, the pandemic's impact on workplace absenteeism was small. Estimates of 1-week absenteeism prevalence did not exceed 3.7%. However, peak workplace absenteeism was correlated with the highest occurrence of both influenza-like illness and influenza-positive laboratory tests. CONCLUSIONS: Systems for monitoring workplace absenteeism should be included in pandemic preparedness planning.

Health-related workplace productivity measurement: general and migraine-specific recommendations from the ACOEM Expert Panel.

An establishment of health-related productivity measurements and critical evaluation of health-related productivity tools is needed. An expert panel was created. A literature search was conducted to identify health-related productivity measurement tools. Each instrument was reviewed for: 1) supporting scientific evidence (e.g., reliability and validity); 2) applicability to various types of occupations, diseases, and level of severity of disease; 3) ability to translate data into a monetary unit; and 4) practicality. A modified Delphi technique was used to build consensus. The expert panel recommended absenteeism, presenteeism, and employee turnover/replacement costs as key elements of workplace health-related productivity measurement. The panel also recommended that productivity instruments should: 1) have supporting scientific evidence, 2) be applicable to the particular work setting, 3) be supportive of effective business decision-making, and 4) be practical. Six productivity measurement tools were reviewed. The panel recommended necessary elements of workplace health-related productivity measurement, key characteristics for evaluating instruments, and tools for measuring work loss. Continued research, validation, and on-going evaluation of health-related productivity instruments are needed.