The Long-Term Impact of Johnson & Johnson’s Health & Wellness Program on Employee Health Risks Ron Z. Goetzel, PhD Ronald J. Ozminkowski, PhD Jennifer A. Bruno, BS Kathleen R. Rutter, BA Fikry Isaac, MD, MPH Shaohung Wang, PhD To be viewed as successful, corporate health promotion and disease prevention programs must demonstrate that they can improve the risk profile of employees as a whole, and, in particular, those employees at highest risk. This study reports the effectiveness of Johnson & Johnson’s newly configured Health & Wellness Program in reducing the health risks of 4586 employees who participated in two serial health screening programs, with a minimum of 1 year between screenings. The study also examines the impact of participation in a high-risk intervention program called Pathways to Change® on health risk factors. McNemar chi-squared and z-test statistics were used to evaluate changes in health risks over time. Results indicate significant risk reduction in 8 of 13 risk categories examined for all employees who participated in two health risk assessments over an average of 2 3 /4 years. When comparing Pathways to Change participants with non-participants, participants outperformed their non-participant counterparts in six categories but performed worse in five other categories that were not specifically targeted by the high-risk program. In two categories, no differences were found. The study underscores the ability of large-scale, well-attended, and comprehensive corporate health and productivity management programs to positively impact the health and well-being of workers. (J Occup Environ Med. 2002;44:417–424) J ohnson & Johnson introduced its LIVE FOR LIFE® Program in 1979 with the expressed purpose of mak- ing Johnson & Johnson employees “the healthiest in the world.” 1 By bringing together experts in health education, behavior change, disease management, marketing, and pro- gram evaluation, Johnson & Johnson embarked on a large-scale, multiyear program to improve the health of its workers and, consequently, save the corporation money by reducing ben- efit expenditures and increasing worker productivity. To support this effort, the company invested several million dollars in program design, a significant portion of which was ear- marked for external program evalua- tion. A series of evaluation studies performed during the 1980s and early 1990s showed that the compa- ny’s health promotion and disease prevention program was associated with improved employee health, re- duced inpatient health care expendi- tures, decreased employee absentee- ism, and better employee attitudes. 1–7 These studies, published in peer- reviewed journals, provided the impe- tus for broad application of the LIVE FOR LIFE program at all Johnson & Johnson companies, but with the ex- pectation that the program would be subject to continuous quality improve- ment and ongoing rigorous evaluation. Since its inception, the Johnson & Johnson health promotion and dis- ease prevention program has under- gone several transformations and ad- aptation to remain current and to respond to shifting business require- From the Research and Policy Division, The MEDSTAT Group, Washington, D.C. (Dr Goetzel), Ann Arbor, Mich. (Dr Ozminkowski), and Cambridge, Mass. (Dr Wang); and Johnson & Johnson (Ms Bruno, Ms Rutter, and Dr Isaac). Address correspondence to: Ronald J. Ozminkowski, PhD, The MEDSTAT Group, Inc, 777 East Eisenhower Parkway, 803R, Ann Arbor, MI 48108; ron.ozminkowski@medstat.com. Copyright © by American College of Occupational and Environmental Medicine JOEM • Volume 44, Number 5, May 2002 417