United States, John, Dow Chemical discussed on Health Care Rounds
John people who can spend more money for healthcare unless they're absolutely forbidden by authoritarian government are going to do it in are going to get access to so back to that want to continue with the policy stuff but but back to your regional statement around, no country is really tied in productivity has has been able to do you need an authoritarian or do you need a s- where much of industry is state owned? Do you need to have that kind of system for that to exist? We're free. Market here, right? It's you would think that it's in our country's best interest to be moving down this path you would. We're looking for new sources of productivity gain for years back to my old world as labor economists. The bureau labor statistics has been telling us that our productivity is year two years. The growth is subpar compared with what it was decades ago and by their measure, the way they measure it, it is. That's the nature of work has changed a lot in another way, measured output per hour worked is not a very good measure along for now for an awful lot of cans of were. So you think we'd be looking for a new source of productivity, and we think we have an argument and data behind it to show that health could be that form of human capital that we could invest in more productively and get results specially in this behavioral in which is very tough. But we talked about that earlier, but few companies get it, but it's very hard in the US to get people's to stop looking at. Medical costs, which they're paying for in this country as a company and start thinking about the economic losses. They're suffering in the meantime, that's not showing up in the financial statement. So unless you can help them with their medical costs, it's hard to get them to listen their financial people to the productivity are the people who get that are the operations. People see people every day in their plants, showing up with all kinds of problems. A few companies, Dow Chemical's got a worker health index that literally makes managers in the field partly responsible for the health profile of their population at their facility. And so part of what they get paid incentive compensation Penzone the health profile of their employees. That's the right way to do it corporately. Do many companies do that? No, they really don't there again. I'll mention, you know, if you the obvious suspects companies, we work with like Saudi, Aramco, and Unilever, and actually in US Chevron and shell, to some extent shows inter. Net is not based in the US. These are companies that are really paying attention to the health and productivity connection. Why? Why is it in that those that particular industry? I'd have mentioned a few oil and gas companies, and we do work heavily with them, but they seem to get this. It's really interesting. Their thought of as a basic industry part of it is that they really have a big investment in their human capital. And if you think of people as capital in takes pretty skilled people now to turn to run things in those industries, because they don't have huge workforce's except for China, National Petroleum, they're in a different category because that's a full employment, but they really pay a lot of attention to their people as human capital. And so the make investments in that are going to make those people more productive the health and wellness and wellbeing investments in cultures around that. It's a very collegial industry and people look out for each other part of it's a safety f.. In a safety focused industry, you're looking out for each other and means that helps to create a culture where you tend to support each other in a healthy sorta way as well. So then there's tack, you would think the tech would be a natural for this problem with TAC is in many tech industries as a high rate, eternal, and so health investments to pay off take awhile..