That was then, and this is now...

On the one hand (nine years ago):

"Medical Mutual of Ohio, recently completed a study with the University of Michigan's Health Management Research Center; the study concerned MMO's own employees' experience with company-sponsored wellness programs ... Medical costs increased less year-over-year for employees who participated in Wellness for Life activities compared to non-participants."

On the other (6 years ago):

"Workplace wellness programs sound like a win-win: Employees get discounted gym memberships or help quitting cigarettes, and their company gets a healthier staff and lower insurance rates ... Actuarial studies covering thousands of employees over the last 25 years or so don't bear that out.All these incentive programs really do is reward those with healthy lifestyles rather than forcing them to subsidize the additional cost of insuring obese tobacco users."

NTTAWWT.

On the Gripping Hand (a few days ago, as tipped to us by FoIB Holly R):

"Workplace Wellness Programs Don’t Work Well. Why Some Studies Show Otherwise ... These programs are usually offered by employers to make their employees healthier ... Many of the analyses of these programs have shown positive results." [emphasis added]

Okay, wait a minute, "analysis" is very different from "results." What gives?

Ah:

"Confounding is a classic problem of selection bias ... But that’s hard to do with a wellness program."

And thus, when accounting for the actual variables being  measured, there "seemed to be no causal effects."

Which is, of course, disappointing to those with an axe to grind, but I'd also point out that there didn't seem to be any evidence, or even any suggestion, that engaging in wellness activities was harmful.

So we've got that going for us, which is nice.