Scroll down to see the Penn-Mart memo
Analzye the business document below (scroll down) applying all the steps of the
critical thinking model.
In a short paper (7-8 double-spaced pages) apply the steps of the critical thinking
model to assess the arguments made in the critical thinking assignment
document. You must include all of the steps.
Here are the steps:
1. What are the issue and conclusions?
2. What are the reasons?
3. What words or phrases are ambiguous?
4. What are the values and descriptive assumptions?
5. Are there any fallacies in the reasoning?
6. How good is the evidence?
7. Are there any rival causes?
8. Are the statistics deceptive?
9. What significant information is omitted?
10. What reasonable conclusions are possible?
Remember that your task here is to evaluate the author’s argument as
objectively as possible, not to give your own opinions on the issue. Be
sure to use the analytical framework, not your own thoughts on the issue.
Prepare the paper in APA format. The citations and the reference list in the paper
should be formatted in accordance with the APA guidelines.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
PENN-MART
Recommendation for Revision of Penn-Mart’s
Health Care Strategy
Memorandum to the Board of Directors
from Salvador Monella, SVP, Human Resources
January 6, 2014
1.
Purpose
This memorandum is to update you on our efforts to review and revise PennMart’s healthcare benefits strategy. Last fall the board asked my office to
examine what Penn-Mart could do to control the spiraling costs of employee
healthcare benefits. In response to the board’s concerns about unfavorable cost
trends, I recently led a team in evaluating Penn-Mart’s approach to benefits, and
developing a plan to revise the Penn-Mart healthcare strategy. We are prepared
to share with you a brief, high level overview of our considerations and our final
recommendations. In short, we recommend that Penn-Mart institute a wellness
initiative consisting of a mandatory health screening program for all employees
enrolled in the company-sponsored health plans.
1.
Findings
Our internal research has showed that wages and benefits make up roughly 40
percent of our annual budget. Growth in benefits costs is unacceptable and is
driven by fundamental and persistent root causes such as an aging workforce
with increasing average tenure. Benefits costs could consume as much as 15
percent of our total profits in 2015. Employee surveys demonstrate that
employees are overall highly satisfied with their benefits. The least healthy, least
productive employees are more satisfied with their benefits than other segments
and are interested in longer careers with Penn-Mart. It is not fair to the young
and fit, to allow those who are not to be a drag on earnings. Our research
indicates employees overall are highly opposed to traditional cost-control
measures such as higher deductibles for health insurance.
Data from our underwriters indicates that individuals who voluntarily neglect their
health account for the greatest impact on the growth in benefits costs. This
group includes smokers, those who do not exercise, and those who defer
preventative care. Therefore we should require preventative care of everyone at
Penn-Mart. The best way to do this is through a mandatory wellness program.
Penn-Mart has for ten years offered wellness programs on a voluntary basis.
Data from our group health underwriters indicates that participation in these
voluntary programs peaked at 5% of total FTE’s in 2006.[1] It is time to get
everyone involved.
1.
Recommendations
Our recommendations are expected to have significant positive impact on the
health care cost curve for Penn-Mart.
Our team recommends:
•
◦
•
◦
◦
•
•
◦
◦
◦
◦
1.
That every current benefits-enrolled employee be required to complete biometric
health screening no later than December 31, 2014 at a company-contracted third
party medical facility.
Biometric screening includes: finger stick blood tests for cholesterol and glucose;
weight, height, and waist measurement; and a blood pressure reading.
That every current benefits-enrolled employee be required to complete an online
health profile.
Such profile will collect additional information to provide a more complete picture
of employee health (e.g. whether employee smokes, conducts appropriate
physical self-examinations).
Certify that the employee has had an annual physical examination.
That the new initiative be given a friendly name such as “Get Well” to promote
employee acceptance of the program.
That employees who do not comply with the terms of “Get Well” be given the
options of
Pay a $1,000 annual health surcharge; or
Decline employer-sponsored health coverage for the following calendar year;
Resignation; or
Termination.
Discussion
The objective of the “Get Well” program is to make employees more aware of
their own health status and to help them identify issues that they could mitigate
on their own to become more fit.
The “Get Well” initiative completely aligns with other current public health and
fitness initiatives such as Mayor Bloomberg’s ban on large soft drinks and the
First Lady’s “Let’s Move” campaign.
There have been numerous research studies on obesity published in scholarly
journals such as the Journal of the American Medical Association and the New
England Journal of Medicine.
We firmly believe that many Penn-Mart employees want to get fit and that the
“Get Well” initiative will provide the necessary incentives for them to take charge
of their own wellness. Giving a blood sample and filling out a survey form is not
intrusive or burdensome – these are two things that people do routinely. Those
who might oppose “Get Well” are either unfit, or they have something to hide in
their medical history. To quote the famous Charles Darwin, “survival of the fittest”
is a natural part of evolution.
“Get Well” will make all Penn-Mart employees feel better about themselves.
These recommendations have been thoroughly researched and represent stateof-the-art in our field. We are confident in your concurrence.
[1] 2006 was the year of Penn-Mart’s participation in the local Corporate
Challenge road race in which some managers chose to consider participation in
the race as a minor part of the annual employee performance review process;
this initiative was scrapped due to a frivolous legal challenge by those who are
not runners.
