The first prob­lem in prov­ing the val­ue of well­ness pro­grams, of course, is that the data, while con­sid­er­able, is also anec­do­tal.  Fur­ther, the use of well­ness does not nec­es­sar­i­ly cor­re­late to some of the results claimed. Final­ly, though this is one good rea­son to do it any­way, is that you can’t quan­ti­fy the results based on what dis­eases or injuries you would have pre­vent­ed.  A recent study in Health Affairs, which is the lead­ing jour­nal for health care the­o­ry and prac­tice, said care coor­di­na­tion and man­age­ment ini­tia­tives have not been dri­vers of sav­ings in Medicare, and an ear­li­er study shows that even if 90% of con­sumers uti­lized pre­ven­tive ser­vices (much high­er than the cur­rent take­up rate) the total effect on health care spend­ing would be just under 0.2% — a lot of mon­ey over­all, but not much mon­ey as part of the sys­tem.  Cyn­ics also point out that if we let peo­ple live longer, they will con­sume more health care ser­vices.  This is, of course, a good soci­etal thing, but if you want to look pure­ly at how to save mon­ey and how to improve care, there is always con­tention with the “law of unin­tend­ed con­se­quences’  Over­all, the argu­ment should be about improv­ing qual­i­ty and not sav­ing costs. Oh, well.