Category Archives: health

Taking Well-being’s Pulse

If there’s a single item that runs through Aon Hewitt’s 7th Annual Consumer Health Mindset Study, released yesterday at the National Business Group on Health’s Business Health Agenda 2017 in Washington, it’s that well-being continues to be a work in progress. (You can pre-register here for the full report.)

The study of 2,503 consumers, mostly employees and their dependents, found that well-being is continuing to have a big impact, with all well-being dimensions (financial, physical, emotional and social) being viewed by employees as important.

The findings suggest that consumers are increasingly looking at well-being in a holistic way, certainly a good sign for employers as they attempt to expand their well-being footprints. In light of this, one of the recommendations offered by Aon Hewitt Partner Joann Hall Swenson at a general session on the survey’s key takeaways was for employers to build workplaces that can support well-being in its entirety.

It’s also worth noting that, according to the study, some of the more traditional elements of physical wellness experienced a decline in importance over the past year. Diet, for example, decreased in importance by 7 percent, from 65 percent to 58 percent. Exercise, meanwhile, dropped 6 percent, from 59 percent to 53 percent.

Swenson suggested that employers might want to refresh their efforts in both those areas.

Employers, of course, would like nothing more than to see a greater percentage of employees become better consumers. Right? Better consumers make better decisions, after all.

Well, if the study’s findings are correct, employers still have more work to do on this front as well.

A takeaway from the study is that savvy consumerism continues to be a challenge as far as healthcare is concerned. Among the data points shared by Swenson: 77 percent of the respondents regretted a health decision they made, and only 40 percent said they know where to go to find out what a particular health service costs, down 7 percent over the past year.

“When you look at the number of people who bring a list of questions to their doctor and the number of people who are looking at costs before having a procedure, those numbers are down,” Swenson pointed out.

Then there’s the high level of frustration and confusion patients experience navigating the healthcare system, another key finding cited by Swenson. “Patients are losing their patience,” especially in the case of emerging millennials, she said.  “Many are giving up and throwing in the towel.”

To address this, she said, employers need to use technology to simplify the health-navigation process.

The survey also took a deeper dive into the area of mental health than in past years, finding that the issue continues to reside “in the shadows.” Not surprisingly, it found that stress continues to be on the rise, with the percentage of respondents reporting high stress levels at 54 percent, up 5 percent over the past year. Of those reporting high stress, 74 percent said they were experiencing more and more obstacles that stood in the way of receiving treatments.

Consumers, Swenson said, would like to see more one-on-one assistance from their employers, greater flexibility in terms of arranging for appointments and an expanded provider network from which to choose.

Finally, Swenson said, consumers want healthcare and well-being to be a multichannel experience, one that includes email, mobile and social. Messages and information, she added, need to be delivered when they’re needed, not when it’s convenient for the employer. (The topic of personalization was addressed at several other points during the NBGH event.)

Farewell to OSHA Rule

Looks like another Obama-era rule is about to bite the dust any day now—this time involving the Occupational Safety and Health Administration.

On Thursday, the Senate voted 50 to 48 (two Republican senators abstained) to eliminate an Obama-administration rule that required companies to retain their records of workplace injuries, illnesses and deaths for five years after an incident occurs. Roughly three weeks before, the House voted 231 to 191 to roll back the regulation. Now, the bill—passed under the Congressional Review Act, which gives Congress the ability to use a simple majority to roll back rules within a 60-legislative-day window—is just waiting for President Trump’s signature. (The president has indicated he would sign it.)

Under the Obama-administration rule, which went into effect in January, OSHA was given the ability to issue citations to employers that failed to track such incidences for five years after they took place. Previously, the statute of limitations was six months.

Senate Labor Committee Chairman Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.) said the Obama legislation is the result of a policy that “makes no sense, does not help any workers, harms smaller employers most of all, and ultimately is rejected by Congress.”

Meanwhile, Congressman Bradley Byrne ( R-Al.), author of the legislation, issued a statement applauding the Senate’s vote: “We should be focused on practive policies that help improve workplace safety instead of punitive rules that do nothing to make America workers safer,” he said. “We took a major step in the right direction today by restricting OSHA from moving ahead with such a flawed regulation.”

Of course, the bill has its detractors, too.

Prior to the Senate vote, Jordan Barab, a former Deputy Assistant Secretary for OSHA (2009 to 2017) posted an article on the Economic Policy Institute site that was critical of Congress’ efforts to kill the rule. Barab points out in the piece that “without being able to enforce any violation within the five-year period, enforcement of recordkeeping accuracy would be almost impossible.”

Yesterday, I asked Edwin G. Foulke Jr., a former assistant secretary of labor for OSHA and a partner in the Atlanta and Washington offices of Fisher Phillips, to weigh in on the potential impact of the move. As he put it:

“When you look back to the ’80s and ’90s, when we used to get the real large penalties of six figures or [more], many times it involved cases with recordkeeping violations going back a number of years. So [the rollback] is going to limit the number of the large citations you’re going to see from a recordkeeping standpoint.”

Of course, he added, employers are still going to be required to maintain those records. “It’s just that OSHA is not going to be able to go beyond the six-month time frame that’s in the act itself.”

As for what other OSHA rules might be in the sights of the Trump administration, Foulke pointed to electronic filing. For now, he said, OSHA is moving forward because no one has told it not to. But once a new Secretary of Labor is confirmed, he added, that could change.

Homing in on Behavioral Health

Just over two years ago, we posted a piece on this site highlighting findings from a Disability Management Employer Coalition study on behavioral health in the workplace.

The DMEC’s research painted what HRE described at the time as a “somewhat incongruous picture.” For example, more than 60 percent of the 314 employers polled said the stigma surrounding mental health issues at work had either stayed the same or gotten worse in the past two years. On the other hand, 37 percent of those same companies said that management had “become more open” about assessing behavioral health in that time. In 2012, 25 percent of respondents said the same, according to DMEC.

Here we are in 2017, and the findings of a new Willis Towers Watson survey suggest that the picture is starting to come into focus for employers, the overwhelming majority of which say they plan to keep upping their efforts to address mental health issues among the workforce.

The firm’s 2017 Behavioral Health Study, which polled 314 U.S. employers, finds 88 percent of respondents saying behavioral health is an important priority for their organizations over the next three years.

More specifically, 63 percent count locating more timely and effective treatment of behavioral health issues as an area of primary concern in that same span. Sixty-one percent said the same about integrating behavioral health case management with medical and disability case management. In addition, 56 percent said their organizations are concentrating on providing better support for complex behavioral health conditions, and 52 percent of employers are looking to expand access to care for mental health issues between now and the year 2020.

Beyond increasing and improving the level of care received by those with behavioral health issues, the survey also found that organizations intend to address the root causes of these issues. More than one third of respondents (36 percent) say they have already addressed and taken steps to reduce stress and improve resiliency, while 47 percent are planning or considering action designed to do so over the next three years. Twenty-eight percent currently provide educational programs that touch on the warning signs of behavioral health issues or distress, and 41 percent are planning or considering such programs.

These employers are also showing more interest in mobile apps to help employees manage behavioral health needs, according to Willis Towers Watson. The survey finds the percentage of companies including mobile applications in their service offerings on the way up. For instance, 11 percent of those surveyed already offer stress reduction or resiliency apps; a number that is expected to increase to 38 percent within three years, the study finds. And, while just 7 percent provide apps designed to help curb anxiety, 31 percent of respondents said they plan to offer such applications between now and 2020.

However they plan to reach workers with mental health needs, “employers are concerned about behavioral health issues because of the impact on costs, employee health and productivity, and workplace safety,” says Julie Stone, a national healthcare practice leader at Willis Towers Watson, in a statement.

“The seriousness of the issues—both for employers and employees—has led to a deeper understanding of the problem and greater resolve to take action.”

Employers are now more committed than ever, says Stone, to “improving access to treatment, providing employees with better coordination of care across various health programs and reducing the stigma that could be associated with behavioral health through educational programs.”

Mental Health Conditions and the ADA

Mental healthIn many cases, making reasonable accommodations for employees’ physical conditions should seem straightforward enough.

Provide a hearing-impaired worker with the necessary phone equipment, for example. Allow a blind employee to bring his or her service dog to work. Lower the height of a wheelchair user’s desktop.

Addressing the needs of individuals with mental health conditions—which can be difficult to understand or even recognize—is a bit trickier for employers. Recent history gives us examples (like this one) of how organizations can run afoul of the American with Disabilities Act when dealing with mental health issues in the workplace.

This week, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission issued a resource document it hopes will explain workplace protections and appropriate accommodations for employees and job applicants with mental health conditions under the ADA.

Judging by recent EEOC data, many employers could use some guidance in this area.

During fiscal year 2016, the organization resolved nearly 5,000 charges of discrimination based on mental health conditions, and obtained roughly $20 million for individuals with mental health conditions who were unlawfully denied employment and reasonable accommodations. And, EEOC charge data show that claims of discrimination based on mental health conditions are on the way up.

Depression, PTSD & Other Mental Health Conditions in the Workplace: Your Legal Rights is geared toward the individual employee, but can also be instructive for businesses. For instance, the document offers examples of possible accommodations to help individuals with mental health conditions perform their jobs, such as altering break and work schedules (scheduling work around therapy appointments, for example), providing quiet office space or devices that create a quiet work environment, making changes in supervisory methods and granting permission to work from home.

It also outlines scenarios in which employees or job applicants are allowed to keep a mental health condition private, and details situations that permit employers to ask medical questions, including queries surrounding mental health.

“Many people with common mental health conditions have important protections under the ADA,” said EEOC Chair Jenny R. Yang, in a statement. “Employers, job applicants and employees should know that mental health conditions are no different than physical health conditions under the law. In our recent outreach to veterans who have returned home with service-connected disabilities, we have seen the need to raise awareness about these issues. This resource document aims to clarify the protections that the ADA affords employees.”

Answering the Cancer Call

It’s nice to see efforts continuing at a healthy pace to help employers and employees deal with one of the scariest threats to corporate 508254750-cancerhealth — the growth of cancer in our aging workforce.

The latest initiative is an impressive one, a program introduced recently by the Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York through which it now collaborates with employers to simplify the whole process for their working cancer patients to get the help they need. New as the program is, it already has six employers signed on for this collaboration, including CBS Corp. and the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey.

Through the program, called MSK Direct, each collaborative partnership is customized to the individual employer’s and its employees’ needs. A customized menu might include initial evaluations or second opinions, the options to immediately begin cancer treatment and support services such as counseling.

“Cancer care is extraordinarily difficult to go through, but accessing it in a time of distress shouldn’t be,” says Wendy Perchick, senior vice president of strategy and innovation at MSK. “MSK Direct is a prime example of our commitment to our mission, which includes making all aspects of our experience, care and services more accessible, seamless and beneficial to as many people as possible. In the face of a cancer diagnosis, we want patients, their family members and their employers to feel certain they are in caring and highly capable hands.”

Let’s face it, she and others say: The number of cancer diagnoses among working Americans is only going to climb as baby boomers continue to keep working out of a sense of purpose, but also out of necessity, whatever the cost to health, welfare and sanity may be.

As this story in HRE by Julie Cook Ramirez less than a year ago confirms, the number of people continuing to work with cancer diagnoses is now close to 15 million. And though there are a lot of positives around that for those employees (a sense of purpose, distraction away from their diagnosis, the list goes on), there are many challenges they bring to work as well, including diminished physical capabilities and stamina, and some mental impairments as they undergo chemotherapy.

The story also details things HR professionals can do to make such a devastating time for an employee a little more navigable, such as reworking their schedules, making a special effort to go over all benefits till they’re sure the patient understands and basically just being there to answer all the questions they may have.

As the numbers grow, so grow the costs. This post by me in 2014 put the price tag for employers at about $19,000 annually per 100 employees in lost work time and medical treatments, according to research from the Integrated Benefits Institute. (IBI President Tom Parry confirmed for me that these are still the latest figures.)

Numbers aside, let’s face it, there are a whole lot of us baby boomers in the workplace probably in a good bit of denial about what lies ahead. Many of these boomers’ employers might also be happily sharing in that denial as they continue reaping the benefits of older employees’ work ethics and knowledge.

But let’s also face the inevitability. None of us are getting any younger. And as workers age, health problems at work grow. As one friend, a seemingly ageless practicing family doctor in Seattle who likes to backpack, power walk, participate in medical missions abroad … and who’s just been diagnosed with breast cancer … put it, “No one ever told us boomers that life after 50 becomes a journey of loss — loss of our own health and loss of loved ones to the loss of their health. They should have told us this.” (And she’s a doctor!)

At least some employers are now facing this reality with their unstoppable boomers and helping them through the obstacle course that is cancer, however they want to be helped.

For some tips on how this might be done at your organization, and some immediate steps you can take to increase the value of cancer-care benefits and services you’re providing, consider this report — High Value Cancer Care: Guidance for Employers — that the Northeast Business Group on Health put out just last week. Here’s the news statement as well.

Roughly, as Dr. Jeremy Nobel, executive director of NEBGH’s Solutions Center, lays it out:

“Understanding what high-value services to look for when evaluating sites of care; making sure patients have access and coverage for seeking expert second opinions whether via health-plan-recommended specialists, a Center of Excellence or third-party second-opinion services; and encouraging employees to educate themselves about the benefits of palliative care and to request it early in the treatment process are all important steps employers can take right now.”

I guess I might only add that leaving them in the driver’s seat on directions to go and care to pursue, honoring their journey with the dignity they deserve, is a must.

Better Boss: Trump or Clinton?

The U.S. presidential election may not be over yet (unfortunately), but Hillary Clinton has already won. The boss contest, that is: According to a new CareerBuilder survey, 57 percent of workers say they’d prefer to work for the former Secretary of State, while 43 percent say they’d rather work for Donald Trump.

Donald Trump was a tough boss on NBC's "The Apprentice" (photo by Gage Skidmore)
Donald Trump was a tough boss on NBC’s “The Apprentice” (photo by Gage Skidmore)

A gender gap exists here, as it does in the general electorate, with 62 percent of women favoring Clinton. Men were evenly split between Clinton and Trump. Clinton was also the preferred boss for African American (87 percent), Hispanic (79 percent) and Asian (78 percent) professionals.

The survey, which queried 3,133 full-time workers over the age of 18, also finds that manufacturing workers stood out as the only industry preferring Trump as workplace leader, with 55 percent of them favoring him over Clinton. The next closest was transportation workers, who favored working for Clinton by only four points (52 percent to 48 percent). Support for Clinton as boss was strongest from workers in healthcare (63 percent to 37 percent) and financial services (60 percent to 40 percent — somebody better tell Bernie Sanders).

Regardless of whether their campaigns put them in the Oval Office or back in the private sector, Clinton and Trump have already had a major impact on the U.S. workplace. An American Psychological Association survey finds that one in four employees have been negatively affected by conversations about the election with co-workers. Twenty-eight percent of workers younger than 34 said these conversations left them feeling “stressed out.”  Twice as many men as women reported that the political talk was making them upset enough to be less productive. Until this endless political season is over (and will be shortly), it’s probably best to follow a few rules of engagement for political discussions at work.

Beware of the ‘Food Altar’ at Work

ThinkstockPhotos-178634141Anthropologists tell us that sharing food is nearly universal in human society. And that includes the office.

Some workplaces have raised the custom to a high art. Think of Doughnut Day. Strawberries from the garden. Cookies from home. Leftovers from a lunch meeting. M&Ms in a bowl on the boss’s desk.

These rituals humanize the workplace. They break up the monotony of work. And who doesn’t like to eat?

One problem: Much of that food is unhealthy. And the cornucopia can undercut both company wellness programs and individual efforts at healthy eating. What good does it do to put bananas in the vending machines or carrots in your lunch bag when Susie in accounting brings brownies?

One recent study about this problem says there’s a term for that place in every office where food gets piled. They’re called “food altars,” according to four researchers at the University of California Davis.

Published in the June issue of the journal Food, Culture & Society, the study was by Carolyn Thomas, Jennifer Sedell, Charlotte Biltekoff and Sara Schaefer. They studied the eating habits of 25 university office workers to draw some conclusions that could apply to many workplaces.

They found that while health-conscious employees might have elaborate systems to control consumption, their efforts often were “sabotaged by food that simply materialized in the workplace.” Food altars, they wrote, are “responsible for the majority of unplanned and ‘unhealthful’ eating decisions in the workplace.”

The result: “A workplace-sanctioned system of food-choice challenges.”

Anyone who’s worked in an office will recognize the problem. Yet how can we control it? No one wants to be the Grinch who refuses to bring in bagels when it’s their turn. Or to be the boss who issues a memo declaring the office a carrot-cake-free zone.

The study authors don’t propose a solution. But at least they’ve identified a problem and given it a name. The rest, alas, is up to us.

Supporters of E-Cigs Fight Back

There’s some real pushback under way to what I was thinking had become a generally agreed-upon vice worth eradicating from our streets, public arenas and workplaces: e-cigarette vaping.

470456691--vapingMy eyebrows were raised on Friday when I came across this release from the National Center for Public Policy Research announcing an amicus brief that had just been filed by the NCPPR and TechFreedom in support of an earlier challenge to the Food and Drug Administration’s war on vaping.

Specifically, the initial challenge that got a major boost on Friday was filed by Nicopure Labs, a manufacturer of e-cigarette liquid, against the FDA’s Deeming Rule, which was finalized in May. That rule would force e-cigarette manufacturers to undergo an expensive and time-consuming premarket tobacco-application process unless their products were on the market prior to the predicate date of Feb. 15, 2007. As the NCPPR release puts it:

“The high cost of the application process means most e-cig businesses will be forced to shut down, eliminating choices of dramatically safer alternatives to combustible cigarettes, which will leave smokers with fewer options to compete against the most harmful form of nicotine consumption, [again,] combustible tobacco.”

It also states that:

“The FDA’s Deeming Rule fails to consider the scientific evidence readily available to the agency regarding the safety and the public health benefits of e-cigarettes.”

Is it just me or is this the first time you’ve read anything about the “public health benefits of e-cigarettes”?

I love how this guy, Tom Remington, on his blog post, compares  choosing between e-cigs and tobacco to choosing between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton. Mind you, I’m not 100-percent sure what position he’s taking here (something tells me he’s anti e-cigs … and don’t ask me to even hazard a guess as to who he plans to vote for), but his quote is pretty fun:

“Having a discussion about whether or not e-cigarettes are more healthy than real tobacco-product cigarettes is akin to deciding which crook, Hillary or Donald, should get your vote. Would you rather die from e-cigarettes or from tobacco? Would you rather get screwed and further forced into slavery by Hillary or Donald?”

For a much more complete and sobering look at why clamping down on the e-cigarette business isn’t necessarily a good thing for health but IS a big victory for Big Tobacco, read this opinion piece on the Washington Post site by Jonathan Adler. Here’s just one compelling thought to come away with, as Adler writes it:

“With the new FDA rule, Big Tobacco is getting just what it wanted. … [A]s a consequence of the FDA rule, the e-cig market will shrink, and Big Tobacco will be in a better position to dominate what’s left. A vibrant competitive market will be replaced with a cartel, much like the one we see in the cigarette market.”

So what does all this have to do with HR? Probably not as much as other topics we’ve raised here, but I do know many of you are grappling with your smoking policies, and many of you have opted to lump vaping in with the rest of your organization’s prohibited activities.

I guess this might just give you something more to think about as you go about drafting or enforcing such a policy … like who’s hands you might be playing into(?) Or where the real truth lies(?) If, indeed, these things are so much healthier than cigarettes, for all concerned, and can help move the quitting process along, are you sure you want to deny your employees any and all access(?)

Maybe just put all this in your pipe and smoke it(?) (Sorry.)

Wait … Work Is Good for Your Health?

A compre200400993-001hensive survey of American workers this week offered some predictable findings about health and employment. But there are some happy surprises as well.

Perhaps most interesting was a finding that 28 percent of workers said their job was good for their overall health. That’s considerably more than the 16 percent who said it was bad.  (The rest, a slight majority, said their job had no effect on their overall health.)

Why the upbeat view? Researchers didn’t ask, and declined to share any thoughts about what respondents meant. But we can find some clues on our own by looking at this poll and other research. And those clues offer some encouragement for HR professionals.

How does your job affect your _____?
Good impact Bad impact No impact
Overall health 28% 16% 54%
Eating habits 15% 28% 56%
Stress level 16% 43% 39%
Sleeping habits 17% 27% 55%
Weight 19% 22% 57%
Social life 27% 17% 56%
Family life 32% 17% 50%
Source: Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health

Make no mistake, there are plenty of concerns raised by this survey, which was performed by the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health in conjunction with National Public Radio and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. Researchers polled 1,601 working Americans across a range of ages, ethnicities, income levels and industries. The margin of error for the full sample was 2.9 percent at the 95 percent confidence level.

NPR stories about the survey this week have highlighted how workers with disabilities often struggle at work, how lack of sick leave can drive some families into financial crisis and why so many employees go to work while sick.

Among other troubling — if unsurprising — findings was that 43 percent of respondents said work added stress to their lives. A news release from the university quoted poll director Robert J. Blendon concluding that “The takeaway here is that job number one for U.S. employers is to reduce stress in the workplace.”

But what might workers be thinking when they say their job is good for their health?

One obvious point is that having a job means having an income and (often) having insurance. That’s definitely good for your health. But I wonder if many respondents were really thinking at that level of abstraction.

There’s also research suggesting that, in fact, work is good for your health. One frequently-cited research overview conducted in the United Kingdom concluded that meaningful, safe work generally offers physical and mental-health benefits. Being active and having a purpose is good for us.

But were many respondents thinking about arcane findings in the field of occupational health?

Perhaps a more plausible explanation is in the new poll itself — findings that suggest wellness programs really matter. More than half of respondents said their company had a formal wellness program.

Even more significant: Of those workers, a whopping 45 percent said that program was “very important” to their health. Nearly as many said it was “somewhat important.”

Wellness programs don’t offer any clues about some other surprising findings in this poll, alas. Respondents also apparently think work is good for their social life and (even more mysteriously) their family life. Let’s hope researchers some day will drill deeper to find out what’s really going on here.

A Wake-Up Call for the Sleep Deprived

Several familiar themes emerged at Virgin Pulses’ 2016 Thrive Summit in Boston this week, including some we heard at HRE’s Health & Benefits Leadership Conference earlier this spring.

Arianna Huffington’s humorous and engaging keynote Tuesday afternoon on the topic of sleep deprivation was one that personally resonated with me. Maybe it had something do with the fact I was still struggling with jet lag, having just returned from a trip from Japan the weekend before?

Of course, you don’t need to be a rocket scientist to grasp the detrimental impact sleep deprivation can have on effectiveness and productivity. Studies have repeatedly shown the huge toll it can take on businesses, including one titled “Insomnia and the Performance of U.S. Workers: Results from the American Insomnia Survey” that put lost workplace productivity at around 11 days per employee—or the equivalent of $2,280 per employee. If you’re a business leader, figures like these, you would think, could lead to a few sleepless nights of your own.

Huffington, founder, president and editor-in-chief of the Huffington Post Media Group, touched on the problem of sleep deprivation in Thrive: The Third Metric to Redefining Success and Creating a Life of Well-Being, Wisdom, and Wonder. Most likely in the hopes of drawing more attention to this ever-important issue, she also came out with a new book last month dedicated to the subject titled The Sleep Revolution: Transforming Your Life, One Night at a Time. (As an attendee at the Thrive Summit, I received a complimentary copy, which I’m looking forward to giving a more thorough read.)

In her Thrive Summit talk, Huffington shared her own personal awakening, which involved pushing herself so hard nine years earlier that she collapsed and, in the process, broke her cheekbone. She noted that “you’re not successful when you find yourself in a pool of blood.”

After a series of doctor visits and testing, she said it was determined the cause of the fall wasn’t a brain tumor or heart condition, but was due to her not getting enough sleep.

“Sleep deprivation is the new smoking,” she said.

Despite noting that her talk would be apolitical, Huffington, a political commentary who regularly takes aim at the Republican Party, couldn’t refrain from taking a jab at the Republican Party’s “presumptive” nominee, who has, on occasion, boasted about the limited sleep he needs to get. That candidate, she said, seems to display all of the symptoms of a person who is sleep deprived: mood swings, bad judgement, etc.

Huffington said the science shows that people need seven to nine hours of sleep, not the three, four or five many are settling on—and employers and HR leaders need to do more to enable that to happen.

For starters, she said, business leaders need to end the practice of praising and rewarding those who never disconnect from their jobs. “When you congratulate people who work 24/7, it’s like congratulating them for coming to work drunk,” she said.

Huffington specifically praised the efforts of business leaders such as Amazon’s CEO and Founder Jeff Bezos and Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella, who have been ahead of the curve in talking about the value of getting eight hours of sleep a night. Other so-called “sleep evangelists” mentioned in The Sleep Revolution include Campbell Soup CEO Denise Morrison and Google Chairman Eric Schmidt.

There are a number of steps people can take to get “rekindle our romance with sleep,” Huffington said. She specifically emphasized the value of creating a ritual before going to bed. For her, that ritual includes disconnecting from all electronic devices roughly 30 minutes ahead of time and taking a hot bath in Epsom salts.

Whether it’s 30 minutes or something less, she said, “we need to wind down and put the day behind us.”

Of course, for those of us who aren’t getting enough sleep, changing our behavior is often easier said than done. So it probably wasn’t a coincidence that the program kicked off the following morning with a workshop titled “Behavior Change is a Skill,” conducted by BJ Fogg, director of the Persuasive Tech Lab at Stanford University.

The premise of his workshop was that people can learn to change their behaviors—that people can acquire skills for changing just as they can learn how to play a musical instrument or swim.

Or, I suppose for that matter, learn how to get a better night’s sleep.