University of Michigan (Innovation Award)

The University of Michigan (U-M), a leading public research university with campuses in Ann Arbor, Dearborn and Flint, is recognized for its commitment to academic excellence, innovation and employee well-being. U-M is one of Michigan’s largest employers, with over 57,000 faculty and staff, including those at Michigan Medicine.

Recognizing the value of a healthy workplace culture, U-M established MHealthy in 2009 to support employee well-being. MHealthy offers services focused on nutrition, physical activity, mental health, alcohol management, tobacco cessation and more – addressing a holistic view of health. Furthering its commitment, in 2021, U-M adopted the Okanagan Charter, pledging to take a holistic and sustainable approach to becoming a health-promoting university.

To address factors beyond individual health behaviors that influence overall health, MHealthy launched the Resource Coach Program (RCP) in 2020. Focused on employees in lower wage categories, the RCP connects U-M employees experiencing financial crises or personal hardships to both university and community services. Dedicated case managers help participants navigate critical challenges like housing, transportation and utilities, working to ensure stability at work and well-being. The program also provides financial assistance through mini-grants and the Emergency Hardship Program.

Housed within MHealthy under U-M Human Resources, the RCP is integrated into the university’s broader employee support and is better able to reduce barriers. It has expanded efforts to include food security supports, financial well-being programs and physical activity program scholarships.

Contact Person: Susan Sutorka

Email: sbatts@med.umich.edu

Evaluation results show positive impact: 93% of participants are satisfied with the program and 90% report that due to the RCP, they experienced a decrease in the impact that one of their unmet critical needs had on their life. The RCP has also contributed to a significant decrease in ER visit and cost trends among participants compared to non-participants.

With continued backing from leadership and an inclusive, strengths-based approach, the RCP will continue to create a supportive environment for all U-M employees.

REVIEWER 1
• Focus on low-wage employees.
• Systems approach, including social determinants of health.
• Acknowledges and works to address barriers/challenges.
• Extensive collaboration.
• Reduction in ER visits for participants.
• Strong participant satisfaction.
• Minimum wage increase.

REVIEWER 2
• Excellent application, very well written/organized with strong evidence and data to back it up. I especially appreciated that the RCP was designed in-house (via strategic partnerships cross-team/department) in response to a known need, operationalized in a way to optimize current benefits and build community relationships.
• I felt outcomes, in general, could have been more robust, e.g., include multiple metrics from the post assessment; some sort of ‘change’ based on comparison of pre/post; and/or any sort of comparative participants v non-participants (other than ER). What was presented suggests meaningful impact for those who experienced RCP

REVIEWER 3
• Ability to create a customized and integrated advocacy solution in place to meet the needs of the lower income employees.
• Excellent linkage to University longer term 2034 Vision and strong leadership commitment as one of the four main “impact areas” for university.

REVIEWER 4
• This is a unique and innovative approach to impacting social determinants of health factors which can have significant impact on health and cost. U of M recognized that this had significant potential to impact their lower paid workers. It is difficult to determine from the application how deeply they penetrated the population in need, and many of the results compare people eligible but not participating to those who are eligible and participating, which is often a flawed comparison. From the information provided, it appears this had a significant organizational impact, given it contributed to setting a minimum wage for employees. Although this is a large employer, their target is much smaller but yet less bonus points were available. Comparatively, this is a stronger application in my view than the Diocese of Pensacola/Tallahassee, but our scoring system resulted in it only being a point higher.

REVIEWER 5
<<DID NOT REVIEW>>

REVIEWER 6
• Great job addressing a direct need, social determinants of health, for a typically underserved population. Based on the need and working with senior leadership, the staff increased from one to three.
• Outcomes for health measures and impact on participants, whether the program lessened the burden of an unmet need.
• Great job using this initiative to drive changes to the minimum wage within the organization.

REVIEWER 7
• Important and worthwhile initiative addressing SDoH with a coaching and financial support model for low-wage workers
• In place since 2020
• Financial assistance paid for by specific endowment, donors, and external funds – indicating sustainability – also embedded within HR and viewed as one of many employee benefits
• Connecting employees to available resources through a concierge type service – essentially navigation services provided by coaches
• Participation has grown since 2020 – but did not grow from 2023 to 2024
• Claims analysis methods are solid as described but have many flaws and omissions
• $15 minimum wage across all employees is a good outcome – but still below a livable wage

REVIEWER 8
• Focus on the resource coach program with case manager navigators helping to address SDOH issues
• Pre/post surveys
• Good engagement
• Very novel, scalable and sustainable
• Impact on ER utilization and other metrics
• Analysis by income level