Mary T. Imboden
Katie Scott
Over the past five years, organizations worldwide have substantially ramped up their investment in employee health and well-being (HWB) particularly in mental health, preventive care, and digital wellness tools. Measuring the effectiveness of these initiatives is critical to their success, as robust measurement enables organizations to make informed decisions about adjustments or expansions, ultimately maximizing the benefits of these programs. Employers are under significant pressure from increased healthcare costs, with total health benefit cost per employee seeing its highest increase in 15 years (6.7% projected in 2026)1. Employers are increasingly focused on ensuring programs demonstrate measurable outcomes and value on investment. That being said, little is known about organizational HWB measurement and evaluation practices and how these practices have grown over time with greater investment in HWB.
Method
This commentary aims to assess measurement practices across several years and examine differences in measurement practices by organization size and industry type. In order to To examine these aims, data was assessed from 589 HERO Health and Well-being Best Practices Scorecard in Collaboration with Mercer(c) (HERO Scorecard) Version 5.0 responses between November 17, 2020 and September 30, 2025. Given the small number of completers in 2020, these organizations were grouped together in the analysis with 2021 completers (n=117). There were 138 organizations that completed the HERO Scorecard in 2022, 151 that completed in 2023, 125 in 2024, and 58 organizations that completed in 2025. Organizations were also classified by size (small: <500 employees (n=173); midsize: 500 to <5000 employees (n=247); and large: ≥5000 employees (n=166)) and industry type (Education (n=82), Financial services (n=58), Government (n=87), Healthcare (n=93), Manufacturing (n=84), Professional services (n=97), and Other (n=88)). Measurement practices analyzed from the HERO Scorecard included the types of data used to evaluate health and well-being initiative performance, how often the program performance data are evaluated, how often the program performance data are communicated to senior leadership, and which stakeholders receive HWB performance data and information (see Table 1). Additionally, the overall measurement and evaluation section (section 6) score was compared across years and groups.
Results
Measurement practices across years are provided in Table 1. No differences in the total measurement and evaluation score were found across years. Further, there were no differences in the number of data elements collected to analyze their HWB initiatives, how often performance data were evaluated, or how often program performance data were communicated to senior leadership.
Table 1. Measurement practice uptake by year (2021-2025).
| Measurement and evaluation score | Number of metrics analyzed | How often are program performance data evaluated | How often are program performance data communicated to senior leadership? | |
| 2021 | 12.4 ± 5.3 | 3.6 ± 1.7 | Regularly – 36%
Often – 39% Occasionally – 13% Rarely – 4% Never – 8% |
Regularly – 25%
Often – 43% Occasionally – 12% Rarely – 11% Never – 9% |
| 2022 | 11.2 ± 5.7 | 3.2 ± 1.9 | Regularly – 30%
Often – 39% Occasionally – 9% Rarely – 9% Never – 13% |
Regularly – 15%
Often – 46% Occasionally – 14% Rarely – 12% Never – 12% |
| 2023 | 12.3 ± 5.2 | 3.7 ± 1.7 | Regularly – 34%
Often – 42% Occasionally – 11% Rarely – 7% Never – 7% |
Regularly – 25%
Often – 46% Occasionally – 10% Rarely – 9% Never – 10% |
| 2024 | 12.0 ± 6.3 | 3.5 ± 1.8 | Regularly – 36%
Often – 32% Occasionally – 8% Rarely – 10% Never – 14% |
Regularly – 25%
Often – 42% Occasionally – 13% Rarely – 10% Never – 11% |
| 2025 | 12.1 ± 5.6 | 3.7 ± 1.6 | Regularly – 37%
Often – 30% Occasionally – 14% Rarely – 12% Never – 7% |
Regularly – 26%
Often – 36% Occasionally – 12% Rarely – 10% Never – 16% |
Table 2 provides an analysis of measurement practices across industry types. Overall, the Financial industry had the greatest measurement and evaluation score, collected the greatest number of data elements to analyze their HWB initiatives, and were more likely to report regularly evaluating their HWB performance data compared to other industry types. However, the Healthcare industry was most likely to report regularly communicating HWB program performance data to senior leadership. The Government industry and “Other” industry category — which included communication, retail, transportation, etc. — had the lowest measurement and evaluation scores, collected the least amount of data elements to analyze their HWB initiative, and were less likely to report evaluating their HWB performance data.
Table 2. Measurement practice uptake by industry type.
| Total measurement and evaluation score | Number of data elements collected to analyze HWB initiative | How often are program performance data evaluated | How often are program performance data communicated to senior leadership? | |
| Education | 12.2 ± 5.6 | 3.5 ± 1.8 | Regularly – 31%
Often – 40% Occasionally – 14% Rarely – 7% Never – 9% |
Regularly – 21%
Often – 43% Occasionally – 19% Rarely – 11% Never – 6% |
| Finance | 13.7 ± 5.4 | 4.1 ± 1.5 | Regularly – 55%
Often – 26% Occasionally – 9% Rarely – 2% Never – 9% |
Regularly – 26%
Often – 51% Occasionally – 9% Rarely – 4% Never – 11% |
| Government | 11.0 ± 5.5 | 3.0 ± 1.7 | Regularly – 27%
Often – 30% Occasionally – 21% Rarely – 13% Never – 9% |
Regularly – 18%
Often – 36% Occasionally – 16% Rarely – 17% Never – 13% |
| Healthcare | 12.4 ± 6.1 | 3.5 ± 1.9 | Regularly – 40%
Often – 35% Occasionally – 3% Rarely – 11% Never – 11% |
Regularly – 33%
Often – 46% Occasionally – 4% Rarely – 7% Never – 11% |
| Manufacturing | 12.2 ± 5.4 | 3.6 ± 1.7 | Regularly – 35%
Often – 39% Occasionally – 8% Rarely – 11% Never – 7% |
Regularly – 21%
Often – 45% Occasionally – 10% Rarely – 13% Never – 11% |
| Professional services | 12.6 ± 5.2 | 3.9 ± 1.8 | Regularly – 34%
Often – 41% Occasionally – 10% Rarely – 7% Never – 7% |
Regularly – 23%
Often – 46% Occasionally – 10% Rarely – 13% Never – 8% |
| Other | 10.6 ± 5.6 | 3.2 ± 1.9 | Regularly – 26%
Often – 46% Occasionally – 10% Rarely – 4% Never – 14% |
Regularly – 17%
Often – 40% Occasionally – 17% Rarely – 9% Never – 17% |
Measurement practices across employer size are provided in Table 3. Results suggested that with increasing organization size, more data elements are collected to evaluate health and well-being initiative performance. Further, larger organizations were more likely to report regularly evaluating performance data and communicating performance data to senior leadership compared to mid-size and small organizations.
Table 3. Measurement practice uptake by employer size.
| Total measurement and evaluation score | Number of data elements collected to analyze HWB initiative | How often are program performance data evaluated? | How often are program performance data communicated to senior leadership? | |
| Small (<500 employees) | 9.5 ± 6.0 | 2.7 ± 1.9 | Regularly – 21%
Often – 31% Occasionally – 16% Rarely – 11% Never – 20% |
Regularly – 24%
Often – 28% Occasionally – 12% Rarely – 15% Never – 21% |
| Midsize (500 to <5000 employees) | 12.0 ± 5.3 | 3.6 ± 1.7 | Regularly – 30%
Often – 41% Occasionally – 12% Rarely – 9% Never – 7% |
Regularly – 21%
Often – 46% Occasionally – 14% Rarely – 11% Never – 9% |
| Large (≥ 5000 employees) | 14.5 ± 4.6 | 4.2 ± 1.3 | Regularly – 54%
Often – 38% Occasionally – 2% Rarely – 4% Never – 2% |
Regularly – 25%
Often – 55% Occasionally – 10% Rarely – 7% Never – 3% |
Discussion
Measurement and evaluation of well-being programs remains a key area of opportunity for employers. While tracking and assessing program performance over time is widely recognized as a best practice, data shows that the proportion of organizations implementing these practices has not significantly increased over time. However, 77% of employers consider measuring the value/performance of health programs a top priority in the next 3-5 years1. This can be attributed to the aforementioned cost and affordability pressures, heightened scrutiny on expense reduction, and prioritization of ROI. Organizations that effectively measure and demonstrate program impact will be better positioned to optimize resources and achieve sustainable health outcomes in the future.
References
1: Mercer 2025 National Survey of Employer-Sponsored Health Plans
