By: Scott H. Lawson M.S., President and Certified Industrial Hygienist

In a struggling economy, businesses are always on the lookout for money saving strategies. While many companies shy away from investing in new safety programs because of the current economic environment, the reality is that an unsafe workplace can be extremely costly (and potentially devastating) to a company. Nonetheless, the help of a safety expert along with the implementation of a smart, efficient workplace safety program is inexpensive and can have significance benefits to a company’s bottom line.

Research has shown that companies lose a daunting 128 billion dollars every year to workplace injury. Robert F. Tilley, Jr. of SafeTek U.S.A. writes in a recent article, “OSHA violations can range anywhere from just a warning, to $70,000 per incident.” He also observes that in the United States, there are over 6,000 workplace fatalities, with another 50,000 fatalities coming from workplace related illnesses.

Companies of all kinds can lose a great deal to workplace injury. Tilley notes that lost time, sick pay, damage or loss of product and materials, lost time and failure to keep schedule, extra wages for overtime and temporary labor, investigation time and expenses, OSHA fines, loss of contracts, legal costs, and loss of company reputation are all injury related expenses not covered by insurance. For every one dollar a company pays in insurance premiums, they will pay another nine to forty-one dollars themselves for losses that stem from an injury incident. All of these numbers create serious damage to a company’s bottom line.

Fortunately, health and safety programs can be implemented for a fraction of the cost of injuries. Choosing not to invest in safety is gambling with the lives of employees and the success of your company, making a workplace safety program a cost effective and necessary part of business.  The American Society of Safety Engineers found in a recent study that for every one dollar spent on a quality safety and health program, businesses saved eight dollars. Even in these difficult times, safety is both responsible and profitable.

It is important to remember that any safety program requires the support and commitment of management. Although CEO’s and top management play an important role in promoting and actively participating in successful safety programs, there are also many benefits to hiring an outside safety expert. A safety expert can review the company’s current safety policies and identify necessary improvements that CEO’s and managers often overlook. An experienced consultant can recognize which aspects of the company are causing the most safety issues and propose solutions to resolve those issues inexpensively and effectively. Hiring a safety expert demonstrates clients your company’s commitment to safety, and ensures that there is always an eye focused on the success of any implemented safety program.

The greatest challenge to the success of a safety program is not its creation, but its long term maintenance.  A professional safety expert can help engage and motivate employees and managers to promote the maintenance of safety programs. Safety efforts cannot succeed without the continued enthusiasm and support of management and a safety expert, working as partners in achieving this success.

Some ways a safety expert may promote participation in a safety program include establishing a correlating incentive system to get and keep employees involved and motivated. Incentives may include a system of earning points exchangeable for gifts, redeemable “safety cards” signed by management for safety compliance, safety games and promotions, tracking the use of proper safety precautions by department, and providing company-wide incentives for days without safety violations. These methods and others may be used by a safety expert to keep safety in the forefront of the minds of employees. The cost of such incentives is insignificant compared to the potentially crippling costs of an unsafe workplace.

The creation and continued support of an efficient and motivating safety program is a vital component in achieving a happy, productive, and safe workplace. Safety is a small investment that can amount to huge returns by preventing costs associated with unsafe work environments. The assistance of a safety expert in implementing safety programs will ensure a company’s employees and bottom line stay healthy and safe.

Scott H. Lawson M.S., author of “Creating a Safer Business: How to create a successful safety program in your workplace,” is the President of The Scott Lawson Companies (www.slgl.com) located in Concord, NH.  He can be reached at (603) 228-3610 or at scott@slgl.com.

By: Scott H. Lawson, M.S., Certified Industrial Hygienist

According to the US Census Bureau, there are over 95,000 public schools in the US. They vary widely in number, average age, and socio-economic status of the students they serve. However, one thing is certain – the quality of the air that students breathe day-in and day-out affects their performance, their health, and their development. According to the US General Accounting Office, 14 million students (over a quarter of all students) attend schools considered below standard or dangerous, and the air in nearly 15 thousand US schools is unfit to breathe.

With facilities including gyms, locker rooms, chemistry labs, swimming pools, woods and metals shops, and cafeterias, schools provide a much wider variety of possible indoor air quality problems than typical adult workplaces. Since the ‘70s, education professionals have had to remediate specific indoor air quality problems, but have rarely taken a holistic approach to improving the overall health of students. For example, schools have been diligent about addressing radon and asbestos, but infrequently considered the effect that conditions such as sealed windows have on student and staff health.

Administrators and educators are increasingly aware of the need to maintain a healthy indoor environment. And, according to a national 2007 survey published in the Journal of School Health, more than half of US states currently provide funding for improved indoor air quality.

First, let’s consider the impact that indoor air can have on schools – and the children they serve. A 2005 survey of current research by the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory found that “…higher indoor concentrations of NO2 (nitrogen dioxide) have reduced school attendance, and…low ventilation rates have been linked to reduced performance.” The same study, conducted by M.J. Mendell and G.A. Heath, goes on to say that “evidence suggests that poor air quality in schools is common and adversely influences the performance and attendance of students, primarily through health effects from indoor pollutants.”

Another factor to be considered is that healthy spaces can reduce environment-related illnesses, including a reduction of between 9 and 20 in cases per year of the common cold, according to a 2000 study by William J. Fisk of the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory in California. Reductions in the spread of communicable diseases will reduce absenteeism and time lost in the classroom. A 2005 study by Palatino & Company found that improved indoor air conditions resulted in a 15% drop in absenteeism and, perhaps more importantly, a 5% improvement in students’ test scores. A study of schools in the District of Columbia and the city of Chicago similarly reported a 3-4% improvement in schools’ standardized test scores due to improvement indoor air quality conditions.

The advantages of clean indoor air in schools are clear, but how much will these practices cost school districts, many of whom already face significant budget challenges? The two options available to school districts – remediation and building new, green facilities – both carry costs, but those costs are ultimately outweighed by their advantages.

One common indoor air contaminant that can be simply remediated without significantly altering existing facilities is mold. Because of flooding in recent years, New Hampshire schools could be at an increased risk for mold, and the health effects should not to be taken lightly. Toxic black mold, which often affects buildings with flood damage, can cause lung disease, learning disabilities, and chronic fatigue syndrome. And a 1999 study by the Mayo Clinic demonstrated that nearly all chronic sinus infections are caused by toxic black mold. Less toxic (and more common) forms of mold can also have serious health effects. Mold has been cited as a factor in the 160% increase in rates of asthma among children under the age of five reported during the period from 1980-1994, including nine million children currently diagnosed with asthma, according to the Centers for Disease Control. The CDC also found that asthma alone caused 14.7 million lost school days in 2002.

School districts have often faced mold problems for a number of reasons. The Environmental Protection Agency notes that increased mold in schools is often “linked to changes in building construction practices during the 1970s, 80s, and 90s. Some of these changes have resulted in buildings that are tightly sealed, but may lack adequate ventilation, potentially leading to moisture buildup. Building materials, such as drywall, may not allow moisture to escape easily.”

The good news is that mold infestations can usually be corrected by working with qualified environmental testing contractors. Properly identifying what needs to be done can be complicated, and hiring a properly trained indoor air quality (IAQ) expert is the best way to start.The process would typically begin with a mold inspection and indoor air quality audit to determine the amount of mold you have and at what levels it is circulating through the air. Samples will then have to be tested by an independent lab. “Negative air machines,” which filter out dirty air, may then be used to clean the existing indoor air. Air ducts and doors are sealed off to prevent the spread of airborne mold during the remediation process. During both the prep work and subsequent clean-up, technicians will wear helmets and other protective clothing and monitor changes in the IAQ. A certified industrial hygienist or other IAQ consultant will usually plan, manage and supervise this process. An IAQ expert will then propose ways to assure that mold doesn’t return, which may include increasing ventilation, improving filtration, or rerouting drainage to stop moisture from invading vulnerable areas. An experienced IAQ consultant can provide advice on how to make these facility modifications as inexpensively and efficiently as possible.

Indoor air quality professionals can also help build healthy environments when school districts build new facilities – and keep costs down. Author David Gottfried, in his study Sustainable Building Technical Manual: Green Building Design, Construction, and Operation, estimates that initial construction accounts for only about 2% of a project’s overall cost, with operations and maintenance accounting for 6%. Green building, however, can significantly reduce operations and maintenance costs. For example, a 2003 study conducted by Gregory Kats demonstrates that green buildings can reduce energy consumption by 25-30% on average. Further, an October 2006 study conducted by Kats for the US Green Building Council, the American Federation of Teachers, the American Lung Association, and the Federation of American Scientists, persuasively argues that between utility costs, reductions in costs related to flu, colds, and asthma, and employee recruitment and retention, green schools can achieve savings of over 20 times the costs of building green. Green building, while sometimes thought to be more expensive than traditional building methods, easily recoups the investment over time.

School districts have, however, been slow in making improved IAQ, green practices, and green building options a priority. Of the nine buildings recognized by the U.S. Green Building Council as LEEDs (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design Green Building Rating System) certified in New Hampshire, only 2 are schools serving K-12 students. Frustrating statistics such as these should not leave school administrators discouraged, however; any steps taken to improve the health of students and faculty are imperative to the ultimate goal of getting all New Hampshire schools to go green.

Scott H. Lawson M.S., author of “A Breath of Fresh Air: Why New Hampshire Schools Should Go Green,” is the President of The Scott Lawson Companies (www.slgl.com) located in Concord, NH. He can be reached at (603) 228-3610 or at scott@slgl.com.

By: Scott H. Lawson M.S., President and Certified Industrial Hygienist

As the cost of health insurance rises, workplace wellness programs are increasingly being implemented to promote healthy lifestyles and cut health insurance premiums – and for good reason. Research has demonstrated that wellness programs can cut absenteeism and, according to a landmark study by Prudential insurance, medical costs fell by 46% percent at companies that started these programs. Prudential’s study shows a 20% reduction in disability days and a 32% cut in disability-per-capita costs due to the implementation of wellness programs. A wellness program at Providence General Medical Center was found to have reduced per-capita workers’ compensation costs by 83% with other reductions seen in healthcare costs and sick leave. With health insurance costs routinely outpacing the rate of inflation, according to a 2007 Kaiser Family Fund study, savings like these are worth the effort.

Many employers contract wellness services with outside firms, while others develop programs through their human resource or safety departments.  All wellness programs, however, require management support and the guidance of an individual responsible for the program within the company.   A letter from the CEO promoting the wellness program and his or her active participation is critical for a successful wellness program. Employees routinely follow the role set by their superiors.

Evaluating your employees’ health risks is the first step to implementing an effective wellness program. A Health Risk Assessment (HRA) is an excellent tool for this, and these can be obtained through most health insurance carriers, taken for free on the Internet, or will be offered by a Wellness Program provider. Aggregate results from completed HRAs identify areas of focus for the program. A company should select two to four target areas the first year and build on those that are successful.  Depending on the risk groups, companies may want to focus on physical activity, tobacco use, nutrition and weight management, alcohol and drug use, or stress management.  There are numerous resources through the Internet on the many possible components of a wellness program, one of the best being WELCOA, Wellness Councils of America.

The variety of possible programs depends on your coordinator, budget, and the time allotted for employee participation. A company with limited resources and time may consider a walking or weight loss competition where employees compete on teams. This yields two positive outcomes: it builds camaraderie while also fostering healthy behaviors. With limited funds, companies can focus on a couple of events a year that promote health awareness, such as flu clinics or health fairs. Many health insurance companies will pay for onsite flu shots for their members if it is arranged with a qualified provider. Wellness fairs can be arranged where local vendors who want to promote their business will come in free of charge and demonstrate their services. Possible participants include health clubs, whole food markets, acupuncturists, massage schools, health insurance brokers, dental students, and more.

If the budget affords the hiring of a Wellness Coach or nurse, he or she can coordinate weekly or monthly programs to address individual health concerns and run group health competitions. Health Screenings with a nurse are an excellent way review a participant’s medical history and develop goals that a Wellness Coach can focus on throughout the year. Coaches run smoking cessation programs, provide lunch-and-learns, and coordinate health clinics and competitions.

In order for funding to continue to support a wellness program, data will need to be collected and managed to demonstrate the effectiveness of the program.  The coordinator should decide how to collect and manage the data to determine success. Criteria may include the number of people participating or improvements in baseline numbers such as weight, blood pressure, body fat percentage, hip-to-waist ratio, cholesterol, and flexibility.  Pre- and post- quizzes can also measure the effectiveness of educational lectures or articles.

Once the program has been implemented, the greatest challenge is keeping the employees engaged and motivated.  This requires promotion of wellness programs; even the best programs will fail if no one participates in the activities.  Another factor that increases participation is “face time” with individual coaches.  Employees build relationships with coaches and feel a responsibility to meet their goals, and coaches hold the employees accountable for their behaviors.

Incentives can also get employees involved and motivated. Obviously, the larger the incentive, the more vested some employees will be in the program. Many companies use cash incentives, while others allow individuals to earn dollars towards high-deductible health insurance plans. Some firms offer prizes such as t-shirts, water bottles, and pedometers, while still others offer points towards a quarterly wellness raffle of cash or gift cards.

Whether a company chooses to develop its own wellness efforts or contract with a Wellness Program provider, wellness programs are a necessary component in achieving a healthy and happy workforce.  With some planning and promotion, any company can start making their employees – and their bottom lines – healthier.

Scott H. Lawson M.S., author of “Creating a Healthier Business: The keys to creating successful wellness programs in the workplace,” is the President of The Scott Lawson Companies (www.slgl.com) located in Concord, NH.  He can be reached at (603) 228-3610 or at scott@slgl.com.

By: Scott H. Lawson M.S., President and Certified Industrial Hygienist

Today’s business environment is both aggressive and highly competitive. As any smart CEO knows, taking anything for granted these days is setting oneself up for failure. As a result, successful business executives have become experts in micromanagement and multitasking. It is impossible, however, for even the most diligent business owner to be everywhere at one time. As a result, something as seemingly insignificant as the air employees are breathing is easily overlooked. Ignoring Indoor Air Quality (IAQ), however, frequently proves to be a costly and unnecessary mistake that no business owner can afford to make.

The Indoor Air Quality (IAQ) of a business’s workplace, according to the Federation of European Heating and Air-conditioning Associations, “is characterized by all the physical, mechanical, and chemical characteristics of indoor air having an impact on the human being.” A business with poor IAQ may be exposing employees to microbial contaminants including bacteria and mold; chemicals such as carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, and radon; and other allergens. The Environmental Protection Agency labels “environmental tobacco smoke, asbestos from insulating and fire-retardant building supplies,  formaldehyde from pressed wood products, paints, adhesives, copying machines, and photography and print shops, biological contaminants from dirty ventilation systems or water-damaged walls, ceilings, and carpets, and pesticides from pest management practices” as common contributors to unhealthy IAQ.

While these contaminants are clearly adverse to the health of employees, a busy CEO may consider the risks to be minor and may choose to make an investigation of IAQ a low priority. Unfortunately, this attitude can often be harmful to employees. According to the EPA, employees can be affected by poor IAQ with only one exposure to some contaminants. Exposure can cause a number of short term symptoms and illnesses, such as “dry or burning mucous membranes in the nose, eyes, and throat; sneezing; stuffy or runny nose; fatigue or lethargy; headache; dizziness; nausea; irritability and forgetfulness.” These symptoms are clearly not conducive to a productive workplace.

Long term symptoms, however, can have a far greater impact than a dip in productivity. Extended exposure to contaminants of Indoor Air Quality can cause respiratory disease, heart disease, and cancer. For example, the EPA states that radon, a known carcinogen, is “in the indoor air of buildings of all kinds.” They estimate that 21,000 lung cancer deaths each year in the United States are radon related. In fact, radon is surpassed only by smoking as the leading cause of lung cancer in America. Other IAQ contaminants such as asbestos and carbon monoxide can also cause long-term illnesses. Diseases caused by exposure to asbestos (including lung cancer mesothelioma, a cancer of the lining of the chest and the abdominal cavity; and asbestosis, in which the lungs become scarred with fibrous tissue) can often take as long as 20 or 30 years to manifest. Carbon monoxide exposure in moderate concentrations can cause angina, impaired vision, and reduced brain function. Due to the severity of these illnesses, a CEO cannot responsibly ignore the Indoor Air Quality of his or her business.

Proper attention to Indoor Air Quality is important to more than just employee health. By giving IAQ the care it deserves, a CEO can also ensure a strong and healthy bottom line. William J. Fisk of the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory in California argues in a 2000 study that addressing IAQ can result directly in economic benefits. He cites reductions in healthcare costs, sick leave, and poor performance of workers as the most notable ways that better IAQ can have economic gains. Poor IAQ causes an increase in the four most common respiratory illnesses (common cold, influenza, pneumonia, and bronchitis), which are the cause of about 176 million days lost from work a year, as well as another 121 million work days of restricted activity and lessened productivity. Fisk notes that the cost of this lost work and the annual healthcare costs of upper and lower respiratory tract infections add up to a staggering $70 billion dollars per year in lost revenues for American businesses.

While a CEO may find the Indoor Air Quality of the office easy to overlook, the risk of disease and cancer in employees and the billions of dollars lost annually are hard to ignore. An experienced IAQ expert can provide the necessary IAQ assessments to evaluate precisely where a facility can make economically beneficial improvements and can take the necessary steps to implement and maintain those modifications.

The process of properly identifying what changes need to be made to improve IAQ can be complicated, making an experienced and properly trained IAQ expert even more practical. For most IAQ experts, the first step will be getting to the bottom of any symptoms employees are presenting. Whether or not the IAQ consultation was initiated by employee complaints, a certified industrial hygienist or other IAQ consultant will typically interview employees to discern which, if any, symptoms could have been caused by an IAQ issue.

After identifying the symptoms common among employees, an IAQ expert will isolate a probable cause. According to the EPA, there are a few common facility problems which result in poor IAQ. Indoor pollution sources are the primary cause, since they release harmful gases or particles into the air. Inadequate or inefficient ventilation can also cause higher levels of indoor pollutants by not allowing the diffusion of indoor pollutants or the circulation of fresh outdoor air. Poor temperature and humidity regulation can also cause higher concentrations of some pollutants. Once identified, an IAQ expert will propose solutions to these problems which may include increasing ventilation, reducing air recirculation, improving filtration, disinfecting the air of ultraviolent contamination, reducing office sharing, or reducing occupant density. An experienced IAQ consultant can provide advice on how to make these facility modifications as inexpensively as possible, which can ultimately drive an increase in profits. In Fisk’s 2000 study, he estimates that such improvements in building design can create a 9-20% reduction in cases of the common cold, translating into 16-37 million fewer cases annually in the U.S. This annual reduction could save businesses as much as $14 billion each year. Improved health generally increases worker productivity, which ultimately stimulates a company’s bottom line. Fisk estimates that US companies could save a combined $160 billion a year by improving indoor air quality regulations and standards.

Not all IAQ problems, however, are easily fixed. Some require more elaborate and complicated modifications to facilities which, when handled inefficiently, can add up to big costs for businesses. When this is the case, it is more important than ever to have the assistance of an IAQ expert.  An IAQ expert can lay out the options available for more costly projects – such as replacing a facility’s HVAC system – and act as a facilitator for the necessary changes. By having a qualified IAQ professional organize and oversee the facility improvement, a CEO can ensure that a business’s office space will provide the healthiest possible indoor environment at the lowest price.

With today’s business atmosphere as competitive as it is, no business can afford to ignore problems that are potentially cutting deep into its bottom line. Many companies have chosen to ignore or avoid dealing with the Indoor Air Quality of their facilities, to the risk and detriment of their employees and their profits. With the help of the right IAQ expert, however, handling the issue of Indoor Air Quality can be simple, cost effective, and ultimately profitable. Healthy Indoor Air Quality, when properly assessed and managed, can provide a workplace where both employees and profits are able to flourish and grow.

By: Scott H. Lawson M.S., President and Certified Industrial Hygienist

No one understands the importance of making healthy choices more than medical services professionals. So, it should come as no surprise that the medical industry is increasingly taking advantage of recent advances made in green building. The phrase “green building” can mean a lot of different things, but everyone agrees on some basic principals. A definition from the California Environmental Protection Agency lays out these basics by pointing out that green facilities “are designed to meet certain objectives such as protecting occupant health; improving employee productivity; using energy, water, and other resources more efficiently; and reducing the overall impact to the environment.”

Why go green? A number of reasons have been cited. Professors Andrew Jameton and Jessica Pierce persuasively argue that medical professionals have an ethical responsibility to reduce the impact of healthcare on our shared environment. They cite a 1996 Institute of Medicine study by L.C. Chen that demonstrates that “about 25% of health problems are environmental in origin.” In their 2001 article in the Canadian Medical Journal entitled “Environment and health: Sustainable health care and emerging ethical responsibilities,” Jameton and Pierce conclude that the ethical need to “go green” in healthcare is driven by three considerations.

“First, today’s generations have responsibilities for the welfare of future generations…healthcare should accept a responsibility to meet current needs in ways modest and clean enough to be sustainable for centuries. Second, humans have a responsibility toward the natural world for the sake of both nature and ourselves…Third, because about 80% of the world’s wealth benefits only 20% of its people, the vast majority have very little. Poverty is one of the main factors contributing to poor health, and it reduces the ability of populations to cope with environmental decline.”

In addition to the ethical case for environmental building, green building practices also contribute to a healthier staff and, consequently, an improved bottom line. Healthier workspaces can reduce environment-related illnesses by applying a number of commonly-used green building methods, including increased ventilation, reduced air recirculation, improved filtration, ultraviolet disinfection of air, reduced office sharing, and reduced occupant density. According to a 2000 study by William J. Fisk of the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory in California, such improvements significantly lower the occurrence of four of the most common respiratory illnesses which account for 176 million days of lost work at a cost of $70 billion a year, due to the cost of treatment and lost work. Such improvements in building design can also create a 9-20% reduction in cases of the common cold, translating into 16-37 million fewer cases annually. This annual reduction could save US businesses as much as $14 billion each year. Further, improved health generally increases worker and occupant progress and productivity, which ultimately stimulates a company’s bottom line. Fisk estimates that companies could save a combined $160 billion a year by improving indoor air quality regulations and standards.

The effect of green building on employee health is not the only advantage for medical services facilities. Patient recovery time can also be reduced by an improved indoor environment. According to a survey of senior healthcare administrators conducted in January and February of 2007 by Turner Construction Company, The U.S. Green Building Council, and McGraw-Hill Construction, 47% of adminstrators reported reduced patient recovery time due to green building practices.

According to a 1998 study published by California’s Center for Health Design, there are three primary ways in which the environment can influence a patient’s outcome. First of these is the impact on medical care. An environment can help or hinder the actions of caregivers. Secondly, the health status of the patients’ can be strengthened or impaired by existing conditions. Thirdly, environments can either protect patients or expose them to illnesses. For example, the circulation of ultra-clean air can prevent nosocomial infections (i.e. infections which are a result of treatment in a hospital or a healthcare service unit.) This study also cites architect Derek Parker of Anshen + Allen in San Francisco. He has estimated the cost savings from better buildings with shorter stays, drug savings, and labor costs at $10 million a year for a 300-bed hospital.

The Center for Health Design has also identified significant savings in personnel costs. Green design can act as a magnet for qualified staff. When a leading ‘green facility’ in the upper Midwest, Woodwinds Hospital in St. Paul, Minn., recruited for 400 new positions, 3,800 resumes poured in – nearly ten times the number of staff they needed. Results like this mean that staffing costs could help pay for the increased costs of building green.

Green buildings can also reduce energy costs significantly. According to a study authored by Gregory H. Kats, the Director of Financing for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy at the U.S. Department of Energy, green buildings reduce energy consumption by 25-30% on average. Businesses in the US spend $107,897,000,000 annually on energy for their facilities, according to the US Department of Energy. A 30% cut in this cost would represent $32,369,100,000 annually in bottom line savings for businesses in every region and sector of the country, including energy-intensive operations like hospitals and other medical facilities. Healthcare, which represents 14% of US GDP, could see large returns sector-wide.

In order to measure the value of green buildings, however, it is also necessary to consider the cost of building green, as compared to traditional building practices. There is a widespread misconception that green building is significantly more expensive than conventional building methods. While building green may come at a higher initial cost than traditional building methods, green investments are easily regained over time. In Sustainable Building Technical Manual: Green Building Design, Construction, and Operation, author David Gottfried estimates that the initial construction of green buildings typically accounts for only 2% of the total cost, with operations and maintenance accounting for 6%. When you consider the yearly savings that result from reducing lost work time and improving employee health that result from green businesses, the benefits of green building become even more obvious.

The medical services sector has been slow to adapt green practices. According to the U.S. Green Building Council, only 74 of the 3,617 LEED-registered projects in the United States are healthcare buildings and only one certified LEED-Platinum project (the OHSU Medical Office Building in Portland, Oregon) is a healthcare facility. Why haven’t more healthcare facilities gone green?  Many remain resistant to green building due to the initial increase in construction costs.  However, as demonstrated above, the preliminary investment in green building is returned in the long run through the continued health and productivity of workers and reduced energy costs. In the near future, with more and more key corporations reaping the benefits of choosing to go green, healthcare providers that resist the green movement will face staunch criticism and, ultimately, risk failure. Green building has undeniably become a benchmark in industrial, residential, and commercial building, and green practices now are gradually taking their place among best practices in the healthcare field. The future of healthcare finally looks greener – and healthier – than ever before.

Scott H. Lawson M.S., author of “A Healthy Future for Healthcare Building,” is the President of The Scott Lawson Companies (www.slgl.com) located in Concord, NH.  He can be reached at (603) 228-3610 or at scott@slgl.com.