Health and the
capacity to participate.

Employer productivity costs

The Integrated Benefits Institute estimated $575 billion in U.S. employer productivity costs from illness and injury in 2019. Its model includes absence, disability and reduced work output. This is an older, pre-pandemic estimate using a proprietary model, not a 2026 measurement or a revenue-loss calculation.

Original IBI estimate, published in 2020 · CDC/NIOSH business-case discussion

Diabetes and missed work

The American Diabetes Association's national model estimated 17.3 million workdays missed because of diagnosed diabetes in 2022. This refers to all diagnosed diabetes, not only type 2 diabetes or disease that is necessarily preventable. Modeled absenteeism differs from reduced performance while at work and from total medical spending. The study notes uncertainty and potential confounding.

Economic Costs of Diabetes in the U.S. in 2022, Diabetes Care, January 2024 issue; published online November 2023

Psychological distress and work performance

Asfaw and colleagues estimated $90.1–118.2 billion in U.S. absenteeism and reduced work performance associated with psychological distress, using 2021 National Health Interview Survey data. The homepage rounds this range. This observational, modeled association does not establish that an advisory service will reduce those costs. Psychological distress is not interchangeable with diagnosed depression or burnout; the data were collected during the pandemic.

Workplace Productivity Cost Associated with Psychological Distress in the United States, American Journal of Industrial Medicine, May 2026

Leadership continuity

Bennedsen, Pérez-González and Wolfenzon's research uses CEO hospitalization in Danish firms to examine how leaders affect firm performance. It supports considering leadership continuity as a planning question. It does not provide a U.S. founder's personal revenue forecast or show that longevity advisory prevents business disruption.

Do CEOs Matter? Evidence from Hospitalization Events, Journal of Finance, 2020

Burden does not establish a return on a program

Economic burden and intervention effectiveness require different evidence. A large randomized study of a workplace wellness program found no significant effects on spending, absenteeism or job performance after 18 months, despite improvements in some reported behaviors. That trial did not evaluate this advisory, and does not establish that all programs are ineffective. It is a reason to avoid automatic return-on-investment promises.

Effect of a Workplace Wellness Program on Employee Health and Economic Outcomes, JAMA, 2019

Clinical evidence illustrations

The homepage presents historical randomized trials to illustrate why clinical decisions need both evidence and individual context. Neither trial evaluated this advisory service or its financial return.

Diabetes Prevention Program, NEJM 2002: 3,234 adults with elevated glucose; estimated three-year cumulative diabetes incidence was 28.9% with placebo, 21.7% with metformin and 14.4% with intensive lifestyle. Randomized groups comprised 1,082 placebo, 1,073 metformin and 1,079 lifestyle participants. These are time-to-event estimates, not raw event-count percentages. Mean follow-up 2.8 years. Selected high-risk population; adverse symptoms and early stopping limit interpretation.

SPRINT final report, NEJM 2021: 9,361 adults with elevated blood pressure and cardiovascular risk, without diabetes or previous stroke. Median follow-up 3.33 years. Primary cardiovascular event rates were 2.40 versus 1.77 per 100 person-years for standard versus intensive treatment. Serious acute kidney injury or renal failure rates were 0.8 versus 1.3. Randomized groups comprised 4,683 standard-treatment and 4,678 intensive-treatment participants. Participants with primary cardiovascular events numbered 354 versus 264; those with serious kidney events numbered 115 versus 193. The overall serious-adverse-event difference was not statistically significant. These counts are distinct from annualized rates. These annualized rates must not be read as cumulative risk percentages or multiplied into a personal risk forecast. The intensive target is not a recommendation for every individual.

Planning calculator foundations

The two Sinicropi calculators are original educational scenario tools, not validated clinical, actuarial or insurance assessments. They borrow the distinction between time absent and reduced capacity while working from published productivity measurement research. They do not administer the WPAI or WHO-HPQ questionnaires, reproduce their wording or generate their scores. No questionnaire validation transfers to these forward-looking financial models.

Reilly et al., 1993 reports WPAI validation in a specific sample; Zhang et al., 2010 explains impairment measurement and nonoverlapping time. Kessler et al., 2003 describes WHO-HPQ validation against employer records. CDC, 2016 illustrates time-based absence costing and sensitivity to economic assumptions.

Financial outputs assume a linear relationship between lost equivalent workdays and an entered annual income or value proxy. That relationship is a simplifying assumption, not a measured effect of health on a particular person's or firm's income. Executive continuity coverage is user supplied; separate continuity spending is not automatically added to capacity-value exposure. No family net worth, AUM, disability probability or advisory return is estimated.

Explore the calculators and their full formulas

The five-pillar artwork

The original plaques organize areas of interest in a personalized health strategy and retain the Sinicropi CMO Advisory signature. They are not a standardized treatment package or a promise that every domain, test or service shown is appropriate or included. Clinical decisions require individual assessment and appropriately licensed treating clinicians. No disease detection, prevention, outcome, continuous monitoring, or financial or legal fiduciary service is guaranteed by the framework.

Photography and image credits

The opening boardroom illustration depicts fictional executives, not actual clients. Other executive photographs are illustrative. The people pictured are not identified as clients and do not endorse the advisory. Dr. Sinicropi's labeled portrait is his professional image.

• Opening boardroom illustration created for Sinicropi Longevity Advisory, October 11, 2026.
• Professional conversation by Christina Morillo

Stock photography used under the Pexels License. No affiliation with the source publications or organizations is implied by citation.

Consultation photograph

Owner-provided photograph used with confirmed permission. The office setting was digitally reimagined and medical records were removed. The image is not a testimonial or evidence of an outcome.

Lifestyle illustration

The coastal-terrace scene is an original generated illustration of fictional adults. It represents life priorities, not actual clients, health outcomes or a property associated with the advisory.

Opening artwork

The blue-glass and metallic sculpture is an original generated artistic composition. It is a visual metaphor, not a model of biology, a product or evidence of advisory outcomes.

Cognitive-health page

The page draws on Dr. Sinicropi’s brain-health program materials, while distinguishing proposed development plans, separately advertised clinical offerings and the advisory’s individualized coordination role. Primary clinical sources and intended-use limitations are listed on the cognitive-health page. The brain image is original generated artwork, not a scan or representation of an actual treatment effect. The consultation image has been revised to place the desk between the two adults.