Green - The Color of Efficient, Healthy and Profitable Healthcare Buildings Adapted from an original article written by Scott H. Lawson M.S., President, Scott Lawson Companies; published in Medical Construction & Design Magazine, May/June 2008. 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 principles 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? Many in the medical profession believe that we have an ethical responsibility to reduce the impact of healthcare on our shared environment. Studies have demonstrated "about 25 percent of health problems are environmental in origin"; therefore, 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 percent of the world's wealth benefits only 20 percent 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," according to a study published in the Canadian Medical Journal by Professors Andrew Jameton and Jessica Pierce.   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. The cost of treatment and lost work due to illnesses is massive - 176 million days of lost work at a cost of $70 billion each year. Improvements in building design can also create a 9 to 20 percent reduction in cases of the common cold, translating into 16 to 37 million fewer cases annually. This annual reduction could save U.S. business as much as $14 billion each year. As a further benefit, improved health generally increases worker and occupant progress and productivity, which positively impacts a company's bottom line. Green building can impact health The effect of green building on employee health is not the only advantage for medical facilities. Patient recovery time can also be reduced by an improved indoor environment. 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 infections which are a result of treatment in a hospital or a healthcare service unit. The Center for Health Design has also identified significant savings in personnel costs. Green design can act as a magnet for qualified staff. Green buildings can also significantly reduce energy costs by 25 to 30 percent on average. Energy- intensive operations like hospitals and other medical facilities could see large returns sector-wide. The cost of going green 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 percent of the total cost, with operations and maintenance accounting for 6 percent. 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 188 of the 9,769 LEED registered projects in the United States are healthcare buildings. Of the 1,325 certified projects, only 20 are healthcare projects. Why haven't more healthcare facilities gone green? Many remain resistant to green building due to higher 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. For more information, click on any of the links below: Canadian Medical Journal, "Environment and Health: Sustainable Health Care and Emerging Ethical Responsibilities", written by Andrew Jameton and Jessica Pierce Health and Productivity Gains from Better Indoor Environments and Their Implications for the U.S. Department of Energy, a 2000 study by William J. Fist of the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory Center for Health Design study on patient stress Green Building Costs and Financial Benefits by Gregory H. Katz (PDF) Sustainable Building Technical Manual: Green Building Design, Construction, and Operation, by David Gottfried (PDF)