P&T
Our
Other
Journal
MediMedia Managed Markets

 

Wellness

Contributing Voices
Paul E. Terry, PhD and David Anderson, PhD, LP

Paul E. Terry, PhD

David Anderson

David Anderson, PhD, LP

We’ve known Michael O’Donnell, the publisher and editor in chief of the American Journal of Health Promotion, for 30 years. He is not prone to hyperbole. So he got our attention when he recently wrote that he had just published “the most extensive and well-conceived review conducted to date” on the financial impact of workplace health promotion.

He calls the paper “one of the best reviews ever conducted on any topic in workplace health promotion.” The study by Siyan Baxter and colleagues shows how the quality of the research methodologies used in the 51 interventions examined in their final analysis affected the magnitudes of the ROI’s reported. An archived webinar that summarizes the study findings is available free on this page at the  American Journal of Health Promotion.

Studies vary

There is a time-honored belief among health services researchers that the more rigorous the methodology, the smaller the size of the differences between groups will be. This is precisely what Baxter and colleagues found with respect to return on investment, which they calculated as ROI = (benefits – program costs) / program costs rather than the more typical approach of reporting ROI as the ratio of benefits to costs, i.e., ROI = benefits : costs. Nevertheless, Baxter, who is a PhD candidate in medical research at Australia’s University of Tasmania, found ROIs averaging 0.26 ($1.26 per dollar invested) in the 18 high-quality studies and –0.22 ($0.78 per dollar invested) in 12 studies using the most rigorous methodology, namely, the randomized controlled trial (RCT). For the 43 less rigorous studies of moderate or low quality, Baxter found ROIs averaging 1.79 (i.e., benefits of $2.79 per dollar invested), which is consistent with the oft cited ROI of 3:1 reported in a recent review by Harvard Economist Katherine Baicker and her colleagues.

Plan Watch
Frank Diamond

Last year’s fiasco at Penn State represents just one crack in the wellness armor. Worker resentment rises as experts begin to question the effectiveness of such programs. But employers still believe and so long as there are buyers, there will be sellers.

News & Commentary

The positive effects of wellness programs on mental health are negligible at best, according to a study in the American Journal of Health Promotion. The study says that “a wellness center can improve physical health and has limited or no effect on maintaining mental health.”

Managed Care Outlook
Plan Watch
Frank Diamond
Contributing Voices
Paul Terry

The Department of Labor has issued new guidelines concerning the wellness provisions of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) that relate to the use of financial incentives, and the Office of Health Plan Standards and Compliance Assistance is seeking public comment. This document proposes “amendments to regulations, consistent with the Affordable Care Act, regarding nondiscriminatory wellness programs in group health coverage." These regulations increase rewards for wellness participation or outcomes from 20 to 30% or up to 50% related to reducing tobacco use.

News & Commentary
News & Commentary
News & Commentary
Contributing Voices
Steven Peskin, MD

As a baby boomer moving through middle age into the unspeakable age that follows “middle,” I was encouraged to read an article in the British Medical Journal that states that for seniors and super seniors, healthy behaviors that include regular exercise, not smoking, maintaining a normal Body Mass Index, and having a rich or moderate social network led to significant increases in longevity. From the study:

Pages