Maryanna D Klatt1, Cynthia Sieck2, Gregg Gascon3, William Malarkey4, Timothy Huerta2. 1. Department of Family Medicine, The Ohio State University College of Medicine, United States. Electronic address: maryanna.klatt@osumc.edu. 2. Department of Family Medicine, The Ohio State University College of Medicine, United States. 3. The Ohio State University Health Plan, Inc., United States. 4. Institute for Behavioral Medicine Research, Department of Internal Medicine, & Comprehensive Cancer Center, The Ohio State University College of Medicine, United States.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To compare healthcare costs and utilization among participants in a study of two active lifestyle interventions implemented in the workplace and designed to foster awareness of and attention to health with a propensity score matched control group. DESIGN AND SETTING: We retrospectively compared changes in healthcare (HC) utilization among participants in the mindfulness intervention (n=84) and the diet/exercise intervention (n=86) to a retrospectively matched control group (n=258) drawn for this study. The control group was matched from the non-participant population on age, gender, relative risk score, and HC expenditures in the 9 month preceding the study. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Measures included number of primary care visits, number and cost of pharmacy prescriptions, number of hospital admissions, and overall healthcare costs tracked for 5 years after the intervention. RESULTS: Significantly fewer primary care visits (p<.001) for both intervention groups as compared to controls, with a non-significant trend towards lower overall HC utilization (4,300.00 actual dollar differences) and hospital admissions for the intervention groups after five years. Pharmacy costs and number of prescriptions were significantly higher for the two intervention groups compared to controls over the five years (p<0.05), yet still resulted in less HC utilization costs, potentially indicating greater self-management of care. CONCLUSION: This study provides valuable information as to the cost savings and value of providing workplace lifestyle interventions that focus on awareness of one's body and health. Health economic studies validate the scale of personal and organization health cost savings that such programs can generate.
OBJECTIVE: To compare healthcare costs and utilization among participants in a study of two active lifestyle interventions implemented in the workplace and designed to foster awareness of and attention to health with a propensity score matched control group. DESIGN AND SETTING: We retrospectively compared changes in healthcare (HC) utilization among participants in the mindfulness intervention (n=84) and the diet/exercise intervention (n=86) to a retrospectively matched control group (n=258) drawn for this study. The control group was matched from the non-participant population on age, gender, relative risk score, and HC expenditures in the 9 month preceding the study. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Measures included number of primary care visits, number and cost of pharmacy prescriptions, number of hospital admissions, and overall healthcare costs tracked for 5 years after the intervention. RESULTS: Significantly fewer primary care visits (p<.001) for both intervention groups as compared to controls, with a non-significant trend towards lower overall HC utilization (4,300.00 actual dollar differences) and hospital admissions for the intervention groups after five years. Pharmacy costs and number of prescriptions were significantly higher for the two intervention groups compared to controls over the five years (p<0.05), yet still resulted in less HC utilization costs, potentially indicating greater self-management of care. CONCLUSION: This study provides valuable information as to the cost savings and value of providing workplace lifestyle interventions that focus on awareness of one's body and health. Health economic studies validate the scale of personal and organization health cost savings that such programs can generate.
Authors: Daniel Wilson; Matthew Driller; Paul Winwood; Tracey Clissold; Ben Johnston; Nicholas Gill Journal: Nutrients Date: 2022-05-09 Impact factor: 6.706
Authors: Patricia M Herman; Melissa L Anderson; Karen J Sherman; Benjamin H Balderson; Judith A Turner; Daniel C Cherkin Journal: Spine (Phila Pa 1976) Date: 2017-10-15 Impact factor: 3.241
Authors: Luke Wolfenden; Sharni Goldman; Fiona G Stacey; Alice Grady; Melanie Kingsland; Christopher M Williams; John Wiggers; Andrew Milat; Chris Rissel; Adrian Bauman; Margaret M Farrell; France Légaré; Ali Ben Charif; Hervé Tchala Vignon Zomahoun; Rebecca K Hodder; Jannah Jones; Debbie Booth; Benjamin Parmenter; Tim Regan; Sze Lin Yoong Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2018-11-14
Authors: Julieta Galante; Claire Friedrich; Anna F Dawson; Marta Modrego-Alarcón; Pia Gebbing; Irene Delgado-Suárez; Radhika Gupta; Lydia Dean; Tim Dalgleish; Ian R White; Peter B Jones Journal: PLoS Med Date: 2021-01-11 Impact factor: 11.069