Leslie K John1, Andrea B Troxel2,3, William S Yancy4, Joelle Friedman3, Jingsan Zhu3, Lin Yang3, Robert Galvin5, Karen Miller-Kovach6, Scott D Halpern3,7, George Loewenstein3,8, Kevin Volpp3,7,9,10. 1. 1 Negotiations, Organizations and Markets Unit, Harvard Business School, Boston, MA, USA. 2. 2 Department of Biostatistics and Epidemiology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA. 3. 3 Center for Health Incentives and Behavioral Economics, Leonard Davis Institute of Health Economics, Philadelphia, PA, USA. 4. 4 Department of Medicine, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, NC, USA. 5. 5 The Blackstone Group, New York, NY, USA. 6. 6 Science Department, Weight Watchers International, New York City, NY, USA. 7. 7 Cresencz Philadelphia Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Philadelphia, PA, USA. 8. 8 Department of Social and Decision Sciences, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA, USA. 9. 9 Department of Health Care Management, The Wharton School, Philadelphia, PA, USA. 10. 10 Departments of Medicine and Medical Ethics and Health Policy, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To test the effects of employer subsidies on employee enrollment, attendance, and weight loss in a nationally available weight management program. DESIGN: A randomized trial tested the impact of employer subsidy: 100%; 80%, 50%, and a hybrid 50% subsidy that could become a 100% subsidy by attaining attendance targets. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT01756066. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Twenty three thousand twenty-three employees of 2 US companies. MEASURES: The primary outcome was the percentage of employees who enrolled in the weight management program. We also tested whether the subsidies were associated with differential attendance and weight loss over 12 months, as might be predicted by the expectation that they attract employees with differing degrees of motivation. Analysis and Results: Enrollment differed significantly by subsidy level ( P < .0001). The 100% subsidy produced the highest enrollment (7.7%), significantly higher than each of the lower subsidies (vs 80% subsidy: 6.2%, P = .002; vs 50% subsidy: 3.9%, P < .0001; vs hybrid: 3.7%, P < .0001). Enrollment in the 80% subsidy group was significantly higher than both lower subsidy groups (vs 50% subsidy: 3.9%, P < .0001; vs hybrid: 3.7%, P < .0001). Among enrollees, there were no differences among the 4 groups in attendance or weight loss. CONCLUSION: This pragmatic trial, conducted in a real-world workplace setting, suggests that higher rates of employer subsidization help individuals to enroll in weight loss programs, without a decrement in program effectiveness. Future research could explore the cost-effectiveness of such subsidies or alternative designs.
RCT Entities:
PURPOSE: To test the effects of employer subsidies on employee enrollment, attendance, and weight loss in a nationally available weight management program. DESIGN: A randomized trial tested the impact of employer subsidy: 100%; 80%, 50%, and a hybrid 50% subsidy that could become a 100% subsidy by attaining attendance targets. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT01756066. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Twenty three thousand twenty-three employees of 2 US companies. MEASURES: The primary outcome was the percentage of employees who enrolled in the weight management program. We also tested whether the subsidies were associated with differential attendance and weight loss over 12 months, as might be predicted by the expectation that they attract employees with differing degrees of motivation. Analysis and Results: Enrollment differed significantly by subsidy level ( P < .0001). The 100% subsidy produced the highest enrollment (7.7%), significantly higher than each of the lower subsidies (vs 80% subsidy: 6.2%, P = .002; vs 50% subsidy: 3.9%, P < .0001; vs hybrid: 3.7%, P < .0001). Enrollment in the 80% subsidy group was significantly higher than both lower subsidy groups (vs 50% subsidy: 3.9%, P < .0001; vs hybrid: 3.7%, P < .0001). Among enrollees, there were no differences among the 4 groups in attendance or weight loss. CONCLUSION: This pragmatic trial, conducted in a real-world workplace setting, suggests that higher rates of employer subsidization help individuals to enroll in weight loss programs, without a decrement in program effectiveness. Future research could explore the cost-effectiveness of such subsidies or alternative designs.
Entities:
Keywords:
affordable care act; behavioral economics; cost sharing and subsidies; incentives; obesity; weight loss; weight management
Authors: Megan A McVay; Kellie B Cooper; Marissa L Donahue; Montserrat Carrera Seoane; Nipa R Shah; Fern Webb; Michael Perri; Danielle E Jake-Schoffman Journal: Obes Sci Pract Date: 2022-02-23
Authors: Chris Calitz; Charlotte Pratt; Nicolaas P Pronk; Janet E Fulton; Kimberly Jinnett; Anne N Thorndike; Ebyan Addou; Ross Arena; Alison G M Brown; Chia-Chia Chang; Lisa Latts; Debra Lerner; Michiel Majors; Michelle Mancuso; Drew Mills; Eduardo Sanchez; David Goff Journal: J Am Heart Assoc Date: 2021-08-28 Impact factor: 5.501
Authors: Megan A McVay; William S Yancy; Gary G Bennett; Erica Levine; Seung-Hye Jung; Soyeon Jung; Steve Anton; Corrine I Voils Journal: Transl Behav Med Date: 2021-02-11 Impact factor: 3.046