People enroll in fitness program to qualify for lower out-of-pocket health care costs

It was a controversial move when a health insurer began requiring people who were obese to literally pay the price of not doing anything about their weight - but it worked, a new study finds.

When people had to choose between paying up to 20 percent more for health insurance or exercising more, the majority of enrollees met fitness goals one step at a time via an Internet-tracked walking program, according to a joint study by the University of Michigan Health System and Stanford University.

Researchers evaluated a group of people insured by Blue Care Network who were enrolled in a pedometer-based program as a requirement to receive insurance discounts. After one year, nearly 97 percent of the enrollees had met or exceeded the average goal of 5,000 steps a day - including the most resistant participants who disagreed with the financial incentives and found the program "coercive."

"There are ethical debates around the idea of forcing someone to be personally responsible for health care costs related to not exercising, but we expect to see more of these approaches to financially motivate healthier behaviors," says senior author Caroline R. Richardson, M.D., assistant professor in the U-M Department of Family Medicine, investigator with the VA Center for Clinical Management Research and member of the U-M Institute for Healthcare Policy and Innovation.

"Our evaluation of Blue Care's incentivized program showed a surprisingly high rate of people who enrolled in the Internet-mediated walking program and stuck with it - even among those who were initially hostile to the idea. Wellness interventions like this clearly hold significant promise for encouraging physical activity among adults who are obese."

The new findings appear in Translational Behavioral Medicine.

Blue Care Network created a buzz when it implemented one of the largest-scaled financial incentive programs in the country by requiring adults who were obese and in the Healthy Blue Living program to enroll in a fitness program to qualify for lower out-of-pocket health care costs. Enrollees could choose between several programs, including Weight Watchers and WalkingSpree, which uses a digital pedometer to upload walking data on a wellness tracking web site.

For some families, the out-of-pocket cost of failing to meet the new criteria in one of the wellness programs was nearly $2,000 more per year. Those with medical conditions were exempt if they had waivers from their doctors.

Nearly half of the 12,102 enrollees who met criteria for a wellness program picked pedometer-based WalkingSpree, and the study's authors evaluated their success. The 6,548 participants were required to reach an average of 5,000 daily steps in each three month period, or 450,000 steps a quarter, to remain eligible for enhanced benefits. Just 3 percent failed to do so.

Among users who responded to a satisfaction survey about the program, a third were unhappy with the financial incentives because they felt the incentives were coercive. The remaining two-thirds of respondents, however, liked the program.

Authors note that policies under the Affordable Care Act are expected to expand the types of wellness programs offered by employers and insurance companies who ultimately save on health costs when employees and enrollees maintain healthier habits.

"Our findings suggest that incentivized wellness programs are acceptable to many individuals and that these programs encourage healthy behaviors," says lead author Donna Zulman, M.D., Instructor in the Division of General Medical Disciplines at Stanford University and research investigator at the VA Palo Alto Health Care System.

"Comprehensive evaluations are needed to determine whether participation in these programs translates to meaningful changes in health and costs of health care."

Comments

  1. Darliene Howell Darliene Howell United States says:

    I highly object to companies whose wellness programs include punitive measures or differential rewards based on health status factors, including a person's cholesterol, blood pressure, weight or body mass index.  Body size or weight is not a proxy for health or wellness.   These programs are discriminatory practices.

    A 2002 study, Evaluating a ‘non-diet’ wellness intervention for improvement of metabolic fitness, psychological well-being and eating and activity behaviors, whose objective was “to evaluate the effects of a 'health-centered' non-diet wellness program, and to compare this program to a traditional 'weight loss-centered' diet program;” concluded:

    “Over a 1 y[ear] period, a diet approach results in weight loss for those who complete the intervention, while a non-diet approach does not. However, a non-diet approach can produce similar improvements in metabolic fitness, psychology and eating behavior, while at the same time effectively minimizing the attrition common in diet programs.” [Emphasis added]

    There are studies that show: dieting results in one third to two thirds of dieters regaining more weight than they lost on their diets (aka yo-yo dieting) [Mann, 2007 and Pietilainen, 2012]; yo-yo dieting has a negative effect on the immune function [Hutchison, 2004]

    A 2008 study from Yale’s Rudd Center found:
    “Weight/height discrimination is prevalent in American society and is relatively close to reported rates of racial discrimination, particularly among women. Both institutional forms of weight/height discrimination (for example, in employment settings) and interpersonal mistreatment due to weight/height (for example, being called names) were common, and in some cases were even more prevalent than discrimination due to gender and race.” [Perceptions of weight discrimination: prevalence and comparison to race and gender discrimination in America, Puhl, et al, 2008]

    The 2011 research report, Gender and Race Wage Gaps Attributable to Obesity [Dor, et al, 2011] found a 14% wage gap among obese Caucasian females. Additionally, it states that “It has been suggested that lower wages may be partially due to higher medical costs of obesity and the interaction of wages and employer-sponsored health insurance. However, even under this hypothesis, obese women face reduced wages exceeding obesity-related increases in medical expenditures, indicating that higher medical costs alone do not explain wage gaps.”

    And now you are promoting a 20% additional cost for having a larger body?? That is discriminatory! There is an evidence-based compassionate alternative to conventional dieting: Health At Every Size®. Please consider this alternative prior to making a decision that may result in weight cycling.

    For more information on Health At Every Size, you can find a general explanation on Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_at_Every_Size) or find in-depth research-based information in the book Health At Every Size - The Surprising Truth About Your Weight by Dr. Linda Bacon (http://www.lindabacon.org/HAESbook/).

The opinions expressed here are the views of the writer and do not necessarily reflect the views and opinions of News Medical.
Post a new comment
Post

While we only use edited and approved content for Azthena answers, it may on occasions provide incorrect responses. Please confirm any data provided with the related suppliers or authors. We do not provide medical advice, if you search for medical information you must always consult a medical professional before acting on any information provided.

Your questions, but not your email details will be shared with OpenAI and retained for 30 days in accordance with their privacy principles.

Please do not ask questions that use sensitive or confidential information.

Read the full Terms & Conditions.

You might also like...
State COVID-19 vaccine mandates increased vaccine uptake among healthcare workers in 2021