Workplace Wellness Program Return on Investment, Effectiveness of Monetary Penalties for Tobacco Cessation Non-Participation, and Physician Perceptions of Their Use of Time and Appropriateness of Care Provided
ResearchPublished Jun 12, 2018
This dissertation, in a three paper format, examines three policy levers for improving health care value. The first paper examines the return-on-investment of PepsiCo's workplace wellness program, concluding that while the program as a whole saves health care dollars, the primary drivers of savings are those interventions focused on employees with manifest diseases as opposed to unhealthy lifestyles. The second paper estimates the impact of a $600 per year surcharge applied to tobacco users who do not participate in a Fortune-100 employer's tobacco cessation intervention. Findings indicate the surcharge modestly increased participation in the tobacco cessation intervention. However, given low participation rates and the characteristics of tobacco users versus non-users, the primary effect of the policy is to shift health care costs towards employees who on average are of lower socioeconomic status vs. their non-tobacco using counterparts. In the third paper, a novel physician survey is developed to examine physician perceptions regarding their use of time and the appropriateness of care they provide. Findings from the implementation of the survey among clinic-based physicians within four sites of the Southern California Permanente Medical Group indicate that the opportunity exists to improve health care value along these two value domains, but that it is less than commonly accepted national wisdom. Collectively, these three studies support the notion that a multi-pronged approach — in which many different policy levers are simultaneously pulled — is needed to improve the value of health care in the US. In addition, results emphasize the need to carefully monitor implemented policies to both identify unintended consequences and characterize where and among whom a given policy option is most effective.
This document was submitted as a dissertation in August 2017 in partial fulfillment of the requirements of the doctoral degree in public policy analysis at the Pardee RAND Graduate School. The faculty committee that supervised and approved the
This publication is part of the RAND dissertation series. Pardee RAND dissertations are produced by graduate fellows of the Pardee RAND Graduate School, the world's leading producer of Ph.D.'s in policy analysis. The dissertations are supervised, reviewed, and approved by a Pardee RAND faculty committee overseeing each dissertation.
This document and trademark(s) contained herein are protected by law. This representation of RAND intellectual property is provided for noncommercial use only. Unauthorized posting of this publication online is prohibited; linking directly to this product page is encouraged. Permission is required from RAND to reproduce, or reuse in another form, any of its research documents for commercial purposes. For information on reprint and reuse permissions, please visit www.rand.org/pubs/permissions.
RAND is a nonprofit institution that helps improve policy and decisionmaking through research and analysis. RAND's publications do not necessarily reflect the opinions of its research clients and sponsors.
