Illinois Workplace Wellness - Results

Academic Publications

Papers

What Do Workplace Wellness Programs Do? Evidence from the Illinois Workplace Wellness Study (PDF)
Damon Jones, David Molitor, and Julian Reif
Quarterly Journal of Economics, 134(4), 2019, 1747-1791.

Abstract

Workplace wellness programs cover over 50 million US workers and are intended to reduce medical spending, increase productivity, and improve well-being. Yet, limited evidence exists to support these claims. We designed and implemented a comprehensive workplace wellness program for a large employer and randomly assigned program eligibility and financial incentives at the individual level for nearly 5,000 employees. We find strong patterns of selection: during the year prior to the intervention, program participants had lower medical expenditures and healthier behaviors than nonparticipants. The program persistently increased health screening rates, but we do not find significant causal effects of treatment on total medical expenditures, other health behaviors, employee productivity, or self-reported health status after more than two years. Our 95 percent confidence intervals rule out 84 percent of previous estimates on medical spending and absenteeism.

Effects of a Workplace Wellness Program on Employee Health, Health Beliefs, and Medical Use: A Randomized Clinical Trial  (link)
Julian Reif, David Chan, Damon Jones, Laura Payne, and David Molitor
JAMA Internal Medicine, May 26, 2020.

Abstract

Many employers use workplace wellness programs to improve employee health and reduce medical costs, but randomized evaluations of their efficacy are rare. This randomized clinical trial of 4834 employees of the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign was conducted from August 9, 2016, to April 26, 2018. Members of the treatment group (n=3300) received incentives to participate in the workplace wellness program. Members of the control group (n=1534) did not participate in the wellness program. The 2-year workplace wellness program included financial incentives and paid time off for annual on-site biometric screenings, annual health risk assessments, and ongoing wellness activities (eg, physical activity, smoking cessation, and disease management). Measures taken at 12 and 24 months included clinician-collected biometrics (16 outcomes), administrative claims related to medical diagnoses (diabetes, hypertension, and hyperlipidemia) and medical use (office visits, inpatient visits, and emergency department visits), and self-reported health behaviors and health beliefs (14 outcomes). Among the 4834 participants (2770 women; mean [SD] age, 43.9 [11.3] years), no significant effects of the program on biometrics, medical diagnoses, or medical use were seen after 12 or 24 months. A significantly higher proportion of employees in the treatment group than in the control group reported having a primary care physician after 24 months (1106 of 1200 [92.2%] vs 477 of 554 [86.1%]; adjusted P=.002). The intervention significantly improved a set of employee health beliefs on average: participant beliefs about their chance of having a body mass index greater than 30, high cholesterol, high blood pressure, and impaired glucose level jointly decreased by 0.07 SDs (95% CI, -0.12 to -0.01 SDs; P=.02); however, effects on individual belief measures were not significant. This randomized clinical trial showed that a comprehensive workplace wellness program had no significant effects on measured physical health outcomes, rates of medical diagnoses, or the use of health care services after 24 months, but it increased the proportion of employees reporting that they have a primary care physician and improved employee beliefs about their own health.

Other Publications

Workplace Wellness: New Study Finds No Changes in Health Care Costs (link)
Damon Jones, David Molitor, and Julian Reif
Scientific American, March 19, 2019.