IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/
MyIDEAS: Log in (now much improved!) to save this article

Understanding the “Black Box” of Employer Decisions about Health Insurance Benefits: The Case of Depression Products

Listed author(s):
  • Kathryn Rost

    ()

    (Department of Mental Health Law and Policy, College of Behavioral and Community Sciences, 13301 Bruce B. Downs Blvd., University of South Florida, Tampa FL 33612, USA)

  • Airia Papadopoulos

    ()

    (Department of Mental Health Law and Policy, College of Behavioral and Community Sciences, 13301 Bruce B. Downs Blvd., University of South Florida, Tampa FL 33612, USA)

  • Su Wang

    ()

    (Department of Mental Health Law and Policy, College of Behavioral and Community Sciences, 13301 Bruce B. Downs Blvd., University of South Florida, Tampa FL 33612, USA)

  • Donna Marshall

    ()

    (Colorado Business Group on Health, 12640 West Cedar Drive, Lakewood, CO 80228, USA)

Registered author(s):

    In a randomized trial of two interventions on employer health benefit decision-making, 156 employers in the evidence-based (EB) condition attended a two hour presentation reviewing scientific evidence demonstrating depression products that increase high quality treatment of depression in the workforce provide the employer a return on investment. One-hundred sixty-nine employers participating in the usual care (UC) condition attended a similar length presentation reviewing scientific evidence supporting healthcare effectiveness data and information set (HEDIS) monitoring. This study described the decision-making process in 264 (81.2%) employers completing 12 month follow-up. The EB intervention did not increase the proportion of employers who discussed depression products with others in the company (29.2% versus 32.1%, p > 0.10), but it did significantly influence the content of the discussions that occurred. Discussion in EB companies promoted the capacity of a depression product to realize a return on investment (18.4% versus 4.7%, p = 0.05) and to improve productivity (47.4% versus 25.6%, p = 0.06) more often than discussions in UC companies. Almost half of EB and UC employers reported that return on investment has a large impact on health benefit decision-making. These results demonstrate the difficulty of influencing employer decisions about health benefits using group presentations.

    If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.

    File URL: http://www.mdpi.com/2227-9091/1/1/34/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: http://www.mdpi.com/2227-9091/1/1/34/
    Download Restriction: no

    Article provided by MDPI, Open Access Journal in its journal Risks.

    Volume (Year): 1 (2013)
    Issue (Month): 1 (May)
    Pages: 1-9

    as
    in new window

    Handle: RePEc:gam:jrisks:v:1:y:2013:i:1:p:34-42:d:26112
    Contact details of provider: Web page: http://www.mdpi.com/

    No references listed on IDEAS
    You can help add them by filling out this form.

    This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

    When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jrisks:v:1:y:2013:i:1:p:34-42:d:26112. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (XML Conversion Team)

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

    If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link to it, you can help with this form.

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis using RePEc data.