IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pmed00/1002761.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Cost-effectiveness of financial incentives for improving diet and health through Medicare and Medicaid: A microsimulation study

Author

Listed:
  • Yujin Lee
  • Dariush Mozaffarian
  • Stephen Sy
  • Yue Huang
  • Junxiu Liu
  • Parke E Wilde
  • Shafika Abrahams-Gessel
  • Thiago de Souza Veiga Jardim
  • Thomas A Gaziano
  • Renata Micha

Abstract

Background: Economic incentives through health insurance may promote healthier behaviors. Little is known about health and economic impacts of incentivizing diet, a leading risk factor for diabetes and cardiovascular disease (CVD), through Medicare and Medicaid. Methods and findings: A validated microsimulation model (CVD-PREDICT) estimated CVD and diabetes cases prevented, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), health-related costs (formal healthcare, informal healthcare, and lost-productivity costs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) of two policy scenarios for adults within Medicare and Medicaid, compared to a base case of no new intervention: (1) 30% subsidy on fruits and vegetables (“F&V incentive”) and (2) 30% subsidy on broader healthful foods including F&V, whole grains, nuts/seeds, seafood, and plant oils (“healthy food incentive”). Inputs included national demographic and dietary data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) 2009–2014, policy effects and diet-disease effects from meta-analyses, and policy and health-related costs from established sources. Overall, 82 million adults (35–80 years old) were on Medicare and/or Medicaid. The mean (SD) age was 68.1 (11.4) years, 56.2% were female, and 25.5% were non-whites. Health and cost impacts were simulated over the lifetime of current Medicare and Medicaid participants (average simulated years = 18.3 years). The F&V incentive was estimated to prevent 1.93 million CVD events, gain 4.64 million QALYs, and save $39.7 billion in formal healthcare costs. For the healthy food incentive, corresponding gains were 3.28 million CVD and 0.12 million diabetes cases prevented, 8.40 million QALYs gained, and $100.2 billion in formal healthcare costs saved, respectively. From a healthcare perspective, both scenarios were cost-effective at 5 years and beyond, with lifetime ICERs of $18,184/QALY (F&V incentive) and $13,194/QALY (healthy food incentive). From a societal perspective including informal healthcare costs and lost productivity, respective ICERs were $14,576/QALY and $9,497/QALY. Results were robust in probabilistic sensitivity analyses and a range of one-way sensitivity and subgroup analyses, including by different durations of the intervention (5, 10, and 20 years and lifetime), food subsidy levels (20%, 50%), insurance groups (Medicare, Medicaid, and dual-eligible), and beneficiary characteristics within each insurance group (age, race/ethnicity, education, income, and Supplemental Nutrition Assistant Program [SNAP] status). Simulation studies such as this one provide quantitative estimates of benefits and uncertainty but cannot directly prove health and economic impacts. Conclusions: Economic incentives for healthier foods through Medicare and Medicaid could generate substantial health gains and be highly cost-effective. Yujin Lee and colleagues model for the health benefits and cost-effectiveness of providing subsidies on fresh fruit and vegetables and other healthy foods via Medicaid and Medicare.Why was this study done?: What did the researchers do and find?: What do these findings mean?:

Suggested Citation

  • Yujin Lee & Dariush Mozaffarian & Stephen Sy & Yue Huang & Junxiu Liu & Parke E Wilde & Shafika Abrahams-Gessel & Thiago de Souza Veiga Jardim & Thomas A Gaziano & Renata Micha, 2019. "Cost-effectiveness of financial incentives for improving diet and health through Medicare and Medicaid: A microsimulation study," PLOS Medicine, Public Library of Science, vol. 16(3), pages 1-20, March.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pmed00:1002761
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1002761
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.1002761
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.1002761&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pmed.1002761?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Alyssa Auvinen & Mary Simock & Alyssa Moran, 2022. "Integrating Produce Prescriptions into the Healthcare System: Perspectives from Key Stakeholders," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(17), pages 1-15, September.
    2. Inghels, Maxime & Kim, Hae-Young & Mathenjwa, Thulile & Shahmanesh, Maryam & Seeley, Janet & Wyke, Sally & McGrath, Nuala & Sartorius, Benn & Yapa, H. Manisha & Dobra, Adrian & Bärnighausen, Till & Ta, 2022. "Can a conditional financial incentive (CFI) reduce socio-demographic inequalities in home-based HIV testing uptake? A secondary analysis of the HITS clinical trial intervention in rural South Africa," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 311(C).
    3. Leonard E Egede & Rebekah J Walker & Clara E Dismuke-Greer & Sarah Pyzyk & Aprill Z Dawson & Joni S Williams & Jennifer A Campbell, 2021. "Cost-effectiveness of financial incentives to improve glycemic control in adults with diabetes: A pilot randomized controlled trial," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 16(3), pages 1-11, March.
    4. Nadine Budd Nugent & Carmen Byker Shanks & Hilary K. Seligman & Hollyanne Fricke & Courtney A. Parks & Sarah Stotz & Amy L. Yaroch, 2021. "Accelerating Evaluation of Financial Incentives for Fruits and Vegetables: A Case for Shared Measures," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(22), pages 1-16, November.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pmed00:1002761. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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 RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosmedicine (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/ .

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.