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

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 workfor...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Kathryn Rost, Airia Papadopoulos, Su Wang, Donna Marshall
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: MDPI AG 2013-05-01
Series:Risks
Subjects:
Online Access:http://www.mdpi.com/2227-9091/1/1/34
id doaj-ea0ed127bb1d4d8a8b9c7e8f9b19f238
record_format Article
spelling doaj-ea0ed127bb1d4d8a8b9c7e8f9b19f2382020-11-24T21:16:59ZengMDPI AGRisks2227-90912013-05-0111344210.3390/risks1010034Understanding the “Black Box” of Employer Decisions about Health Insurance Benefits: The Case of Depression ProductsKathryn RostAiria PapadopoulosSu WangDonna MarshallIn 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.http://www.mdpi.com/2227-9091/1/1/34health benefitsinsurancedepressionemployersreturn on investmentproductivityabsenteeismcollaborative care
collection DOAJ
language English
format Article
sources DOAJ
author Kathryn Rost
Airia Papadopoulos
Su Wang
Donna Marshall
spellingShingle Kathryn Rost
Airia Papadopoulos
Su Wang
Donna Marshall
Understanding the “Black Box” of Employer Decisions about Health Insurance Benefits: The Case of Depression Products
Risks
health benefits
insurance
depression
employers
return on investment
productivity
absenteeism
collaborative care
author_facet Kathryn Rost
Airia Papadopoulos
Su Wang
Donna Marshall
author_sort Kathryn Rost
title Understanding the “Black Box” of Employer Decisions about Health Insurance Benefits: The Case of Depression Products
title_short Understanding the “Black Box” of Employer Decisions about Health Insurance Benefits: The Case of Depression Products
title_full Understanding the “Black Box” of Employer Decisions about Health Insurance Benefits: The Case of Depression Products
title_fullStr Understanding the “Black Box” of Employer Decisions about Health Insurance Benefits: The Case of Depression Products
title_full_unstemmed Understanding the “Black Box” of Employer Decisions about Health Insurance Benefits: The Case of Depression Products
title_sort understanding the “black box” of employer decisions about health insurance benefits: the case of depression products
publisher MDPI AG
series Risks
issn 2227-9091
publishDate 2013-05-01
description 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.
topic health benefits
insurance
depression
employers
return on investment
productivity
absenteeism
collaborative care
url http://www.mdpi.com/2227-9091/1/1/34
work_keys_str_mv AT kathrynrost understandingtheblackboxofemployerdecisionsabouthealthinsurancebenefitsthecaseofdepressionproducts
AT airiapapadopoulos understandingtheblackboxofemployerdecisionsabouthealthinsurancebenefitsthecaseofdepressionproducts
AT suwang understandingtheblackboxofemployerdecisionsabouthealthinsurancebenefitsthecaseofdepressionproducts
AT donnamarshall understandingtheblackboxofemployerdecisionsabouthealthinsurancebenefitsthecaseofdepressionproducts
_version_ 1726014907422343168