This program might save money, but this data doesn't prove it. Assignment to the treatment group was not random. The treatment consists of financial and other incentives for healthy behaviors. It seems quite likely that employees who already had or were inclined to adopt those healthy behaviors would be more likely to choose the treatment option than less healthy or health-conscious employees. There is no measure of how much of the difference between treatment and non-treatment groups was due to this self-selection effect as opposed to the treatment effect.

@2: Actually, no, there is a shit-ton of data of supporting this, compiled and analyzed both by the county and by the Puget Sound Health Alliance. In fact, I specifically asked if there were any demographic differences between those that chose one plan or the other, and they said no, other than that the Healthy Incentives enrollees were slightly older. Furthermore, these savings have proven consistent over time, even as the percentage of employees enrolling increased, meaning there wasn't much difference between the early adopters and the later ones.

But either way, regardless of whether there is any bias in the data, the indisputable fact is that these reforms have saved taxpayers money. Period.

Goldy - you've mixed up some info.

26% of County employees are Group Health members, that's correct. But all employees, whether they are in Group Health or with KingCare participate in the Healthy Incentives (or at least, they're encouraged to, in order to get better coverage for them and their dependants). It's the participation of all (or nearly all) employees in Healthy Incentives that is keeping costs down.

There's benefit to having more County employees become Group Health member, yes. It's a less expensive plan than KingCare. County employees that are in Group Health went from 18% to 26%. This does save the County some money for health care.

This all sounds like Social Engineering to me, therefore it must be bad.

I would like to see some of the savings be passed on to the employees who are actually the ones that are making the choices that are saving the County $$. Stop laying off and cutting so many services - that's when I'll see difference rather than rhetoric

Healthy Incentives is a joke. The programs you are required to complete are sophomoric. Multiple Choice questions can be answered without doing the reading. The online portion of HI is a nightmare, and the "logs" you are required to keep are easily faked.

How does King County save money through Healthy Incentives? A signficant number of people either can't or won't navigate the childish, moronic hoops you're required to jump through and say "screw it - I'll pay the extra 20%".

this is a complete fabrication. there is no credible data to support this..how much is the county paying web md for this fake program?