Loading…
Employer Coverage of Clinical Preventive Services in the United States
Purpose. To characterize employers' coverage of clinical preventive services. Design. Mercer Human Resource Consulting Inc. included questions on clinical preventive services as part of its National Survey of Employer-Sponsored Health Plans, 2001. Setting. A national sample of employers of a la...
Saved in:
| Published in: | American journal of health promotion 2006-01, Vol.20 (3), p.214-222 |
|---|---|
| Main Authors: | , , , , |
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Subjects: | |
| Citations: | Items that this one cites Items that cite this one |
| Online Access: | Get full text |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| cited_by | cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c372t-81487145571a8abbcb481bf9e22dd42f1ef82f274fdfe53eea1b5cf6215c5df43 |
|---|---|
| cites | cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c372t-81487145571a8abbcb481bf9e22dd42f1ef82f274fdfe53eea1b5cf6215c5df43 |
| container_end_page | 222 |
| container_issue | 3 |
| container_start_page | 214 |
| container_title | American journal of health promotion |
| container_volume | 20 |
| creator | Bondi, Maris Ann Harris, Jeffrey R. Atkins, David French, Molly E. Umland, Beth |
| description | Purpose.
To characterize employers' coverage of clinical preventive services.
Design.
Mercer Human Resource Consulting Inc. included questions on clinical preventive services as part of its National Survey of Employer-Sponsored Health Plans, 2001.
Setting.
A national sample of employers of a large, medium, and small number of employees, including governments.
Subjects.
Respondents self-identified as most knowledgeable about the organization's health benefits.
Measures.
Weighted analyses of responses to eight survey questions on health promotion.
Results.
The survey was completed by 2180 employers, and the response rate was 21%. More than 90% of employers included increased productivity and decreased health care costs among their most important reasons for coverage of clinical preventive services. Within health insurance, coverage of physical examinations, immunizations, and screenings generally exceeded 50%, but coverage of lifestyle modification services was less than 20%. Only 20% of employers covered tobacco cessation services, and only 4% of employers provided an “optimal” benefit. We compared employers' offerings with a published ranking, by impact and value, of clinical preventive services. We found the biggest discrepancy in tobacco cessation services and alcohol problem prevention, which ranked high in terms of impact and value but are offered by only 20% and 18% of employers, respectively.
Conclusions.
Employers seek financial return from their offerings of clinical preventive services to employees, but they are least likely to offer the services most likely to provide this return. |
| doi_str_mv | 10.4278/0890-1171-20.3.214 |
| format | article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_70677841</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sage_id>10.4278_0890-1171-20.3.214</sage_id><sourcerecordid>70677841</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c372t-81487145571a8abbcb481bf9e22dd42f1ef82f274fdfe53eea1b5cf6215c5df43</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqFkEFLwzAYhoMobk7_gAfJyVu3fF_TJh5lOBUEhblzSNsv2tG1M-kG-_dmbOhNT-_leV9eHsauQYwlKj0R-k4kAAoSFON0jCBP2BAh10meCzxlwx9gwC5CWAqBGQhxzgaQS4w4DtnsYbVuuh15Pu225O0H8c7xaVO3dWkb_uZpS21fb4nPyW_rkgKvW95_El-0dU8Vn_e2p3DJzpxtAl0dc8QWs4f36VPy8vr4PL1_ScpUYZ9okFqBzDIFVtuiKAupoXB3hFhVEh2Q0-hQSVc5ylIiC0VWuhwhK7PKyXTEbg-7a999bSj0ZlWHkprGttRtglEiV0pL-BeMD-IjrSKIB7D0XQienFn7emX9zoAwe81mb9HsLRoUJjXRWyzdHNc3xYqq38rRawQmByBEo2bZbXwbtfw1-Q0UK4XL</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>57137287</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Employer Coverage of Clinical Preventive Services in the United States</title><source>Applied Social Sciences Index & Abstracts (ASSIA)</source><source>Sage Journals Online</source><source>EBSCOhost SPORTDiscus - Ebooks</source><creator>Bondi, Maris Ann ; Harris, Jeffrey R. ; Atkins, David ; French, Molly E. ; Umland, Beth</creator><creatorcontrib>Bondi, Maris Ann ; Harris, Jeffrey R. ; Atkins, David ; French, Molly E. ; Umland, Beth</creatorcontrib><description>Purpose.
To characterize employers' coverage of clinical preventive services.
Design.
Mercer Human Resource Consulting Inc. included questions on clinical preventive services as part of its National Survey of Employer-Sponsored Health Plans, 2001.
Setting.
A national sample of employers of a large, medium, and small number of employees, including governments.
Subjects.
Respondents self-identified as most knowledgeable about the organization's health benefits.
Measures.
Weighted analyses of responses to eight survey questions on health promotion.
Results.
The survey was completed by 2180 employers, and the response rate was 21%. More than 90% of employers included increased productivity and decreased health care costs among their most important reasons for coverage of clinical preventive services. Within health insurance, coverage of physical examinations, immunizations, and screenings generally exceeded 50%, but coverage of lifestyle modification services was less than 20%. Only 20% of employers covered tobacco cessation services, and only 4% of employers provided an “optimal” benefit. We compared employers' offerings with a published ranking, by impact and value, of clinical preventive services. We found the biggest discrepancy in tobacco cessation services and alcohol problem prevention, which ranked high in terms of impact and value but are offered by only 20% and 18% of employers, respectively.
Conclusions.
Employers seek financial return from their offerings of clinical preventive services to employees, but they are least likely to offer the services most likely to provide this return.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0890-1171</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 2168-6602</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.4278/0890-1171-20.3.214</identifier><identifier>PMID: 16422142</identifier><identifier>CODEN: AJHPED</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Los Angeles, CA: SAGE Publications</publisher><subject>Employers ; Health Benefit Plans, Employee - statistics & numerical data ; Health costs ; Health insurance ; Health technology assessment ; Humans ; Insurance Coverage - statistics & numerical data ; Premiums ; Prevention ; Preventive Health Services ; United States ; USA</subject><ispartof>American journal of health promotion, 2006-01, Vol.20 (3), p.214-222</ispartof><rights>2006 SAGE Publications</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c372t-81487145571a8abbcb481bf9e22dd42f1ef82f274fdfe53eea1b5cf6215c5df43</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c372t-81487145571a8abbcb481bf9e22dd42f1ef82f274fdfe53eea1b5cf6215c5df43</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>315,786,790,27957,27958,31035</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16422142$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Bondi, Maris Ann</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Harris, Jeffrey R.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Atkins, David</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>French, Molly E.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Umland, Beth</creatorcontrib><title>Employer Coverage of Clinical Preventive Services in the United States</title><title>American journal of health promotion</title><addtitle>Am J Health Promot</addtitle><description>Purpose.
To characterize employers' coverage of clinical preventive services.
Design.
Mercer Human Resource Consulting Inc. included questions on clinical preventive services as part of its National Survey of Employer-Sponsored Health Plans, 2001.
Setting.
A national sample of employers of a large, medium, and small number of employees, including governments.
Subjects.
Respondents self-identified as most knowledgeable about the organization's health benefits.
Measures.
Weighted analyses of responses to eight survey questions on health promotion.
Results.
The survey was completed by 2180 employers, and the response rate was 21%. More than 90% of employers included increased productivity and decreased health care costs among their most important reasons for coverage of clinical preventive services. Within health insurance, coverage of physical examinations, immunizations, and screenings generally exceeded 50%, but coverage of lifestyle modification services was less than 20%. Only 20% of employers covered tobacco cessation services, and only 4% of employers provided an “optimal” benefit. We compared employers' offerings with a published ranking, by impact and value, of clinical preventive services. We found the biggest discrepancy in tobacco cessation services and alcohol problem prevention, which ranked high in terms of impact and value but are offered by only 20% and 18% of employers, respectively.
Conclusions.
Employers seek financial return from their offerings of clinical preventive services to employees, but they are least likely to offer the services most likely to provide this return.</description><subject>Employers</subject><subject>Health Benefit Plans, Employee - statistics & numerical data</subject><subject>Health costs</subject><subject>Health insurance</subject><subject>Health technology assessment</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Insurance Coverage - statistics & numerical data</subject><subject>Premiums</subject><subject>Prevention</subject><subject>Preventive Health Services</subject><subject>United States</subject><subject>USA</subject><issn>0890-1171</issn><issn>2168-6602</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2006</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>7QJ</sourceid><recordid>eNqFkEFLwzAYhoMobk7_gAfJyVu3fF_TJh5lOBUEhblzSNsv2tG1M-kG-_dmbOhNT-_leV9eHsauQYwlKj0R-k4kAAoSFON0jCBP2BAh10meCzxlwx9gwC5CWAqBGQhxzgaQS4w4DtnsYbVuuh15Pu225O0H8c7xaVO3dWkb_uZpS21fb4nPyW_rkgKvW95_El-0dU8Vn_e2p3DJzpxtAl0dc8QWs4f36VPy8vr4PL1_ScpUYZ9okFqBzDIFVtuiKAupoXB3hFhVEh2Q0-hQSVc5ylIiC0VWuhwhK7PKyXTEbg-7a999bSj0ZlWHkprGttRtglEiV0pL-BeMD-IjrSKIB7D0XQienFn7emX9zoAwe81mb9HsLRoUJjXRWyzdHNc3xYqq38rRawQmByBEo2bZbXwbtfw1-Q0UK4XL</recordid><startdate>200601</startdate><enddate>200601</enddate><creator>Bondi, Maris Ann</creator><creator>Harris, Jeffrey R.</creator><creator>Atkins, David</creator><creator>French, Molly E.</creator><creator>Umland, Beth</creator><general>SAGE Publications</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7QJ</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>200601</creationdate><title>Employer Coverage of Clinical Preventive Services in the United States</title><author>Bondi, Maris Ann ; Harris, Jeffrey R. ; Atkins, David ; French, Molly E. ; Umland, Beth</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c372t-81487145571a8abbcb481bf9e22dd42f1ef82f274fdfe53eea1b5cf6215c5df43</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2006</creationdate><topic>Employers</topic><topic>Health Benefit Plans, Employee - statistics & numerical data</topic><topic>Health costs</topic><topic>Health insurance</topic><topic>Health technology assessment</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Insurance Coverage - statistics & numerical data</topic><topic>Premiums</topic><topic>Prevention</topic><topic>Preventive Health Services</topic><topic>United States</topic><topic>USA</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Bondi, Maris Ann</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Harris, Jeffrey R.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Atkins, David</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>French, Molly E.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Umland, Beth</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Applied Social Sciences Index & Abstracts (ASSIA)</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>American journal of health promotion</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Bondi, Maris Ann</au><au>Harris, Jeffrey R.</au><au>Atkins, David</au><au>French, Molly E.</au><au>Umland, Beth</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Employer Coverage of Clinical Preventive Services in the United States</atitle><jtitle>American journal of health promotion</jtitle><addtitle>Am J Health Promot</addtitle><date>2006-01</date><risdate>2006</risdate><volume>20</volume><issue>3</issue><spage>214</spage><epage>222</epage><pages>214-222</pages><issn>0890-1171</issn><eissn>2168-6602</eissn><coden>AJHPED</coden><notes>ObjectType-Article-1</notes><notes>SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1</notes><notes>ObjectType-Feature-2</notes><notes>content type line 23</notes><abstract>Purpose.
To characterize employers' coverage of clinical preventive services.
Design.
Mercer Human Resource Consulting Inc. included questions on clinical preventive services as part of its National Survey of Employer-Sponsored Health Plans, 2001.
Setting.
A national sample of employers of a large, medium, and small number of employees, including governments.
Subjects.
Respondents self-identified as most knowledgeable about the organization's health benefits.
Measures.
Weighted analyses of responses to eight survey questions on health promotion.
Results.
The survey was completed by 2180 employers, and the response rate was 21%. More than 90% of employers included increased productivity and decreased health care costs among their most important reasons for coverage of clinical preventive services. Within health insurance, coverage of physical examinations, immunizations, and screenings generally exceeded 50%, but coverage of lifestyle modification services was less than 20%. Only 20% of employers covered tobacco cessation services, and only 4% of employers provided an “optimal” benefit. We compared employers' offerings with a published ranking, by impact and value, of clinical preventive services. We found the biggest discrepancy in tobacco cessation services and alcohol problem prevention, which ranked high in terms of impact and value but are offered by only 20% and 18% of employers, respectively.
Conclusions.
Employers seek financial return from their offerings of clinical preventive services to employees, but they are least likely to offer the services most likely to provide this return.</abstract><cop>Los Angeles, CA</cop><pub>SAGE Publications</pub><pmid>16422142</pmid><doi>10.4278/0890-1171-20.3.214</doi><tpages>9</tpages></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 0890-1171 |
| ispartof | American journal of health promotion, 2006-01, Vol.20 (3), p.214-222 |
| issn | 0890-1171 2168-6602 |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_70677841 |
| source | Applied Social Sciences Index & Abstracts (ASSIA); Sage Journals Online; EBSCOhost SPORTDiscus - Ebooks |
| subjects | Employers Health Benefit Plans, Employee - statistics & numerical data Health costs Health insurance Health technology assessment Humans Insurance Coverage - statistics & numerical data Premiums Prevention Preventive Health Services United States USA |
| title | Employer Coverage of Clinical Preventive Services in the United States |
| url | http://sfxeu10.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/loughborough?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-09-21T07%3A23%3A20IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Employer%20Coverage%20of%20Clinical%20Preventive%20Services%20in%20the%20United%20States&rft.jtitle=American%20journal%20of%20health%20promotion&rft.au=Bondi,%20Maris%20Ann&rft.date=2006-01&rft.volume=20&rft.issue=3&rft.spage=214&rft.epage=222&rft.pages=214-222&rft.issn=0890-1171&rft.eissn=2168-6602&rft.coden=AJHPED&rft_id=info:doi/10.4278/0890-1171-20.3.214&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E70677841%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Cgrp_id%3Ecdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c372t-81487145571a8abbcb481bf9e22dd42f1ef82f274fdfe53eea1b5cf6215c5df43%3C/grp_id%3E%3Coa%3E%3C/oa%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=57137287&rft_id=info:pmid/16422142&rft_sage_id=10.4278_0890-1171-20.3.214&rfr_iscdi=true |