Skip to main content
Population Health Management logoLink to Population Health Management
. 2023 Oct 10;26(5):341–352. doi: 10.1089/pop.2023.0140

Scoping Review of Employer-Led Research Using Employee Health Claims Data

Naimisha Movva 1,, Susan T Pastula 1, Saumitra V Rege 2, R Jeffrey Lewis 3, Lauren C Bylsma 1
PMCID: PMC10611962  PMID: 37682577

Abstract

Employers may evaluate employee claims data for various reasons, including assessment of medical insurance and wellness plan efficacy, monitoring employee health trends, and identifying focus areas for wellness measures. The objective of this scoping review (ScR) is to describe the available literature reporting the use, applications, and outcomes of employee health claims data by self-insured employers. The ScR was conducted in a stepwise manner using an established framework: identifying the research question, identifying and selecting relevant studies, charting the data, and collating and reporting results. Literature searches were conducted in PubMed and Embase. Studies of self-insured employee populations that were conducted by the employer/s through May 2022 were identified using predefined criteria. Forty-one studies were included. The majority (90%) were cohort study designs; most employers (51%) were in industries such as aluminum production and health insurance providers. Twenty-four (59%) studies supplemented claims data with other sources such as human resource data to evaluate programs and/or health outcomes. A range of exposures (eg, chronic conditions, wellness program participation) and outcomes (eg, rates or costs of conditions, program effectiveness) were considered. Among the 25 studies that reported on patient confidentiality and privacy, 68% indicated institutional review board approval and 48% reported use of deidentified data. Many self-insured employers have used employee health claims data to gain insights into their employees' needs and health care utilization. These data can be used to identify potential improvements for wellness and other targeted programs to improve employee health and decrease absenteeism.

Keywords: claims data, employee health plan, employer, scoping review, self-insured, workforce health

Introduction

In 2020, 54.4% of the US population (over 177 million persons) had employer-based health insurance.1 Most large employers across industry sectors are self-insured and assume the financial risk of the employee health plans.2,3 For example, the 2020 Kaiser Family Foundation Survey of Employer Health Benefits reported that 67% of employed workers had health insurance coverage under self-insured arrangements.4

The relatively wide degree of health insurance coverage among the US workforce represents a potential data source to promote the health, well-being, and performance of employees. Improved employee health and well-being may not only benefit employees, but may also deliver a competitive business advantage for employers.2,5 Implementation of evidence-based approaches using employee medical claims data can potentially lead to improved health and productivity among the workforce while also reducing health care costs and absenteeism. As a result, there are numerous potential applications of employee health claims data to self-insured employers. These include employee health and wellness monitoring, determining potential health impacts of new technologies or safety measures, optimizing health plan efficacy, identifying health disparities, improving quality of care, and tailoring prevention/management programs to meet employee health needs. Claims data may also inform employers in identifying drivers of health care utilization over time and prioritizing specific areas to reduce costs; for example, increased claims for tobacco-related diseases may prompt employers to incentivize employees for taking measures toward smoking cessation. In light of the aforementioned applications, health claims data may prove an important tool for self-insured employers to develop and sustain an effective workforce.

Although a number of studies have been published recently that provide examples of employers evaluating their workforce health claims data,2,5,6 no scoping review (ScR) or systematic literature review has been conducted that has fully gauged the extent of the literature surrounding employer-led research of claims data. The objective of this ScR is to understand the ways in which self-insured employers have utilized or evaluated their employees' health claims data as well as the insights and benefits gained, and lessons learned from these analyses.

Methods

A study protocol was developed and registered on Open Science Framework (https://osf.io/qup2g) on August 17, 2022, before initiating the ScR. The ScR was conducted in accordance with the framework proposed by Arksey and O'Malley and further refined by the Joanna Briggs Institute.7,8 The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines—extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR)9 were followed in all aspects of the preparation, conduct, and reporting of this review.

Eligibility criteria

As recommended by the Joanna Briggs Institute,8 the eligibility criteria used to determine relevant studies were organized by population, concept, and context. Studies of employee populations from self-insured employers were included. Relevant studies were required to describe how and why employee health care claims data were used to be included. Those utilizing only primary data collection methods, such as employee interviews or questionnaires, were not included.

Studies must have been initiated by the self-insured employers; studies analyzing employee populations sponsored by third parties were excluded. Interventional studies, clinical trials, and conference abstracts were not included. Studies published in languages other than English, conducted outside of the United States, or not meeting the population, concept, and context criteria were excluded from the ScR.

Study identification, screening, and abstraction

An initial search of PubMed was conducted on July 18, 2022, to refine the final search string. Text words used in the title and abstract of the resulting articles were analyzed and relevant terms were used to build a comprehensive search that was run in PubMed and Embase on August 17, 2022. The final search strategy is provided in Table 1, with no date restrictions. DistillerSR software10 was utilized for study selection including deduplication, article screening, and abstraction, which resulted in a fully transparent and auditable process. Using the population, concept, and context criteria, 1 reviewer screened the titles and abstracts of the search hits.

Table 1.

Literature Search Strategy

Database PubMed EMBASE
Terms for employer (#1) “Employee”[TiAb] OR “employer”[TiAb] OR “company”[TiAb] “employee”:ab OR “employee”:ti OR “employer”:ab OR “employer”:ti OR “company”:ab OR “company”:ti
Terms for self-insured (#2) self-insured OR fully-insured OR “health plan” OR “claims data” OR “health claims” OR “medical claims” OR “employee health care” OR “employer burden” OR “workplace health” OR “workforce health” “self insured” OR “fully insured” OR “health plan” OR “claims data” OR “health claims” OR “medical claims” OR “employee health care” OR “employer burden” OR “workplace health” OR “workforce health”
Filters English English; excluding “Conference Abstract,” “Conference Paper,” and “Conference Review”

The full text of the articles deemed relevant were examined independently by 2 reviewers. Studies included at the full text review stage were extracted in DistillerSR. Extracted data elements included general study information such as title and publication year, study characteristics including study design, location, and employer type, research objectives, study methodology, reported “exposures” (condition for entry into the study, eg, employment within a company, presence of a disease, or a workplace intervention) and “outcomes” (evaluated endpoints, eg, health care costs, prevalence of a condition, rate of workplace injury), measures to maintain confidentiality and patient privacy, strengths and limitations, and lessons learned.

Data extraction was completed by 1 reviewer and another reviewer performed an independent check of the data elements for accuracy. Disputes were resolved by a senior reviewer. Basic descriptive analyses (frequencies and percentages) were conducted on extracted study elements.

Results

Article identification

Figure 1 shows the PRISMA flow diagram, which details the study inclusion at each stage. Searches yielded 4287 hits; 2444 hits were screened after deduplication at the title and abstract level. Screening of the abstracts against the study eligibility criteria resulted in 263 studies that were reviewed at the full-text stage. Among these, 222 studies were excluded at the full-text level: 166 studies were initiated by a third party, 22 studies did not contain claims data, 11 were not self-insured employers, 9 were conducted outside of the United States, 5 were excluded study designs, 4 were not employee populations, and the full-text PDF of 5 was unavailable. A total of 41 studies meeting the predefined eligibility criteria were thus included in the review.

FIG. 1.

FIG. 1.

Study flow diagram.

Study characteristics

Characteristics of the included studies are presented in Table 2. The 41 studies were published between 1985 and 2022. There were 2 (5%) cross-sectional, 1 (2%) case–control, 1 (2%) ecological, and 37 (90%) cohort studies. The majority of studies (n = 21; 51%) were conducted by industry employers such as aluminum production, information technology, and retail companies. Nine (22%) studies were conducted among university staff while 7 (17%) were conducted in hospital system employees.

Table 2.

Characteristics of the Included Studies

Study Study design Time period Employer Employer category Objective Data sources Exposure categorya Outcome categorya Patient privacy measures
Aguilar et al14 Cohort 2009–2011 Cerner Industry Assess the impact of an employer's onsite pharmacy on health plan members' medication adherence Claims Specific chronic condition: asthma, depression, diabetes, hyperlipidemia, hypertension Medication adherence IRB approval + deidentified data
Bernacki and Tsai15 Cohort 1992–2002 Johns Hopkins University Assess the success of integrated workers compensation claims management system Claims + workers' compensation data Employment Workplace injury/illness NR
Birnbaum et al16 Cohort 2004 Chevron Texaco Industry Assess the relative value of using laboratory, claims data to identify prevalence rates, and costs of metabolic syndrome Claims + health screening, personnel data Employment Specific health condition rate/costs: metabolic syndrome NR
Boscardin et al17 Cohort 2008–2009 Safeway Industry Examine the added value of self-reported health status data; predict who is at risk for being high cost in the future Claims + self-reported health status biometrics, insurance enrollment data Employment General health care costs Deidentified data
Burks et al18 Cohort 2006–2009 Schneider National Inc. Industry Evaluate the effect of an employer-mandated OSA diagnosis and treatment program on non-OSA medical insurance claim costs Claims + human resource, sleep screening data Specific chronic condition: OSA Specific health condition rate/costs: OSA IRB approval
Burton et al12 Cohort 2009–2010 American Express Industry Examine associations between employee wellness program and health risks, health care costs, short-term disability absences Claims + HRA, personnel data Enrollment in health plan Evaluation of employee wellness program NR
Burton et al19 Cohort 2012 American Express Industry Examine health risks, medical conditions, and workplace economic outcomes associated with self-reported hours of sleep Claims + HRA data Specific chronic condition: sleep hours General health care costs IRB
Clark et al20 Cohort, longitudinal pre-/postdesign 2008–2011 Walgreens Industry Assess the impact on beneficiary adherence and plan sponsor cost of offering generic antidiabetic and antihyperlipidemic medications without cost sharing Claims Wellness program participation Medication adherence NR
Colombi and Wood21 Ecologic 2004–2007 PPG Industries Industry Determine the impact of population obesity on care utilization and cost of CVD conditions Claims + HRA data Wellness program participation Specific health condition rate/costs: obesity and CVD NR
Conover et al22 Cohort 2006–2008 SAS Institute Industry Examine the relationship among use of an on-site employer-provided primary care medical clinic, and health services use and health plan costs Claims + human resource, on-site clinic data On-site clinic use On-site vs off-site health care costs IRB approval + deidentified data
Cullen et al23 Cohort 1996–2003 Alcoa Industry Demonstrate that health claims data can be linked to other relevant databases such as personnel files and exposure data maintained by large employers Claims + occupational clinic records, industrial hygiene, personnel data Employment Workplace injury/illness Deidentified data
Dupree et al24 Cohort 2012–2017 University of Michigan University Investigate changes in IVF rates Claims Enrollment in health plan Specific health condition rate/costs: IVF IRB approval
Gerasimaviciute et al25 Cohort 2011–2013 University of Texas University Examine the reciprocal longitudinal associations between depression or anxiety with work-related injury Claims + employee eligibility, workers' compensation data Specific chronic condition: depression, anxiety Workplace injury/illness NR
Gibbs et al26 Cohort 1978–1982 Blue Cross Blue Shield of Indiana Industry Compare participants in the on-site health promotion programs with other employees for health care utilization Claims + health promotion program data Wellness program participation Evaluation of employee wellness program NR
Goetzel et al27 Cohort 2014 Lockheed Martin Corporation Industry Estimate the incidence, prevalence, and cost of metabolic syndrome and risk factors associated with the syndrome Claims + biometrics, HRA data Enrollment in health plan Specific health condition rate/costs: metabolic syndrome NR
Goldberg et al2 Cohort 2013–2017 Quest Diagnostics Industry Reduce the annual cost of health care without reducing access to care or adversely affecting clinical outcomes Claims + health plan performance reports, wellness program data Specific chronic condition: heart failure, coronary artery disease, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, diabetes, hypertension, obesity, back and neck pain General health care costs NR
Gunther et al5 Cohort NR Merck Pharma Achieve clear improvements in the health and well-being of the workforce Claims + biometrics, HRA, employee engagement survey data Employment Specific health condition rate/costs: various health conditions NR
Hill et al28 Cohort 2004–2006 Arkansas state and public schools Government Quantify health plan costs associated with individual tobacco, obesity, and physical inactivity risks Claims + HRA data Enrollment in health plan General health care costs Deidentified data
Hillson et al29 Cohort 2001–2005 Centocor Industry Investigate the incidence, prevalence, treatment patterns, disease severity, and direct costs associated with UC Claims Specific chronic condition: UC Specific health condition rate/costs: UC IRB approval
Hincapie-Castillo et al30 Cohort 2015–2019 University of Florida University Assess the impact of the days' supply restriction from the House Bill 21 law on opioid prescribing changes Claims Specific prescription use Pre- and posthealth care costs IRB approval
Johnson et al31 Cohort 2004–2009 Arkansas public school and other state employees Government Examine PPI utilization and drug costs before and after (a) excluding esomeprazole from coverage and (b) implementing a TMAC, or reference-pricing benefit design Claims Specific prescription use Pre- and posthealth care costs NR
Khatami et al32 Cohort 2001–2009 University of Texas system University Assess the early expected benefits of waiving the copay on colonoscopy use Claims Enrollment in health plan Pre- and posthealth care costs Deidentified data
Kindermann et al33 Cohort 2010–2012 Cerner Corporation Industry Compare the influence of on-site vs off-site chiropractic care on health care utilization Claims Specific chronic condition: chiropractic care On-site vs off-site health care costs IRB approval
Leung et al34 Cohort 2014–2019 University of Texas University Characterize the longitudinal cost impact associated with a prevalent chronic illness with recurrent exacerbations Claims Specific chronic condition: bipolar disorder Specific health condition rate/costs: bipolar disorder Deidentified data
Liu et al35 Cohort 2004–2007 PepsiCo Industry Examine the impact of a comprehensive wellness program on medical costs and utilization Claims Wellness program participation Evaluation of employee wellness program NR
Maeng et al36 Cohort 2016–2018 University of Rochester University Assess the potential economic impact of a unique value-based insurance design Claims Wellness program participation General health care costs IRB approval + deidentified data
Maeng et al37 Cohort 2012–2015 Geisinger Hospital system Evaluates the program impact on care utilization and total cost of care Claims + biometric data Wellness program participation Evaluation of employee wellness program IRB approval
Merrill et al38 Cross-sectional 2004–2008 Salt Lake County government Government Evaluate the impact of the Healthy Lifestyle Incentive Program on lowering the frequency and cost of prescription drug and medical claims Claims + HRA data Wellness program participation Evaluation of employee wellness program NR
Naessens et al39 Cohort January 2004 Mayo Clinic Hospital system Explore effects of comorbidity and prior health care utilization on choice of employee health plans with different levels of cost sharing Claims + plan eligibility data Employment Employee characteristics by health plan Deidentified data
Naydeck et al40 Cohort 2001–2006 Highmark, Inc. Industry Compare employees who participated in the program with risk-matched nonparticipants by total, annual health care expenditures, and return on investment Claims Wellness program participation Evaluation of employee wellness program NR
Nundy et al41 Cohort; quasi-experimental, 2-group, pre–post study 2012–2013 University of Chicago University Examine the impact of a 6-month mobile health demonstration project among adults with diabetes Claims + electronic health records, text messages, phone survey data Wellness program participation Evaluation of employee wellness program IRB approval
Osondu et al42 Cross-sectional 2014 Baptist Health South Florida Hospital system Examine the association of favorable cardiovascular health status with 1-year health care expenditures and resource utilization Claims + HRA data Employment Specific health condition rate/costs: CVD IRB approval
Parkinson et al43 Cohort 2007–2011 UPMC Health Hospital system Evaluate the impact of MyHealth, a wellness program, on employee health and costs Claims + biometric, HRA data Wellness program participation Evaluation of employee wellness program NR
Reeve et al44 Cohort, nested case-control 1993–1997 Ford Motor company Industry Determine the impact of exposure to metal removal fluids on workers' respiratory health, specifically NMRD Claims Employment Specific health condition rate/costs: NMRD Deidentified data
Reid et al45 Cohort, longitudinal pre/postdesign 2011–2013 Cerner Corporation Industry Measure the impact of a policy change on medication adherence, prescription fills, health care utilization, cost, and absenteeism Claims Specific chronic condition: anxiety, depression Medication adherence IRB approval + deidentified data
Rezaee et al46 Cohort 2008–2013 Beaumont Health System Hospital system Investigate MCC prevalence, and determine the relationship between MCCs and health care cost and utilization Claims Specific chronic condition: 20 conditions Specific health condition rate/costs: various conditions IRB approval
Rezaee et al47 Cohort 2008–2013 Beaumont Hospital System Hospital system Evaluate the relationship between multiple chronic conditions and urolithiasis Claims Specific chronic condition: 20 conditions Specific health condition rate/costs: various conditions IRB approval
Stenner et al11 Cohort 2012–2015 Vanderbilt University Medical Center Hospital system Examine the impact of therapeutic interchange alerts on the drug ordering behavior and the costs Claims Enrollment in health plan Medication adherence Compliance with Declaration of Helsinki on Ethical Principles for Medical Research Involving Human Subjects
Taiwo et al48 Case–control 1996–2009 Alcoa Inc. Industry Assess the relationship between acoustic neuroma and participation in a hearing conservation program and possible occupational risk factors Claims + Human resource, injury, industrial hygiene data Specific occupational injury Evaluation of employee wellness program IRB approval + deidentified data
Tollen et al49 Cohort 2000–2002 Humana Inc. Industry Determine whether the offering of a consumer-directed health plan is likely to cause risk segmentation Claims + enrollment, employee data Enrollment in health plan Employee characteristics by health plan NR
Wittayanukorn et al50 Cohort 2008–2010 Auburn University University Compare clinical and economic outcomes between patients who received and those who did not receive medication therapy management services Claims + billing invoices Specific chronic condition: cardiovascular conditions Pre- and posthealth care costs IRB approval
a

Exposure: condition for entry into the study, for example, employment within a company, presence of a disease, or a workplace intervention; outcome: evaluated endpoints, for example, health care costs, prevalence of a condition, rate of workplace injury.

CVD, cardiovascular disease; HRA, health risk appraisal; IRB, institutional review board; IVF, in vitro fertilization; MCC, multiple chronic condition; NMRD, nonmalignant respiratory disease; NR, not reported; OSA, obstructive sleep apnea; PPI, proton pump inhibitor; TMAC, therapeutic maximum allowable cost; UC, ulcerative colitis; UPMC, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center.

Objectives of the included studies ranged from understanding the existing employee health status to targeting a specific health condition and implementation of wellness programs. Of the 41 studies, 24 (59%) supplemented claims data with various other data sources, including biometrics, on-site clinic records, worker's compensation records, industrial hygiene exposure data, and human resource data to achieve study objectives.

Study exposures and outcomes

A variety of exposures and outcomes were examined in the included studies, shown in Figure 2A and B, respectively. The most common exposures were specific chronic conditions (n = 12; 29%), participation in a company wellness program (n = 10; 24%), and employment within the company (n = 8; 20%). Other exposures included enrollment in a health plan (n = 7; 17%), specific occupational injury (n = 1; 2%), specific prescription use (n = 2; 5%), and on-site clinic use (n = 1; 2%). The most common evaluated outcomes include the rate and costs associated with a specific health condition (n = 12; 29%), effectiveness of employee wellness programs (n = 9; 22%), and general health care costs (n = 5; 12%).

FIG. 2.

FIG. 2.

(A) Exposures examined in the included studies. (B) Outcomes examined in the included studies.

Additional outcomes included health care costs pre- and postintervention (n = 4; 10%), medication adherence (n = 4; 10%), workplace injury/illness (n = 3; 7%), on-site versus off-site care (n = 2; 5%), and employee characteristics by health plan (n = 2; 5%). Refer to Table 2 for the specific chronic and health conditions considered in these studies.

Measures to protect patient confidentiality and privacy

Of the 41 studies, 12 (29%) reported that the study was approved by an institutional review board (IRB) while 7 (17%) indicated that the authors received deidentified data for analysis (Table 2). Five (12%) studies noted both an IRB approval and receipt of deidentified data. Compliance with the Declaration of Helsinki on Ethical Principles for Medical Research Involving Human Subjects was reported in 1 study (2%).11 Sixteen studies (39%) did not report on how confidentiality and privacy were maintained throughout study conduct.

Discussion

This ScR reviewed 41 studies published between 1985 and 2022 that described the ways in which self-insured employers have examined their employee health claims data in the United States. The majority were cohort studies conducted by industry employers and supplemented claims data with other data sources such as industrial hygiene data. A variety of exposures, such as specific prescription use or participation in a wellness program, and outcomes, such as cost-effectiveness of an on-site clinic or the rate and cost of a specific health condition, were examined in the studies.

The authors of the included studies identified several lessons learned from conducting these analyses of the employee health claims data, including both global themes pertaining to the health of the entire workforce and more program-specific conclusions. Several studies concluded that adequate and continued investments are needed to build a culture of wellness. Others stated that diverse data sets are essential for understanding the current health status of employees and identify gaps for improvement within the organization.

One study indicated that it is imperative that preventive and disease management services are offered so that low-risk employees may remain in the low-risk group while high-risk employees may achieve better health over time through utilization of those services. Studies that evaluated program-specific objectives concluded that on-site health services, especially employer-sponsored pharmacies, may reduce medication adherence barriers, and savings from on-site clinics are dependent on the cost of care compared with avoided claim costs.

Another study reported that worker's compensation costs were found to decline with the use of a small network of health care providers who maintained effective communication between them. Medication therapy management services were found to be a significant factor in achieving health goals and improving disease states as well as reduction of pharmacy, medical, and overall expenditures in several studies. Lastly, as the workforce age, distribution shifts to younger workers, 1 study concluded that employers will need to address a growing demand for mental health services.

Strengths of the included studies and analyses using claims data include the diverse study populations and outcomes evaluated across studies. The employer-led analyses were able to draw on large amounts of data covering historical and current information on health care utilization, rates of diseases and conditions, and costs to both employee and employer. Moreover, these large claims data sets were able to be linked with smaller sources such as industrial hygiene and workers' compensation data to add valuable information to the analyses not available from claims data. Several limitations were also identified by the study authors.

This review only identified 41 studies that may reflect publication bias; many self-insured companies have access to claims data and may conduct analyses but for reasons unknown, not many studies are published. The populations are often self-selected, such as voluntary participation in wellness programs or use of on-site care, which may limit the generalizability of the results. Majority of studies were from industry with limited representation from government entities. Use of self-reported data such as health risk assessments to supplement the claims data could bias the outcomes since not all individuals self-report health information accurately due to poor recall, potential stigma regarding certain conditions, or fear of recourse by the employer.

There is also the potential for underestimation of adverse health outcomes because of the healthy worker effect (ie, active employees tend to be healthier than the unemployed) and the fact that some outcomes, such as obesity, may not be able to be captured appropriately in claims data. Lastly, costs may be underestimated since most of these studies did not consider administration costs of programs or policy changes.

When examining claims data, it is critical to protect patient and employee privacy. A strategic collaboration between employees and employers as they determine what programs are needed could help gain employee buy-in into these changes and motivate them to participate in additional data collection methods. As seen in many of the included studies, other sources of data were utilized to supplement information gained from claims. For example, 1 employer combined claims data with health risk appraisal (HRA) and company personnel data to evaluate the effectiveness of their new wellness program.12 The addition of HRA data increased awareness of employee's health status, which, in turn, increased participation in the program. Employer investment in such a program lowered health costs and improved productivity.

Many studies were excluded because they were initiated by third parties such as pharmaceutical companies to assess the effectiveness of a drug/s, etc. One excluded study that evaluated the cost of asthma to an employer was supported by a grant from Immunex, a biotech company that developed asthma and other treatments, and conducted by several research groups.13 A limitation noted by the authors was the lack of information on lifestyle factors and comorbid conditions that could impact asthma severity and related costs. Short-term medical-related absences without claims and reduced productivity when ill employees remained at work were costs to employers that were not captured in analyses.

Had the employer been involved and included buy-in from employees, this information may have been able to be collected for a more robust analysis of asthma and impact on its employees. Strategic investments in employee health not only benefit the employees but also improve productivity, job satisfaction, and could result in savings for employers.

This ScR had several strengths, including strong study methodology involving a priori registration of the study protocol, adherence to the PRISMA-ScR framework, and inclusion of multiple exposures and outcomes of employee populations with self-insuring employers. Since the ScR was specific to the United States and self-insured employee populations, findings may not be generalizable to those outside of the United States or companies that are not self-insured. Furthermore, the review was unable to account for changes in measures to maintain patient privacy and reporting guidelines over time.

Self-insured employers across varied sectors have used employee health claims data to gain insights into their employees' health, well-being, productivity, and health care utilization. These data offer the ability to investigate a range of objectives since multiple exposures and outcomes can be assessed simultaneously with continued follow-up. Once gaps are identified, different departments across the organizations can join to determine the efforts required to build a culture of wellness. Employee health claims data offer a unique opportunity for employers to yield additional savings in the long run through implementation of wellness and other targeted programs and have a lasting, positive impact on their employees.

Author Disclosure Statement

N.M., S.T.P., and L.C.B. are employees of EpidStrategies and received funding from ExxonMobil Biomedical Sciences, Inc. for this study. S.V.R. is an employee of ExxonMobil Biomedical Sciences, Inc. and may hold shares and/or stock options in the company. R.J.L. is a contractor with ExxonMobil Biomedical Sciences, Inc. and may hold shares and/or stock options in the company.

Funding Information

This study was funded by ExxonMobil Biomedical Sciences, Inc.

References

  • 1. Keisler-Starkey K, Bunch LN. Health insurance coverage in the United States: 2020. Washington, DC: United States Census Bureau, 2021:60–274. [Google Scholar]
  • 2. Goldberg SE, Fragala MS, Wohlgemuth JG. Self-insured employer health benefits strategy established a negative cost trend while improving performance. Popul Health Manag 2019;22:547–554. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3. Eisenberg MD, Meiselbach MK, Bai G, Sen AP, Anderson G. Large self-insured employers lack power to effectively negotiate hospital prices. Am J Manag Care 2021;27:290–296. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4. Enthoven AC. Employer self-funded health insurance is taking us in the wrong direction. Washington, DC: Health Affairs Forefront, 2021. [Google Scholar]
  • 5. Gunther CE, Peddicord V, Kozlowski J, et al. Building a culture of health and well-being at merck. Popul Health Manag 2019;22:449–456. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6. Roomes D, Abraham L, Russell R, et al. Quantifying the employer burden of persistent musculoskeletal pain at a large employer in the United Kingdom: a non-interventional, retrospective study of Rolls-Royce employee data. J Occup Environ Med 2022;64:e145–e154. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7. Arksey H, O'Malley L. Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework. Int J Soc Res Methodol 2005;8:19–32. [Google Scholar]
  • 8. Peters MD, Godfrey CM, Khalil H, McInerney P, Parker D, Soares CB. Guidance for conducting systematic scoping reviews. JBI Evid Implement 2015;13:141–146. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9. Tricco AC, Lillie E, Zarin W, et al. PRISMA extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR): checklist and explanation. Ann Intern Med 2018;169:467–473. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10. DistillerSR. Evidence Partners; 2022. https://www.evidencepartners.com Accessed March 16, 2023.
  • 11. Stenner SP, Chakravarthy R, Johnson KB, et al. ePrescribing: reducing costs through in-class therapeutic interchange. Appl Clin Inform 2016;7:1168–1181. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12. Burton WN, Chen CY, Li X, Schultz AB, Kasiarz D, Edington DW. Evaluation of a comprehensive employee wellness program at an organization with a consumer-directed health plan. J Occup Environ Med 2014;56:347–353. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13. Birnbaum HG, Berger WE, Greenberg PE, et al. Direct and indirect costs of asthma to an employer. J Allergy Clin Immunol 2002;109:264–270. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14. Aguilar KM, Hou Q, Miller RM. Impact of employer-sponsored onsite pharmacy and condition management programs on medication adherence. J Manag Care Spec Pharm 2015;21:670–677. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15. Bernacki EJ, Tsai SP. Ten years' experience using an integrated workers' compensation management system to control workers' compensation costs. J Occup Environ Med 2003;45:508–516. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16. Birnbaum HG, Mattson ME, Kashima S, Williamson TE. Prevalence rates and costs of metabolic syndrome and associated risk factors using employees' integrated laboratory data and health care claims. J Occup Environ Med 2011;53:27–33. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17. Boscardin CK, Gonzales R, Bradley KL, Raven MC. Predicting cost of care using self-reported health status data. BMC Health Serv Res 2015;15:406. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18. Burks SV, Anderson JE, Panda B, et al. Employer-mandated obstructive sleep apnea treatment and healthcare cost savings among truckers. Sleep 2020;43:zsz262. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19. Burton WN, Chen CY, Schultz AB, Li X. Association between employee sleep with workplace health and economic outcomes. J Occup Environ Med 2017;59:177–183. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20. Clark B, DuChane J, Hou J, Rubinstein E, McMurray J, Duncan I. Evaluation of increased adherence and cost savings of an employer value-based benefits program targeting generic antihyperlipidemic and antidiabetic medications. J Manag Care Pharm 2014;20:141–150. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21. Colombi AM, Wood GC. Obesity in the workplace: impact on cardiovascular disease, cost, and utilization of care. Am Health Drug Benefits 2011;4:271–278. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22. Conover C, Brouwer RN, Adcock G, Olaleye D, Shipway J, Ostbye T. Worksite medical home: Health services use and claim costs. Am J Manag Care 2015;21:e422–e429. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23. Cullen MR, Vegso S, Cantley L, et al. Use of medical insurance claims data for occupational health research. J Occup Environ Med 2006;48:1054–1061. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24. Dupree JM, Levinson Z, Kelley AS, et al. Provision of insurance coverage for IVF by a large employer and changes in IVF rates among health plan enrollees. JAMA 2019;322:1920–1921. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25. Gerasimaviciute V, Bültmann U, Diamond PM, et al. Reciprocal associations between depression, anxiety and work-related injury. Inj Prev 2020;26:529–535. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26. Gibbs J, Mulvaney D, Henes C, Reed RW. Work-site health promotion. Five-year trend in employee health care costs. J Occup Med 1985;27:826–830. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27. Goetzel RZ, Kent K, Henke RM, et al. Prevalence of metabolic syndrome in an employed population as determined by analysis of three data sources. J Occup Environ Med 2017;59:161–168. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28. Hill RK, Thompson JW, Shaw JL, Pinidiya SD, Card-Higginson P. Self-reported health risks linked to health plan cost and age group. Am J Prev Med 2009;36:468–474. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29. Hillson E, Dybicz S, Waters HC, et al. Health care expenditures in ulcerative colitis: the perspective of a self-insured employer. J Occup Environ Med 2008;50:969–977. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30. Hincapie-Castillo JM, Easey T, Hernandez C, Maguire M, Usmani SA, Vouri SM. Changes in quantity of opioids dispensed following Florida's restriction law for acute pain prescriptions. Pain Med (United States) 2021;22:1870–1876. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31. Johnson JT, Neill KK, Davis DA. Five-year examination of utilization and drug cost outcomes associated with benefit design changes including reference pricing for proton pump inhibitors in a state employee health plan. J Manag Care Pharm 2011;17:200–212. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32. Khatami S, Xuan L, Roman R, et al. Modestly increased use of colonoscopy when copayments are waived. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2012;10:761..e1–766.e1. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33. Kindermann SL, Hou Q, Miller RM. Impact of chiropractic services at an on-site health center. J Occup Environ Med 2014;56:990–992. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34. Leung N, Bernacki SE, Kalia N, Bernacki EJ, Almeida JRC. Long-term healthcare utilization and the cost of bipolar disorder among participants in a large employer's health benefit plan. J Occup Environ Med 2022;64:e124–e130. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35. Liu H, Mattke S, Harris KM, et al. Do workplace wellness programs reduce medical costs? Evidence from a Fortune 500 company. Inquiry 2013;50:150–158. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36. Maeng D, Cornell AE, Nasra GS. Employer-sponsored behavioral health program impacts on care utilization and cost. Am J Manag Care 2021;27:334–339. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37. Maeng DD, Geng Z, Marshall WM, Hess AL, Tomcavage JF. An analysis of a biometric screening and premium incentive-based employee wellness program: enrollment patterns, cost, and outcome. Popul Health Manag 2018;21:303–308. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38. Merrill RM, Hyatt B, Aldana SG, Kinnersley D. Lowering employee health care costs through the Healthy Lifestyle Incentive Program. J Public Health Manag Pract 2011;17:225–232. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39. Naessens JM, Khan M, Shah ND, Wagie A, Pautz RA, Campbell CR. Effect of premium, copayments, and health status on the choice of health plans. Med Care 2008;46:1033–1040. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40. Naydeck BL, Pearson JA, Ozminkowski RJ, Day BT, Goetzel RZ. The impact of the highmark employee wellness programs on 4-year healthcare costs. J Occup Environ Med 2008;50:146–156. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41. Nundy S, Dick JJ, Chou CH, Nocon RS, Chin MH, Peek ME. Mobile phone diabetes project led to improved glycemic control and net savings for Chicago plan participants. Health Aff (Millwood) 2014;33:265–272. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42. Osondu CU, Aneni EC, Valero-Elizondo J, et al. Favorable cardiovascular health is associated with lower health care expenditures and resource utilization in a large US employee population: the Baptist Health South Florida Employee Study. Mayo Clin Proc 2017;92:512–524. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43. Parkinson MD, Peele PB, Keyser DJ, Liu Y, Doyle S. UPMC MyHealth: managing the health and costs of U.S. healthcare workers. Am J Prev Med 2014;47:403–410. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 44. Reeve GR, Stout AW, Hands D, Curry E. Inpatient hospital admission rates for nonmalignant respiratory disease among workers exposed to metal removal fluids at a U.S. automobile manufacturer. Appl Occup Environ Hyg 2003;18:930–938. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 45. Reid KJ, Aguilar KM, Thompson E. Value-based benefit design to improve medication adherence for employees with anxiety or depression. Am Health Drug Benefits 2015;8:263–271. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 46. Rezaee ME, Pollock M. Prevalence and associated cost and utilization of multiple chronic conditions in the outpatient setting among adult members of an employer-based health plan. Popul Health Manag 2015;18:421–428. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 47. Rezaee ME, Ward CE, Pollock M, Shetty SD. Association between multiple chronic conditions and urolithiasis. Int Urol Nephrol 2017;49:1361–1367. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 48. Taiwo O, Galusha D, Tessier-Sherman B, et al. Acoustic neuroma: potential risk factors and audiometric surveillance in the aluminium industry. Occup Environ Med 2014;71:624–628. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 49. Tollen LA, Ross MN, Poor S. Risk segmentation related to the offering of a consumer-directed health plan: a case study of Humana Inc. Health Serv Res 2004;39:1167–1188. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 50. Wittayanukorn S, Westrick SC, Hansen RA, et al. Evaluation of medication therapy management services for patients with cardiovascular disease in a self-insured employer health plan. J Manag Care Pharm 2013;19:385–395. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Population Health Management are provided here courtesy of Mary Ann Liebert, Inc.

RESOURCES