A return-on-investment analysis of the health promotion program at the University of Minnesota.
OBJECTIVE
To determine the return-on-investment, if any, for the health promotion program adopted by the University of Minnesota in 2006.


METHODS
Regression analysis was used to determine the cost-savings in annual health care expenditures associated with three components of the program: a risk assessment, a risk management program, and a disease management (DM) program. Differences-in-differences equations with random effects were used to deal with selection bias.


RESULTS
The analysis suggests that the DM reduced spending by about $1375 per year for each participant. The risk assessment and risk management components had no effect on spending in this initial year.


CONCLUSIONS
DM reduced health care spending at the University of Minnesota, but not enough to generate a positive return-on-investment. A number of factors may qualify this conclusion.
Nyman
John A
JA
Division of Health Policy and Management, School of Public Health, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minn, USA. nyman001@umn.edu
Barleen
Nathan A
NA
Dowd
Bryan E
BE
D000328:Adult; D000368:Aged; D002908:Chronic Disease / Q000191:economics / Q000453:epidemiology / Q000517:prevention & control / Q000628:therapy; D003362:Cost-Benefit Analysis; D003376:Counseling / Q000191:economics; D005260:Female; D015438:Health Behavior; D005102:Health Expenditures / Q000706:statistics & numerical data; D006293:Health Promotion / Q000191:economics* / Q000379:methods* / Q000706:statistics & numerical data; D006801:Humans; D008297:Male; D008875:Middle Aged; D008910:Minnesota / Q000453:epidemiology; D009786:Occupational Health Services / Q000191:economics* / Q000379:methods* / Q000706:statistics & numerical data; D012044:Regression Analysis; D012308:Risk Management / Q000191:economics* / Q000379:methods; D011795:Surveys and Questionnaires; D014495:Universities