Cash for Cutting Calories: Are Financial Incentives the Way Forward for Weight Loss?
Susan Mayor
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/s2213-8587(13)70016-0
IF: 44.867
2013-01-01
The Lancet Diabetes & Endocrinology
Abstract:People paid for meeting monthly weight-loss goals lose more weight than those simply attending weigh-ins, according to a new study. Adding in competition for even greater cash rewards increases weight loss further. Susan Mayor explores the rationale for financial incentives to turn the tide of obesity. Obesity is one of the greatest public health challenges of the 21st century, according to WHO. The solution should be simple—ie, getting people to consume fewer calories than they expend. But although many different approaches to weight loss have been tried, they have had little long-term success, and thus interest is growing in exploring whether paying people to lose weight could provide the extra motivation they need to overcome the psychological and environmental factors driving them to become and remain obese. A 2011 survey showed that around two-thirds of large US employers are using this payment approach with the aim of reducing chronic disease and associated health-care costs for employees. Additionally, the US Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act will allow up to 30% of total health insurance premiums to be used to fund health-outcome-based incentives next year. “It's clear that obesity is associated with a variety of chronic conditions that are often expensive. So if there are novel and effective ways to help people lose weight then we should be pursuing them”, says Jeffrey Kullgren, a health services researcher at the VA Center for Clinical Management Research (University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA). “But the evidence for incentives has lagged behind what's going on in the real world. Employers are doing a lot of innovation without much evidence on what works and what doesn't.” To address this lack of evidence, Kullgren led a randomised trial to “get inside the black box of how incentives work and how we can make incentives more powerful in the future”. 105 people (body-mass index 30–40 kg/m2) working at the Children's Hospital of Philadelphia (Philadelphia, PA, USA) were randomly assigned to three weight-loss strategies for 24 weeks. In the individual incentive group, participants were each given US$100 per month for meeting weight-loss goals, whereas in the team incentive group $500 per month was available to be split between teams of five participants (members were unaware of whom else was in their group) for achieving goals. If only two people in the team met their goals, then they shared the $500. A group in which participants were given weight-loss information and attended monthly weigh-ins acted as the control. “The most important finding was that incentives work but were substantially more powerful when delivered in teams than to individuals, with the same overall budget”, reports Kullgren. After 6 months, team incentive participants had lost more than twice as much weight (mean 4·8 kg) as had those offered individual incentives (1·7 kg) or those in the control group (0·5 kg). “This is the first study, to our knowledge, to show maintenance of benefit after the incentive period has ended”, Kullgren adds, noting that longer-term effects of incentives in previous studies have been disappointing. Mean weight loss was 3·4 kg in participants offered the team incentive 12 weeks after the programme had finished, compared with 0·8 kg in the individual incentive group and 0·4 kg in the control group. Team incentives might have provided greater motivation with the possibility of earning more money and the element of competition. A significant increase in cognitive restraint around eating was noted in team incentive participants. “This ability to consciously self-regulate food intake, such as planning meals in advance and monitoring calorie intake, is a key behaviour in mediating weight loss”, explains Kullgren. The effectiveness of incentive-based programmes is consistent with insights from psychology and behavioural economics, suggests Jason Riis, a specialist in consumer health at Harvard Business School (Boston, MA, USA). Proximal and tangible rewards, such as monthly monetary payments, are more motivating than are distant and intangible rewards, such as the downstream health benefits of weight loss. Riis thinks that the greater efficacy of the team incentive is worth exploring further, and that other kinds of competitive and non-competitive group structures, including group support used in other weight-loss programmes, should be investigated. But he notes that employers also need to manage access to calorie-dense foods and beverages in the workplace. The economic arguments for financial incentives for weight loss in obesity add up even in countries where employers are not responsible for their employees' health insurance, suggests Arndt Reichert, a health economics researcher at Rheinisch-Westfälisches Institut für Wirtschaftsforschung (Essen, Germany). “Obesity is associated with substantial costs for the social safety net, higher costs for health insurance schemes and social pension funds, and reduced productivity and early retirement”, he explains. Reichert has reviewed published work and noted some evidence for the value of financial incentives, but emphasises the need for controlled studies, particularly those examining long-term weight loss. His centre is now doing one such controlled study. Reichert argues that the use of incentives can be justified on the basis of time-inconsistent preferences—an economic model for addictive use of substances. The model explains that obesity results from decisions that are not consistent with people's long-term preferences (to lose weight) because of the power of instant gratification and proximity (eg, buying chocolate from an office vending machine, which they would not buy if they had to walk to a shop). Several health insurance programmes in Germany already provide monetary rewards for healthy weight ranges. Reichert believes that financial incentive schemes could be incorporated into disease management programmes, such as those for diabetes: “The doctor would recommend weight loss and then link achievement to rewards paid by the insurer”. However, policy makers would be wrong if they expect provision of the incentive once to solve long-term issues, Reichert cautions. “The evidence suggests lack of sustainability for one-time financial incentives for weight loss. The important next step is to explore how to achieve sustainability.” “The factors driving the use of incentive programmes are not going away any time soon in terms of the public health burden of obesity,” concludes Dr Kullgren, “so I think there is going to continue to be a lot of enthusiasm for these approaches”.