Obesity coverage gap: Consumers perceive low coverage for obesity treatments even when workplace wellness programs target BMI
Open accessAbstract
Objective: Evidence‐based obesity treatments, such as bariatric surgery, are not considered essential health benefits under the Affordable Care Act. Employer‐sponsored wellness programs with incentives based on biometric outcomes are allowed and often used despite mixed evidence regarding their effectiveness. This study examines consumers' perceptions of their coverage for obesity treatments and exposure to workplace wellness programs. Methods: A total of 7,378 participants completed an online survey during 2015–2016. Respondents answered questions regarding their health coverage for seven medical services and exposure to employer wellness programs that target weight or body mass index (BMI). Using χ2 tests, associations between perceptions of exposure to employer wellness programs and coverage for medical services were examined. Differences between survey years were also assessed. Results: Most respondents reported they did not have health coverage for obesity treatments, but more of the respondents with employer wellness programs reported having coverage. Neither the perception of coverage for obesity treatments nor exposure to wellness programs increased between 2015 and 2016. Conclusions: Even when consumers have exposure to employer wellness programs that target BMI, their health insurance often excludes obesity treatments. Given the clinical and cost‐effectiveness of such treatments, reducing that coverage gap may mitigate obesity's individual‐ and population‐level effects.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 31 · Cited by 29
- Authors
- Wilson, E. R., Kyle, T. K., Nadglowski, J. F., & Stanford, F. C.
- Affiliations
- Harvard University (US)
- American Association of Kidney Patients (US)
- Corresponding author
- Stanford, Fatima Cody
- Venue
- Obesity
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2017-01-07
- Volume
- 25
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 370-377
- ISSN
- 1930-7381 (ISSN-L)
- 1930-739X
- PMC
- PMC6100791
- OpenAlex
- W2571476501
- Semantic Scholar
- f8e6dfac28f27468e3bd45ae7e7e1e5013e2ef12
- Cited by
- 29
- References
- 31
- Citations by year
- 2025: 1 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 3
- FWCI
- 3.64
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Locations
- Obesity (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
- PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
- Digital Access to Scholarship at Harvard (DASH) (Harvard University) (acceptedVersion)
- Funders
- Obesity Action Coalition
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Bariatric Surgery and Outcomes
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › Pharmacy › Obesity and Health Practices
- Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Healthcare Policy and Management
- Keywords
- coverage gaps, employer wellness programs, body mass index, bariatric surgery, health insurance, consumer perception, weight management
- MeSH terms
- Adolescent, Adult, Aged, Female, Health Promotion, Humans, Insurance, Health, Male, Middle Aged, Motivation, Obesity, Perception, Surveys and Questionnaires, United States, Body Mass Index, Workplace, Young Adult, Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review