What do Workplace Wellness Programs do? Evidence from the Illinois Workplace Wellness Study*
Open accessAbstract
Workplace wellness programs cover over 50 million U.S. workers and are intended to reduce medical spending, increase productivity, and improve well-being. Yet limited evidence exists to support these claims. We designed and implemented a comprehensive workplace wellness program for a large employer and randomly assigned program eligibility and financial incentives at the individual level for nearly 5,000 employees. We find strong patterns of selection: during the year prior to the intervention, program participants had lower medical expenditures and healthier behaviors than nonparticipants. The program persistently increased health screening rates, but we do not find significant causal effects of treatment on total medical expenditures, other health behaviors, employee productivity, or self-reported health status after more than two years. Our 95% confidence intervals rule out 84% of previous estimates on medical spending and absenteeism.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The Illinois Workplace Wellness Study found a strong self-selection effect, with healthier employees more likely to participate.
“The results revealed no impact on employee health outcomes, productivity or company medical spending, and there was a strong self-selection effect, with healthier employees more likely to participate.”
From The ethics of people analytics: risks, opportunities and recommendations (2022) · cites this paper as Jones et al., 2019
The Illinois Workplace Wellness Study found no impact of a wellness program involving biometric health screening and online health risk assessment on employee health outcomes, productivity or company medical spending.
“The results revealed no impact on employee health outcomes, productivity or company medical spending, and there was a strong self-selection effect, with healthier employees more likely to participate.”
From The ethics of people analytics: risks, opportunities and recommendations (2022) · cites this paper as Jones et al., 2019
Cites
Identification of and correction for publication bias
Andrews, I., & Kasy, M. (2019) · American Economic Review · doi:10.1257/aer.20180310 · Cited by 388 · see citing works
Song, Z., & Baicker, K. (2019) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.2019.3307 · Cited by 371 · see citing works
Pelletier, K. R. (2009) · Journal of Occupational & Environmental Medicine · doi:10.1097/jom.0b013e3181a7de5a · Cited by 249 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Song, Z., & Baicker, K. (2019) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.2019.3307 · Cited by 371 · see citing works
The ethics of people analytics: risks, opportunities and recommendations
Tursunbayeva, A., Pagliari, C., Di Lauro, S., & Antonelli, G. (2022) · Personnel Review · doi:10.1108/pr-12-2019-0680 · Cited by 193 · see citing works
Creating Exercise Habits Using Incentives: The Trade-off Between Flexibility and Routinization
Beshears, J., Lee, H. N., Milkman, K. L., Mislavsky, R., & Wisdom, J. (2021) · Management Science · doi:10.1287/mnsc.2020.3706 · Cited by 58 · see citing works
Pratt, E. H., Hall, L., Jennings, C., Olsen, M. K., Jan, A., Parish, A., Porter, L. S., & Cox, C. E. (2023) · Annals of the American Thoracic Society · doi:10.1513/annalsats.202301-025oc · Cited by 26 · see citing works
- Authors
- Jones, D., Molitor, D., & Reif, J.
- Affiliations
- National Bureau of Economic Research (US)
- University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign (US)
- Venue
- The Quarterly Journal of Economics
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2019-08-16
- Volume
- 134
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 1747-1791
- ISSN
- 0033-5533 (ISSN-L)
- 1531-4650
- PMC
- PMC6756192
- OpenAlex
- W2785242877
- Cited by
- 403
- References
- 3
- Citations by year
- 2026: 27 · 2025: 61 · 2024: 61 · 2023: 62 · 2022: 49 · 2021: 56 · 2020: 52 · 2019: 28 · 2018: 6 · 2017: 1
- FWCI
- 63.74
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Licence
- academic.oup.com/journals/pages/open_access/funder_policies/chorus/standard_publication_model (vor)
- Locations
- The Quarterly Journal of Economics (publishedVersion)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
- Funders
- National Institutes of Health (R01AG050701)
- National Science Foundation (1730546)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Workplace Health and Well-being
- Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Healthcare Policy and Management
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Health Promotion and Cardiovascular Prevention
- Keywords
- workplace health, employee health, health care costs, financial incentives, selection bias, health screening, health behavior, labor productivity, absenteeism, self-reported health, employer-sponsored health programs
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
