Knowledge and perceptions among overweight and obese employees about lifestyle-related health benefit changes.

We investigated perceptions among overweight and obese state employees about changes to health insurance that were designed to reduce the scope of health benefits for employees who are obese or who smoke. Before implementation of health benefit plan changes, 658 state employees who were overweight (ie, those with a body mass index [BMI] of 25-29.9) or obese (ie, those with a BMI of > or = 30) enrolled in a weight-loss intervention study were asked about their attitudes and beliefs concerning the new benefit plan changes. Thirty-one percent of employees with a measured BMI of 40 or greater self-reported a BMI of less than 40, suggesting they were unaware that their current BMI would place them in a higher-risk benefit plan. More than half of all respondents reported that the new benefit changes would motivate them to make behavioral changes, but fewer than half felt confident in their ability to make changes. Respondents with a BMI of 40 or greater were more likely than respondents in lower BMI categories to oppose the new changes focused on obesity (P < .001). Current smokers were more likely than former smokers and nonsmokers to oppose the new benefit changes focused on tobacco use (P < .01). Participants represented a sample of employees enrolled in a weight-loss study, limiting generalizability to the larger population of state employees. Benefit plan changes that require employees who are obese and smoke to pay more for health care may motivate some, but not all, individuals to change their behaviors. Since confidence to lose weight was lowest among individuals in the highest BMI categories, more-intense intervention options may be needed to achieve desired health behavior changes.

A Hard Bargain? A cost-benefit analysis of an improved cookstove program in India

In developing countries, access to modern energy for cooking and heating still remains a challenge to raising households out of poverty. About 2.5 billion people depend on solid fuels such as biomass, wood, charcoal and animal dung. The use of solid fuels has negative outcomes for health, the environment and economic development (Universal Energy Access, UNDP). In low income countries, 1.3 million deaths occur due to indoor smoke or air pollution from burning solid fuels in small, confined and unventilated kitchens or homes. In addition, pollutants such as black carbon, methane and ozone, emitted when burning inefficient fuels, are responsible for a fraction of the climate change and air pollution. There are international efforts to promote the use of clean cookstoves in developing countries but limited evidence on the economic benefits of such distribution programs. This study undertook a systematic economic evaluation of a program that distributed subsidized improved cookstoves to rural households in India. The evaluation examined the effect of different levels of subsidies on the net benefits to the household and to society. This paper answers the question, “Ex post, what are the economic benefits to various stakeholders of a program that distributed subsidized improved cookstoves?” In addressing this question, the evaluation used empirical data from India applied to a cost-benefit model to examine how subsidies affect the costs and the benefits of the biomass improved cookstove and the electric improved cookstove to different stakeholders.