Health reform bears fruit at your local YMCA

By | April 14, 2010, 8:01am PDT

Summary: Other insurers will be watching the program closely to see how it impacts United’s bottom line, and its reputation.

United Health says it is teaming with Walgreen’s and local YMCA groups to fight diabetes.

Here is how it works.

  1. UnitedHealth identifies people in its database at risk for diabetes, inviting them to a free 16-week exercise class at the Y.
  2. UnitedHealth will pay Walgreens to help people who already have diabetes manage their condition.
  3. UnitedHealth gives the YMCA $300 for each person who finishes its program, and $500 for each person who meets the goal of dropping their weight by 5%.

The program is starting in seven cities — Cincinnati, Columbus and Dayton, Ohio, Indianapolis, Ind., Minneapolis, Minn., Phoenix and Tucson Ariz. — but could be extended if it pays for itself, as UnitedHealth expects it will.

There are a number of health IT angles here. First, participation is based on United’s database. Second, it’s profitable thanks to Walgreen’s automation. Third it builds on the YMCA’s existing wellness programs, like FitLinxx, and increases its Web presence through learning materials.

The program is based on one developed by the National Institutes of Health (NIH), which Indiana University was already planning on implementing in Indianapolis with the YMCA there. The CDC estimates that a 5% weight reduction for those at risk for Type II diabetes can drop the risk of acquiring the disease by 58%.

Chronic conditions like diabetes and heart disease represent 75% of the nation’s health care costs, according to the CDC, and account for 70% of U.S. deaths.

Everybody gets to be a winner here:

  • UnitedHealth looks like a bunch of good guys and reduces its costs, since diabetes represents a big hunk of the nation’s health care bill.
  • Walgreen’s gets access to valuable customers, and enough cash to pay back its costs.
  • The YMCA fulfills its mission, and also gains access to people who might then become members.
  • Many people at risk for diabetes have a chance to delay or prevent its onset. Diabetes is no fun.

Since insurers are forced to cover everyone under health reform, companies like UnitedHealth now have a financial incentive to launch wellness programs of this type. Its costs are kept at a minimum by the participation of Walgreen’s, which is highly automated, and the YMCA connection is a bonus.

Everyone could end up making money, especially the Y, which is fighting to attract new customers as younger people go to cheaper health clubs and middle-income people find their budgets stretched. Other insurers will be watching the program closely to see how it impacts United’s bottom line, and its reputation. (Full disclosure. I’m a member of my local YMCA.)

This looks like the start of a trend.

Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily e-mail newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.

Topics

Disclosure

Dana Blankenhorn

Dana Blankenhorn has been a journalist, writer and part-time futurist for over 30 years. At the present moment I run only a personal blog in addition to my ZDNet open source blog. DanaBlankenhorn.Com has the subtitle The War Against Oil. In the past I have used it to write about political history, e-commerce, personal matters, some ideas related to open source, and The World of Always On, which is the idea of using sensors, motes and RFID to turn WiFi links into platforms for applications which live in the air. My IRA account at Schwab holds a few tech shares, most notably some Intel and Applied Materials, but there are no open source companies in it. I don’t even own any CBS stock.

Biography

Dana Blankenhorn

Dana Blankenhorn has been a business journalist since 1978, and has covered technology since 1982. He launched the Interactive Age Daily, the first daily coverage of the Internet to launch with a magazine, in September 1994.
43
Comments

Join the conversation!

Just In

The hen is the wisest of God's creatures
DanaBlankenhorn 26th Apr 2010
She doesn't cackle until the egg is laid. -- A.
Lincoln.
0 Votes
+ -
Uhm. A tax is a tax is a tax.

Obama - our Taxer In Chief.
0 Votes
+ -
"Everyone gets to be a winner"
LBiege 14th Apr 2010
Does it surprise anyone that taxpayers footing the bill are conveniently left out of the list of EVERYONE wins?

Some people just love the health welfare (or any welfare for that matter) as long as it's bankrolled by someone else' labor. "I enjoy the health care you pay" is equivalent to Wall Street's "we gamble you pay". At the end of the day, the social parasites and Wall Street vampires are just the same thing.
0 Votes
+ -
Taxpayers foot no bills here
DanaBlankenhorn 14th Apr 2010
This is being done with not a dime of taxpayer
money. And it still hasn't gotten through to you
that deficits will decline under health reform,
thus the need for taxes.

Of course, you have also yet to figure out that
health reform wasn't about the poor, but the
middle class, as both people who need care and
as taxpayers.

Unless we get a handle on total costs then
Medicare, Medicaid, the VA, and the costs of
military care will bankrupt us.

So please tell me which of those people you want
to go without. Grandma? Our heroes? Maybe poor
people are acceptable to you as sacrificial
lambs, but we've seen what happens when they
only have emergency care available -- costs go
up.
0 Votes
+ -
Then why is there tax increase?
LBiege Updated - 14th Apr 2010
Unless of course if you don't consider tax on the rich as tax. "Hey, they have to pay their fair share so that I can sit on my butt doing nothing but enjoying the benefits. Right?"

And it reduces deficit? Yeah, under Bernie Madoff accounting only which was rampant in every Obama's budget proposal. Remember how he slipped through a blank check to Fannie and Freddy on Christmas Eve? It was conveniently left out of Obama's deficit report just so it looked less ugly.

As for what to do about the Medicare / Medicaid disasters. Well what do you do if you take on a mortgage you cannot afford? You default.

That's right. This nation should default on the crumbling welfare system. Don't blame the guy pulling the trigger on it, blame the one that shoved it down this nation's throat aka Roosevelt, LBJ, Carter, GW Bush and so on.

Had you guys resisted spending grand kids' money, you could pass a beautiful and promising nation to them.
0 Votes
+ -
True
DanaBlankenhorn 14th Apr 2010
We were running such a nice surplus at the end of
the Clinton Administration. I so remember
President Gore asking, "What part of the word
lockbox don't you understand?" Good times.
0 Votes
+ -
The Clinton myth again
LBiege Updated - 14th Apr 2010
I didn't know that Nasdaq crashed all the way from 5000 pts down to 2300 (bottomed out at 1200 later on) in year 2000 could count as good times. Cannot blame that on Bush as he was not in until 2001, can we? Too bad that "it's all Bush's fault" ace card doesn't quite fly here.

When you financed a surplus w/ a Nasdaq bubble that blew up right in front of your face, you were not generating any sustainable surplus. You were just setting a mess up and then leaving it to the successor AKA GW Bush.

Not that GW Bush could therefore blame his screwing up onto Clinton. I'd just like to bust some myth about Clinton administration nonetheless.
0 Votes
+ -
Hmmm....
DanaBlankenhorn 15th Apr 2010
Clinton bad because stocks fell, despite
government budget surplus. Obama bad even though
stocks rose, while deficit did, too.

Bush must have been good...why? I'm sure you'll
come up with something.

It's fine for you to have your own opinions, and
you're even entitled to your own facts if you
want them and don't force them on everyone else.
But elections won't be decided based on your
reality.

Nor will the reality of health reform I'm
afraid.
0 Votes
+ -
And their children, and their grandchildren.

What we just witnessed was pure inter-generational theft by the leftists, former hippies and other disgruntled failed persons.
0 Votes
+ -
Bush was a hippie? Who knew?
DanaBlankenhorn 14th Apr 2010
Was it "leftists, former hippies and other
disgruntled failed persons" who led us into
Iraq, or cut taxes without paying for them, or
who eliminated regulation to the point where
banks had every incentive to crash the economy?

What was Phil Gramm and Dick Cheney smoking?

I'm just asking because your refusal to look
history square in the face is pretty hilarious.

When you're ready to talk about paying those
bills, we can talk about the deficit. Until
then, we don't have much to talk about.
0 Votes
+ -
You can defend him all you want - facts are against you.

But then again, you're so far up Obama's colon that all you smell is his ****.
0 Votes
+ -
Deficits will fall
DanaBlankenhorn 14th Apr 2010
Under health reform deficits fall, and it's
specifically because it creates incentives for
programs like this that deficits fall.

An ounce of prevention costs less than a pound of
cure.
0 Votes
+ -
yeah right.
someitguy79 14th Apr 2010
And pigs might fly too. With taxes being levied on employers who provide insurance I don't see many of them keeping the coverage since its cheaper to simply pay the "fine".

The govt. getting involved in anything is NOT going to reduce deficits. Even the CBO says it adds a $1T to the deficit. Unless you consider the $500B that was "saved" in medicare.
0 Votes
+ -
Scientifically you're proven wrong
DanaBlankenhorn 14th Apr 2010
Nations that cover everyone pay less for better
care than Americans get. It's more cost-
effective.

All the rhetoric in the world doesn't change
that basic fact. The only challenge I've heard
is "beware of Europe."

You know whose health care is the most cost-
effective in the world, according to scientific
studies? France. And Americans who have dealt
with the French system report great results.

Facts beat ideology.
0 Votes
+ -
lies, damn lies and statistics
someitguy79 Updated - 14th Apr 2010
"Nations that cover everyone pay less for better
care than Americans get. It's more cost-
effective."

Yes considering that we have the freedom to purchase even optional services those go toward "healthcare" costs.

"You know whose health care is the most cost-
effective in the world, according to scientific
studies? France."

Again at what cost. Why do so many with serious diseases like cancer come to this country? Why is prostate cancer mortality rates so high?

Why is if you are thought terminal you are sent home? I assume you are aware that if your medicare plan does not cover your procedure you cannot get it. Did you know that and once you get on Medicare you cannot leave it ever? You cannot pay cash for any medical procedure if so your Dr. is guilty of Medicare fraud? This is what you want for all of us.

Sorry no thank you. I love it that you claim facts and not ideology yet your "facts" don't hold up to scrutiny.
0 Votes
+ -
I should really let that lay, but I can't...
DanaBlankenhorn 14th Apr 2010
French people pay less of their national income
for health care than we do, and get more. The
source is the World Health Organization.

Cancer is everywhere, but rates of death are
high here because of late diagnosis. Because
people aren't insured.

I don't know what your point is regarding
Medicare. Except that people on Medicare die.
Know why? They're over 65.
0 Votes
+ -
Pathetic Dana.
Gempeli 14th Apr 2010
People have cancer because they're uninsured?

LOL!

Yes. Having black ink on a paper in a drawer means you can't get ill!

Take your pill, Dana. Cool down.
0 Votes
+ -
You can't be serious
Dorkyman 14th Apr 2010
Dana, the feds have a vested interest in seeing that their budgets GROW, not shrink. Allocating some responsibility to the federal government should be the last recourse of an efficient and civilized society. Examples of bureaucratic waste and inefficiency are too numerous to mention.

Yes, healthcare in the past has been expensive, but not because of those "evil" insurance companies (or do you believe that, too?). Insurance companies profited just a few percent over the past few years. And, by the way, the profit motive is a very powerful force for good, because it rewards efficiency.

Rather, it's been expensive because the consumer of the care has had little connection with the actual costs. For decades, your employer has footed most of the bill. Suppose your employer covered most of your food costs, too--do you think you'd buy mararoni in the supermarket or steak?

Anyway, I get the feeling from your responses on this site that you and I are living in parallel universes, and will never come to terms. I am hoping, however, that the supremes throw out this monstrosity of a "plan" and a new more-balanced congress will craft something much more in the tradition of American capitalism.
0 Votes
+ -
Actually you're making sense
DanaBlankenhorn 14th Apr 2010
Health care costs are rising faster here than
elsewhere because there were no market
incentives for controlling costs.

Now there are. By putting money into wellness,
people stay out of the hospital, and United
Healthcare saves money, because they're now
covering everyone, and can't refuse anyone.

It's all very Republican. Y'know former Gov.
Romney won the Southern Republican straw poll
this week?

I seriously doubt the Supreme Court is going to
toss Romneycare, guaranteed issuance and
mandatory coverage. If there were really
interest in that we might have a case coming out
of, say, Massachusetts. Or Hawaii, which has a
similar system.

Can I pour you some tea? It's loaded with anti-
oxidants.
Actually, there were. The incentives have been reduced by the Obama-rape.

Oh well. These things happen every generation or so. Just like a stinking wet fart - losers get power and do stupid things. They'll be corrected.
0 Votes
+ -
You're not helping your cause
DanaBlankenhorn 15th Apr 2010
That kind of rhetoric (Obama-rape) on a non-
political post (stinking wet fart) about a program
by a private company aimed at cutting the costs of
diabetes does not help you.

It's irrelevant to the subject at hand.
0 Votes
+ -
Suuuure Dana. Dream on.
JennuTu 14th Apr 2010
Your Community Organizer in Chief just tripled the national debt in 1 year. He's stealing from working people and their children, and their grandchildren to fulfill spineless liberals' wet dream ideas, like yours.

Socialism is theft. November will set things right. We, the True Americans (with a birth certificate I might add), will neuter your Kenian/Indonesian idol in November. He will be a lame duck for 2 years.

Gonna be fun.
0 Votes
+ -
Uh, no
DanaBlankenhorn 14th Apr 2010
It's true that the annual deficit rose three-
fold in the first budget of the Obama
Administration, but that was just Keynesianism,
not socialism. The total deficit rose less than
10%. The rich are doing great.

When there is no private demand government must
step up to jump-start the economy. Just as when
there's no money government must step in to add
liquidity.

The alternative you're proposing is Hooverism.
Been there, done that. And true Americans
rejected it overwhelmingly in the face of 30%
unemployment and starvation.

Dow was up 100 points today. Companies are
hiring. The economy is growing.

A growing economy means the Administration is
going to start talking about cutting the
deficit, and asking for your help in that.

Got any great ideas? I mean, other than cutting
taxes and foreign aid. The first didn't work
under Bush and foreign aid is miniscule.

Here's a fun fact. You know that "National Tax
Freedom Day" Sarah Palin was talking about
recently? It came earlier this year than ever
before. April 9. Under Bush it was around the
12th.
0 Votes
+ -
That's completely nonsense.

If you get into troubles by spending more than you earn, the solution is anything but spending harder.

Capitalism system cannot work if you don't have capitals. You need to cut down on spending to save some money so that you have capitals to invest on productive business. Sound investment will then generate profits to clean up the debt and revive the economy.

What Obama has been doing is to take on more debt and then squander it on Wall St. rescue, cash 4 clunker, 1st time home owner credits, UHC and what not big government waste. None of the insane spending is productive, and the end result is a nation deeper in debt.

Someday not too far away the Chinese will stop giving Obama more credit cards to spend and ask their money back. W/ national debt alone heading toward 14T and an economy still having too little production yet too much consumption, that phony 100-pt pop in stock market is not enough to save US from insolvency. Imagine Greece on a 50X leverage.

You will then see how great government's "jump-start" works after the debt finally Weimar-izes Dollar to zero.
0 Votes
+ -
If that happens you'll be right
DanaBlankenhorn 15th Apr 2010
But it's total debt as a percentage of the
economy that matters. If the economy is growing
debt can still grow somewhat in absolute terms
but become more manageable.

A growing economy will be able to sustain higher
taxes to pay back what's now being borrowed.

But who will fund the wars we fought? China
won't distinguish between Bush and Obama debts.
They're all American debts.

I admit paying back our debts will be a problem,
but it's all our debts, not just those of the
current year, that matter.
Until United shares that data with your next employer and since you could be at risk for diabetis you don't get a job!

Nice work!
0 Votes
+ -
Doesn't matter
DanaBlankenhorn 14th Apr 2010
One of the key points of health reform is we
eliminate the incentive for your employer to know.

I know this was eliminated as the bill moved to
the right -- community rating was taken out.

But it's been reduced.
0 Votes
+ -
umm... Doesn't stop them
someitguy79 14th Apr 2010
Employers still are concerned about sick days etc they have to pay for etc...

Healthcare reform was a power grab nothing more or less. I certainly hope it or most of it gets overturned in congress or the courts.
0 Votes
+ -
It won't be
DanaBlankenhorn 14th Apr 2010
Republicans are backing away even now from the
threat to overturn. And I doubt the courts will
get involved in a case filing that offers no
precedents in demanding a law of the Congress be
overturned.
0 Votes
+ -
I don't know where you get your info from
someitguy79 14th Apr 2010
The GOP is not backing down from the Requirement to purchase health insurance. No time in history has the Federal Government required the purchase of a good or service for simply existing. NEVER!

And no you don't have to drive so no the auto-insurance thing is a red herring.


States are balking at the requirements and asserting their sovereignty.

And courts never overturning laws or parts of them? Are you joking?! You mean like McCain-Feigngold? I can't believe you lack that much understanding of history.
0 Votes
+ -
Two sources for Dana.
JennuTu 14th Apr 2010
1) Huffington Post.
2) Obama's colon.
0 Votes
+ -
Oh, snap
DanaBlankenhorn 14th Apr 2010
I seldom read Huffpo. I find it pretty lame. I
don't care about the Octomom or Tiger Woods'
mistresses as much as they do.

As to Obama's colon, he's going to turn 50 in a
few years, so he'll need a colonoscopy.Is that
what you're talking about? Ever have one? I
have. Not nearly as bad as it sounds.

In truth I read a lot of sources. JAMA, NEJM,
and (of course) Smartplanet.com, your source for
futuristic tech stuff. (Who is that handsome guy
on the right-side there? Looks familiar.)
0 Votes
+ -
nt
0 Votes
+ -
We'll see
DanaBlankenhorn 14th Apr 2010
I'm not a lawyer, and neither are you. We'll
probably have a case in about 4 years, and then
we'll see.

Meanwhile health reform is the law. And we'll
see how it plays out in terms of coverage and
rates and all the rest of it.

With plans like this United Healthcare thing, I
suspect it may play out rather well.
0 Votes
+ -
Repeal repeal...

Real Americans, not former-hippies-turned-bloggers or import-presidents will set things right.

The theft will end.
0 Votes
+ -
"The theft will end."
LBiege 15th Apr 2010
+1000
0 Votes
+ -
The hen is the wisest of God's creatures
DanaBlankenhorn 26th Apr 2010
She doesn't cackle until the egg is laid. -- A.
Lincoln.
0 Votes
+ -
My apologies on the thread
DanaBlankenhorn 15th Apr 2010
My apologies to Gempoli, and LBiege, and to all regular
readers for failing to keep my mouth shut and discussing
politics on this thread.

Political questions are not what this thread was meant to
be about. I will try and hold my tongue better in the
future.
The best way to prevent that topic from popping up is for the progressives (be it liberal or neocon progressives) to stop stretching their hand out deep down in taxpayers' pocket.
0 Votes
+ -
I didn't write a political post`
DanaBlankenhorn 15th Apr 2010
It doesn't help your political cause when a non-
political post, about economic incentives being
seized by an insurer in alliance with a
pharmacist and non-profit, is answered with
repeated political polemic.

What in the world is wrong with financial
incentives for reducing costs and helping people
live longer without chronic conditions, which
represent 75% of current industry pay-out?

Without action private insurance becomes
unaffordable, except for the very rich.

Prevention is a good thing. I can't understand
why anyone would disagree.
0 Votes
+ -
A "reform" is political
LBiege 15th Apr 2010
Anything has fiscal or economical consequence is political. As for incentives to reduce cost, we don't need government in there to provide incentives. Market itself can provide it until it is hacked by government intervention.

If I have a house w/ a fair value of 200k and yet I wanna sell it at 10 million, what's gonna happen? Well, I end up having no buyers at that price, and that forces me to lower it to a reasonable level. That's how marketing force works out its own incentives. No need of government to regulate the price.

Health care expense should be solved the same way if government just lays off and lets market work it out so that everyone w/ a reasonable income could afford it. It doesn't guarantee to cover everyone but it makes it reasonably affordable.

But no!! You guys think you are entitled to it so you want government go get in there hacking it for you. What you get is a government w/ its notorious incompetence, corruption and fraud playing right into the hand of big drug, insurance and lawyer corps that rig the market in their favor while driving the expense sky high to bankrupt a nation.

If only you liberals could have enough economics know-how to see it through.
0 Votes
+ -
That bridge to the 19th century again
DanaBlankenhorn 15th Apr 2010
If we had some price transparency, we could shop
for health care. But we don't.

In fact, we can't. When you're lying in the
gutter, and the ambulance shows up, they have
permission to do what they want, and charge what
they want.

Same thing happens when you become sick
suddenly. You don't have time to shop.

Rather than provide incentives for plenty, as
we've done since the 19th century with
railroads, electricity, and other vital
infrastructure, you seem to prefer doctors only
treat those with enough cash to pay. And workers
without enough?

Fair enough. I just disagree with you. Every
other industrial country manages to cover all
its workers, and pay less as a percentage of GDP
than we do -- much less.

And government isn't "them" -- it's us. Making
it weaker than other economic actors merely
leaves us all to the rule of financial elites.

As we have seen.
0 Votes
+ -
US was solvent in 19th century
LBiege Updated - 15th Apr 2010
... until after being savaged by a century of progressivism.

Have you ever checked out how difficult it is to become doctors in US, how much hurdle there is to develop a drug, how much legal hassle insurance companies have to go through and eventually how much competition it kills off in the field that could actually drive down the cost in US compared with the other nations?

You have government setting up regulation at every corner to drive up the overhead that eventually gets passed down to the general public in the form of massive medical expense. Instead of getting rid of the government bureaucracy causing the issue, you want more of that as long as it forces someone else to pick up the bill.

This is where I have problems with liberals. Despite the tone of compassion, you guys solve a problem by making it someone else' problem. Deep down there it's all selfishness.
0 Votes
+ -
Uh, no
DanaBlankenhorn 26th Apr 2010
One of my favorite historical vignettes is the
vision of J.P. Morgan walking across the White
House lawn in a snowstorm, January 1895, after
getting President Cleveland to sign a gold bond
that kept the U.S. from defaulting on its debts.

L.F. Rothschild and the House of Morgan put up
the gold for the bond, which the U.S. government
then sold, with 4% interest going to Morgan and
Rothschild.

Look it up some time. Revisionist history fail.
Also see the Panic of 1837, the Panic of 1857,
and the Panic of 1873.

Join the conversation!

Formatting +
BB Codes - Note: HTML is not supported in forums
  • [b] Bold [/b]
  • [i] Italic [/i]
  • [u] Underline [/u]
  • [s] Strikethrough [/s]
  • [q] "Quote" [/q]
  • [ol][*] 1. Ordered List [/ol]
  • [ul][*] · Unordered List [/ul]
  • [pre] Preformat [/pre]
  • [quote] "Blockquote" [/quote]
ie8 fix

The best of ZDNet, delivered

ZDNet Newsletters

Get the best of ZDNet delivered straight to your inbox

Facebook Activity

White Papers, Webcasts, & Resources
ie8 fix
ie8 fix