Cost-Effectiveness of Four Financial Incentive Programs for Smoking Cessation

Rationale: A trial of four financial incentive programs, conducted at CVS Caremark, a large employer, documented their effectiveness in promoting sustained abstinence from smoking, but their cost-effectiveness is unknown, and the significant up-front cost of the incentives is a deterrent to their adoption. Objectives: To determine the cost-effectiveness of these incentives from the healthcare sector and employer perspectives. Methods: This study examines a decision model built with trial data, supplemented by data from the literature. Life-expectancy gains for quitters were projected on the basis of U.S. life tables. The two individual-oriented programs paid $800 for smoking cessation at 6 months; one required participants to deposit $150 at baseline. Payments in the two group-oriented programs varied with the group's success; again, one required participants to deposit $150. Results: Life-years, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), costs (2012 dollars), and cost-effectiveness ratios are described. From the healthcare sector perspective, costs ranged from $3,200 per life-year ($2,500 per QALY) for the competitive deposit program, compared with usual care, to $6,500 per life-year ($5,100 per QALY) for the individual reward program. From the employer perspective, costs ranged from $256,600 per life-year gained for the individual deposit program to $1,711,100 per life-year gained for the individual reward program; the cost per QALY ranged from $65,300 for the competitive deposit program to $128,800 for the individual reward program. Cost-effectiveness from the employer perspective improved with longer decision horizons. Including future medical costs reduced cost-effectiveness from both perspectives. Conclusions: Four financial incentive programs that paid smokers to quit are very cost-effective from the healthcare sector perspective. They are more expensive from the employer perspective but may be cost-effective for employers with longer decision horizons.