OUR EVIDENCE

KPI & ROI Studies

Understanding outcomes: human-centered research demonstrating measurable impact and future value.

Executive Summary

Evidence matters when access, recovery, and long-term health are the goal.

The ROI model should be interpreted as a scenario-based value proposition rather than a forecast of realized savings.

Key outputs depend on program engagement, utilization-change assumptions, benchmark costs, and projected program fees. The workbook includes two related components: a diabetes total cost of care benchmark analysis and an illustrative ROI model.

Digital and home-based interventions show potential to improve selected intermediate outcomes, including sedentary time, glycemic measures, blood pressure, body weight, and cardiovascular risk factors. The strongest support for a Fun and Moving narrative is that digitally supported, multifactorial, and home-based programs can influence behaviors and intermediate clinical measures.

Model Overview

Total Cost of Care Benchmark & Value Proposition

Two Analytical Components

The benchmark component compares healthcare costs for members newly identified with diabetes, members consistently identified with diabetes, and members without a diabetes indicator. The value proposition component applies selected utilization-change assumptions to fully engaged program participants and compares the resulting estimated financial impact with projected program fees.

The model defines eligible member cohorts using enrollment, age, coverage, and HCC criteria. It calculates total allowed cost, utilization, unit cost, and per member per month (PMPM) by service category for each cohort. Members must have twelve member months in both years of data, mental health and substance abuse coverage, pharmacy coverage, and be age 18 or older.

Benchmark Results

Diabetes Total Cost of Care by Cohort

Cohort Inpatient Outpatient Prof. Other Pharmacy Total PMPM
New Diabetes Member $568 $544 $419 $33 $489 $2,054
Consistent Diabetes Member $313 $505 $390 $45 $927 $2,181
Non-Diabetes Member $93 $208 $214 $9 $191 $715

Consistent diabetes members have the highest total PMPM at $2,181. New diabetes members have higher total medical PMPM ($1,565) than consistent diabetes members ($1,254). Consistent diabetes members have substantially higher pharmacy PMPM ($927 vs $489).

Financial Drivers

Key Utilization Drivers for the ROI Model

Driver PMPM Util/1,000 Unit Cost
Emergency Department Reduction $60 301 $2,422
Inpatient Admission Reduction $161 68 $28,427
Increased Office Visits $51 4,431 $138

The model assesses impact by using utilization assumptions. Changing the number of times an event is expected to occur will impact the unit cost and total dollars associated with that procedure.

Value Proposition

Illustrative Program Assumptions & Population

100,000 Estimated Covered Lives
8.2% Diabetes Prevalence
8,224 Estimated Members with Diabetes
10.0% Projected Program Users
50.0% Projected Fully Engaged
411 Fully Engaged Members
Illustrative ROI

Gross ROI

2.58x

Estimated savings divided by projected program fees. Approximately $2.58 of modeled savings per $1.00 of projected program fees.

Net ROI

1.58x

Estimated savings less fees, divided by projected program fees. Approximately $1.58 of modeled savings after fees per $1.00 of projected program fees.

Estimated Dollar Impact

$66,776

Aggregate modeled savings for 411 fully engaged members, compared with projected program fees of $25,906.

Starting PMPM: $2,156 (baseline total cost of care). Estimated post-intervention PMPM: $2,141 after modeled driver impacts. Illustrative interpretation only — not a forecast of realized savings.

Supporting Evidence Library

Digital Health & Sedentary Behavior

26 RCTs

Digital Health in Type 2 Diabetes

118 RCTs

Home-Based Exercise & Hypertension

27 Trials

A1C Improvement & Acute-Care Utilization

74,679 Adults

Telemonitoring & ED Visits

100 Adults

Glycemic Control & Acute-Care Costs

59,830 Adults
Limitations & Next Steps

The Evidence Base Will Continue to Grow

Utilization and savings assumptions should be validated using client-specific claims data Present conservative, expected, and optimistic scenarios Clearly separate evidence-supported findings from hypothetical assumptions Use clinical judgment and program-specific data for financial impact relationships
Chat Fam
Hi, I’m Alfie What would you like to do:
Conversations
Typically responds in seconds