For the Lewis
Last month, Aon, the main benefit consulting firm, published a “study” claiming:
A significant opportunity to reduce medical care costs for employers and improve the general health of the workforce through a comprehensive obesity management program that includes GLP-1 measurements.
This, of course, is the opposite of what most researchers have shown. And in the immortal words of the great philosophers that are found: “Two men say they are Jesus, one of them must be wrong.” We will see who is wrong (UM, what it means about drugs to lose weight) when we immerse ourselves in the study in a minute. But first, let’s review AON’s previous analyzes.
A aon history letter
Aon said that the Accolade saved 8%, but it seems that they must marry, both absent both the day the bioestadic teacher explained how the control groups work, and also the day when the fifth grade math master explained how the averages work.
Then, they affirmed that Lyra, which is a mental Health Company: Achieve the following non -mental Improvements in the set of patients who had at least one mental health encounter with one of their “220,000 high quality suppliers”:
§ TO 30% reduction in No-ERVisses related to mental health
§ A 30% reduction in generic spending on drugs
§ A 20% reduction in drug specialized spending
Thanks in part to start the Y $ 4000 axis to improve the optics, Aon also revealed that Lyra achieved a very high “efficiency relationship”:
I cannot object that finding because, despite three decades in this field, around 100 articles/interviews/appointments/appointments, including the Wall Street JournalTwo commercial books and a case study by Harvard Business School, I still don’t know what an “efficiency relationship” is, apart from that, it has nothing to do with the participants of comparison with non -participants in a mental health study. Apparently, a “efficiency relationship” in medical care measures the speed with which a hospital revolves over its inventory. Then, the use of AON of the term remembers the immortal words of the great philosopher Bob uecker: “Juuussst a little outside.”
When he was asked public and privately to explain any of these things, Aon calmed down. That was probably wise on his part.
Nor will they respond here, because they understand the Streisand effect. (Barbara Sued A Photographher for Photographing Her Malibu Mansion from the Air As a Routine Part of Documenting Erosion Along The California Coastline at The Beest of the State. Six People million People downloaded the image. In addition, she lost and had to pay the law fees too).
More recently, it seems that they may also have had their hand in the PBM cookie jar.
Aon weight loss drug study
Although he admits that the costs jump in the first year, Aon found a “curve” of 7% in the cost curve in the second year, by the participants compared to a “precision control group.” The paired controls, no matter how “precise” are not point. That is why the FDA does not allow pharmaceutical companies to use them. The most famous, some very stable geniuses in the well -being industry inadvertently demonstrated when they published this graphic. They thought they were demonstrating that the participants in the welfare programs saved money vs. Non -matching participants. Unfortunately for them, a superficial look at the X axis reveals the “total savings” of the appropriate “treatment” began Two years before treatment beganSimply because volunteer participants are motivated.
The related problem is that for a period of two years, the same duration that Aon studied most of the weight users. However, there is no accounting, nor mention or abandon in this study.
Only people who are still in drugs are counted. The others would be “lost in the follow -up.” Counting only those who are still in the program at the end is called “Survivors bias” or the fallacy of “last man standing.” That is why the weight loss program shows excellent results: most people leave most programs because they are not successful. Ironically, the higher the abandonment rate, the results will generally be the results among the few survivors.
It is also literally impossible for costs to be “folded” 7% in general By reducing the rate of heart attacks and stroke by 44%. That is because there are simply not enough thesis events to do that. The rate of both is approximately 1 per 1000 in the insured population <65. And Aon did not even claim a 44% reduction in those events. They claimed to reduce the "risk" of these events by 44%. A cynical could observe that obviously if they reduce Real events For that amount, they would have said it.
It is not necessary to take our for this conclusion. We have made our drug economy calculator freely free. Enter your own assumptions and decide for yourself.
Someone can determine the risk of some of his statements is an assumption of anyone. Suppose the twins have parents who died early of heart disease. The first is very worried about this. Take statins, metformin, maybe see a cardiologist, get a stent, etc. The second does nothing to mitigate its genetic risk. The second has a much higher risk than the first, but the “risk score” will say otherwise. Many people not only know that they are at risk of coronary heart disease until they have an event. So how can Aon know?
What is Aon doing?
Surely an actuarial consulting firm whose reputation is based on, well, being an actuarial consulting firm would not risk that reputation by writing articles like these, right?
Well, certainly not free.
Lyra paid them, received recognition and (supposedly) were paid by the Express scripts. In this case, for anyone who does not want to open the calculator for loss of free weight loss from above to realize employers employers in the modeling of the long-term commercial impact of the adoption of LPG-1. “
And since his model is wrong, “working with” Aon is, once again in the immortal words of a terrible narrow, “money at all.”
Al Lewis is CEO or QuestionPresident of the Validation Institute And Bete Noir of the well -being industry. He occasionally blocked Did they say what?
