Table 1 Measurement of key covariates

Health Benefit Generosity

Sum of 11 benefits to which employers contributed some or all of the costs

Employee Assistance Programs

Return to Work Programs

Chronic Disease Management Programs

Stress Reduction Programs

Smoking Cessation Programs

Obesity Programs

Prenatal or Well Baby Programs

Grief Recovery Programs

Fitness Facilities or Membership

Onsite Site Vaccinations

Health Risk Appraisals

Health Benefit Risk Taking

Mean of responses to 5 items coded on a 4 point Likert scale

1. Our organization’s health benefits philosophy is that in the long run we get ahead playing it slow, safe and sure (reverse coded).

2. Our organization has built its health benefits program by taking calculated risks at the right time.

3. Decision-making about health benefits in our company is too cautious for maximum effectiveness (reverse coded).

4. Health benefits managers in our organization are willing to take a chance on a good idea.

5. It is necessary to take some pretty big risks occasionally to keep our health benefits ahead of our competitors.

Politicalization of Health Benefit Decision-Making

Single item

In most organizations, some individuals have more influence than others in benefit decision-making. For example, one person may make a final decision without looking for substantial input because s/he is in a position where people are expected to make final decisions (influence because of position). Alternatively, one person can influence a final decision because the decision-maker particularly values his/her opinion (influence because of “who you know”). During the past 12 months, were differences in influence in benefits decision-making in your organization due to differences in:

1. position primarily

2. position more than “who you know”

3. “who you know” more than position

4. “who you know” primarily