Background: Physical activity levels worldwide have declined over recent decades, with the average number of daily steps decreasing steadily since 1995. Given that physical inactivity is a major modifiable risk factor for chronic disease and mortality, increasing the level of physical activity is a clear opportunity to improve population health on a broad scale. The current study aims to assess the cost-effectiveness and budget impact of a Fitbit-based intervention among healthy, but insufficiently active, adults to quantify the potential clinical and economic value for a commercially insured population in the U.S. Methods: An economic model was developed to compare physical activity, health outcomes, costs, and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) associated with usual care and a Fitbit-based intervention that consists of a consumer wearable device alongside goal setting and feedback features provided in a companion software application. Improvement in physical activity was measured in terms of mean daily step count. The effects of increased daily step count were characterized as reduced short-term healthcare costs and decreased incidence of chronic diseases with corresponding improvement in health utility and reduced disease costs. Published literature, standardized costing resources, and data from a National Institutes of Health-funded research program were utilized. Cost-effectiveness and budget impact analyses were performed for a hypothetical cohort of middle-aged adults. Results: The base case cost-effectiveness results found the Fitbit intervention to be dominant (less costly and more effective) compared to usual care. Discounted 15-year incremental costs and QALYs were -$1,257 and 0.011, respectively. In probabilistic analyses, the Fitbit intervention was dominant in 93% of simulations and either dominant or cost-effective (defined as less than $150,000/QALY gained) in 99.4% of simulations. For budget impact analyses conducted from the perspective of a U.S. Commercial payer, the Fitbit intervention was estimated to save approximately $6.5-million dollars over 2 years and $8.5-million dollars over 5 years for a cohort of 8,000 participants. Although the economic analysis results were very robust, the short-term healthcare cost savings were the most uncertain in this population and warrant further research. Conclusions: There is abundant evidence documenting the benefits of wearable activity trackers when used to increase physical activity as measured by daily step counts. Our research provides additional health economic evidence supporting implementation of wearable-based interventions to improve population health and offers compelling support for payers to consider including wearable-based physical activity interventions as part of a comprehensive portfolio of preventive health offerings for their insured populations.

JHC and JH are employees of Google and own Alphabet stock as part of the standard compensation package.

This study was funded by Google. SD is a shareholder in Veritas Health Economics Consulting Inc, which was contracted by Google to conduct this study.

I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.

Yes

The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:

This work used only simulated and other data that were openly available to the public before the initiation of the study.

I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.

Yes

I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).

Yes

I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.

Yes

All data produced in the present study are available upon reasonable request to the authors.