About

Kevin G.M. Volpp, MD, Ph.D., is a Professor of Medicine in Medical Ethics and Health Policy at the Perelman School of Medicine and a Founding Director of the Center for Health Incentives and Behavioral Economics (CHIBE) at the University of Pennsylvania. He also serves as Division Chief of Health Policy for the Department of Medical Ethics and Policy and holds the title of the Founders President’s Distinguished Professor of Medicine at the Perelman School of Medicine and Health Care Management at the Wharton School. Dr. Volpp's work focuses on developing and testing innovative applications of behavioral economics to improve patient health behavior and enhance value in the health system by influencing provider performance. He has led CHIBE since its inception, transforming it into a major entity involving more than 90 faculty members and trainees across the University of Pennsylvania, and it was one of the two original NIH Centers nationally dedicated to behavioral economics and health. His research has been recognized through numerous awards, including the Matilda White Riley Award by the NIH Office of Social and Behavioral Science, the John Eisenberg Award from the Society of General Internal Medicine, and the Distinguished Investigator Award from the Association for Clinical and Translational Science. Dr. Volpp has secured over $70 million in funding for projects with employers, insurers, health systems, and consumer companies, testing behavioral economic strategies to influence health behaviors. He has published more than 250 articles, book chapters, and commentaries, and his work has served as the foundation for widely implemented programs such as benefit design initiatives for smoking cessation, prescription refill synchronization programs, simplified health insurance plans, and automated medication refill systems used by millions. He is an elected member of the National Academy of Medicine, serves on the editorial board of NEJM Catalyst, and is a principal of the behavioral economics consulting firm VAL Health.

Research topics

• Medicine
• Nursing
• Psychology
• Computer Science
• Internal medicine
• Physical therapy
• Social psychology
• Environmental health
• Family medicine
• Virology
• Artificial Intelligence
• Economic growth
• Gerontology
• Internet privacy
• Economics
• Advertising
• Psychiatry
• Applied psychology
• Emergency medicine
• Mathematics
• Business
• Medical emergency

Selected publications

• REPLY

  JACC CardioOncology · 2026-04-01

  articleOpen access
  PublisherDOI

• Change in Default Prescription Length and Statin Prescribing Behavior

  JAMA Internal Medicine · 2025-04-07 · 3 citations

  letterOpen access

  This quality improvement study examines the association of changing the default supply for statin prescriptions to 90 days with clinician prescribing behavior.

  PublisherOA PDFDOI

• Encouraging Pharmacist Referrals for Evidence-Based Statin Initiation

  JAMA Cardiology · 2025-03-26 · 5 citations

  articleOpen accessSenior author

  Importance: Despite statins' benefit in preventing major adverse cardiovascular events, most patients with an indication for statin therapy are not appropriately treated. Clinicians' limited time and lack of systematic efforts to address preventive care likely contribute to gaps in statin prescribing. Objective: To determine the effect on statin prescribing of 2 interventions to refer appropriate patients to a pharmacist for lipid management. Design, Setting, and Participants: These 2 pragmatic cluster randomized clinical trials were conducted among 12 total primary care practices in a community health system. Trial 1 was a delayed-intervention design of a visit-based intervention with randomization at the clinician level in a single clinic, and trial 2 was a parallel-arm trial of an asynchronous intervention with randomization at the clinic level in 11 clinics. Patients who were assigned to a primary care clinician at a participating practice, had an indication for a high-intensity or moderate-intensity statin, and were either not prescribed a statin or prescribed an inappropriately low statin dose were eligible for inclusion. Intervention: Trial 1 tested an interruptive electronic health record alert that appeared during eligible patients' visits and facilitated referral to a pharmacist, while trial 2 tested an order for pharmacist referral placed by the study team for cosignature by the primary care clinician without regard to the timing of a clinic visit. Main Outcome and Measure: The primary outcome was the proportion of patients prescribed a statin. Results: Overall, 1412 patients were enrolled in trial 1 and 1950 in trial 2. Across both trials, mean (SD) patient age was 65.6 (9.9) years, and 1485 patients (44.2%) were female. Mean (SD) baseline 10-year risk of major cardiovascular events was 17.9% (9.4). In trial 1, the interruptive alert was not associated with a significant increase in statin prescriptions compared with usual care (15.6% vs 11.6%; unadjusted absolute difference, 3.9 percentage points; 95% CI, -0.4 to 8.3). In trial 2, semiautomated pharmacist referrals were associated with an increase in statin prescriptions by 16 percentage points compared with usual care (31.6% vs 15.2%; unadjusted absolute difference, 16.4 percentage points; 95% CI, 12.7-20.1). Conclusions and Relevance: In these 2 cluster randomized clinical trials, visit-based interruptive alerts were not associated with a significant increase in statin prescribing compared with usual care, whereas a strategy of asynchronous semiautomated referral for pharmacist comanagement was associated with a substantial increase. This strategy of asynchronous semiautomated referrals for pharmacist involvement in lipid management could be a scalable and effective approach to increasing statin prescribing for patients at high risk. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT05537064.

  PublisherOA PDFDOI

• A series of randomized trials of behavioral economic interventions to increase racial and ethnic diversity of research participants: Rationale and design of ITERATE

  American Heart Journal · 2025-03-31 · 2 citations

  articleOpen access

  RATIONALE: Prospective clinical research studies are essential for determining the effectiveness and safety of drugs, medical devices, and healthcare delivery interventions. However, low enrollment, particularly among Black and Hispanic patients, challenges the generalizability of results and fairness of research. Leveraging insights from behavioral economics to modify the content of messages recruiting patients to join research studies may increase enrollment and representativeness of trial populations. PRIMARY HYPOTHESIS: Method of outreach, source of outreach, message framing, and financial incentives will have important effects on enrollment fraction of Black and Hispanic patients electronically approached for participation in a prospective clinical research study. DESIGN: ITERATE (NCT05827718) is a series of 4 randomized clinical trials (RCTs) designed to rigorously, systematically, and iteratively test the effects of different messaging strategies informed by behavioral economic theory on the enrollment of Black and Hispanic individuals into the Penn Medicine BioBank (PMBB), a prospective registry. For all 4 RCTs, we will identify patients eligible for enrollment in the PMBB (those with ≥ 1 encounter with the University of Pennsylvania Health System in the past 3 months, a phone number able to receive text messages or a valid email address on file, no history of consenting to or declining enrollment in the PMBB, and able to provide their own consent) and randomly assign them to receive different outreach messages. RCT 1 will test the method of outreach (email vs. text message vs. email + text message); RCT 2, source of outreach (research team vs. clinical team); RCT 3, message framing (appeal to altruism vs. appeal to social proof vs. control); and RCT 4, financial incentive (none vs. medium guarantee vs. small guarantee + small lottery vs. medium lottery vs. large lottery). In each RCT, at least 50% of the participants will be Black or Hispanic. The primary outcome of each RCT is enrollment fraction, defined as the number of participants who enroll in the PMBB divided by the total number of participants who received an outreach message, compared between arms among both Black and Hispanic patients. Secondary outcomes will include overall enrollment fraction and enrollment fraction among White patients. The "winning" strategies in earlier RCTs will be incorporated as the "standard of care" in the subsequent RCTs.

  PublisherDOI

• Incidence of food allergic reactions among adolescents engaged in food allergy management

  Annals of Allergy Asthma & Immunology · 2025-03-09 · 2 citations

  article
  PublisherDOI

• Modeling the Financial Viability of a Population Health Program: A Formidable Challenge for Health Systems

  NEJM Catalyst · 2025-07-16

  article
  PublisherDOI

• A Systematic Review of “Food Is Medicine” Randomized Controlled Trials for Noncommunicable Disease in the United States: A Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association

  Circulation · 2025-06-18 · 33 citations

  reviewSenior author

  Poor diet quality is a leading risk factor for cardiometabolic disease (ie, diabetes and diseases associated with metabolism and inflammation), which is present in about half of American adults. Support has grown for incorporating the provision of healthy food as a complement to or a component of clinical care. Such "Food Is Medicine" programs provide free or subsidized healthy food directly to patients in close coordination with the health care system. In this review, we systematically examined published randomized controlled trials examining Food Is Medicine programs in the United States, categorizing them into different stages of development using the National Institutes of Health Model for Behavioral Intervention Development. This review identified a total of 14 randomized controlled trials of Food Is Medicine interventions in the United States with noncommunicable disease outcomes, more than one-third of which were early-stage smaller-scale trials (stage 1 randomized controlled trials). Broad variations in populations enrolled; intervention design, duration, and intensity; and outcomes precluded many direct comparisons between studies. Randomized controlled trial data were generally consistent with findings in the observational literature, indicating that common Food Is Medicine approaches often positively influence diet quality and food security, which are theorized to be key mediators for clinical outcomes. However, the impact on clinical outcomes was inconsistent and often failed to reach statistical significance. These observations highlight the need for larger, higher-quality Food Is Medicine studies focusing on the measurement of clinical outcomes within well-designed programs and the need for additional randomized controlled trials that more systematically map out the relationship between participation in different types of Food Is Medicine programs and health outcomes.

  PublisherDOI

• What Is ‘Food Is Medicine,’ Really? Policy Considerations On The Road To Health Care Coverage

  Health Affairs · 2025-04-01 · 10 citations

  articleOpen accessSenior author

  Food Is Medicine interventions are increasingly gaining attention from policy makers, payers, and health care professionals as a promising approach to addressing diet-related chronic health conditions in the health care setting, given the increasing burden and cost of these conditions. The American Heart Association defines Food Is Medicine as the provision of healthy food such as medically tailored meals, medically tailored groceries, and produce prescriptions to treat or manage specific clinical conditions in a way that is integrated with and paid for by the health care sector. Importantly, Food Is Medicine is distinct from, yet complementary to, food and nutrition assistance programs and population-level healthy food policies and programs. In this article, we discuss the importance of this distinction and the prerequisites for successfully integrating Food Is Medicine interventions within the health care system: a standard definition of Food Is Medicine focused on medically tailored meals, medically tailored groceries, and produce prescriptions; a research base showing clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness; and implementation that ensures fidelity and quality.

  PublisherDOI

• Behaviorally Designed Gamification and Physical Activity Among Breast and Prostate Cancer Survivors

  JACC CardioOncology · 2025-11-05 · 5 citations

  articleOpen access

  BACKGROUND: Black and Hispanic cancer survivors exposed to cardiotoxic therapies are at higher risk for cardiovascular events than non-Hispanic White survivors, attributed to greater cardiovascular risk factors and lower physical activity. OBJECTIVES: This study sought to determine the effect of a remotely delivered and behaviorally designed gamification intervention vs attention control on physical activity in Black and Hispanic cancer survivors with cardiovascular risk factors. METHODS: Between May 2022 and February 2025, Black and Hispanic breast and prostate cancer survivors who had received cardiotoxic cancer therapy and had ≥1 cardiovascular risk factor were enrolled in a randomized clinical trial with a 24-week intervention and 12-week postintervention period. Participants received a wearable device to track daily steps, established a baseline, selected a step goal increase, and were assigned to attention control (n = 76) or gamification (n = 74). The primary outcome was change in mean daily steps from baseline through the intervention period. RESULTS: Mean participant age was 64 years; 81% women, 64% Black, and 35% Hispanic. Gamification arm participants had a greater change from baseline in mean daily steps than control participants during the intervention period (+759; 95% CI: 209-1,309; P = 0.007) and follow-up (+581; 95% CI: -47 to 1,208; P = 0.070), and a greater increase in weekly minutes of moderate-vigorous physical activity during intervention (+16; 95% CI: 4-29; P = 0.010) and follow-up (+11; 95% CI: 0-22; P = 0.048). CONCLUSIONS: Gamification increased physical activity compared with attention control in Black and Hispanic cancer survivors, and represents a scalable intervention to reduce cardiovascular risk in this high-risk population (RCT of Strategies to Augment Physical Activity in Black and Hispanic Breast and Prostate Cancer Survivors [ALLSTAR]; NCT05176756).

  PublisherDOI

• Cost-Effectiveness of Gamification, Financial Incentives, or Both to Increase Physical Activity Among Patients With Elevated Risk for Cardiovascular Disease

  Circulation Cardiovascular Quality and Outcomes · 2025-06-17 · 3 citations

  article

  BACKGROUND: The BE ACTIVE trial (Behavioral Economic Approaches to Increase Physical Activity Among Patients with Elevated Risk for Cardiovascular Disease) documented the effectiveness, compared with an attention control arm that received daily text messages, of gamification, financial incentives, or gamification+financial incentives to increase steps/day. Increases in daily step count are associated with longer life expectancy, but understanding the cost-effectiveness of these interventions is essential for payers and other stakeholders seeking to implement findings. METHODS: We built a probabilistic Markov model to compare intervention costs with lifetime estimates of life-years and quality-adjusted life-years for 2 sets of comparisons: (1) each behavioral intervention versus attention control, and (2) each trial arm, including attention control, versus no intervention. Since the durability of changes in steps/day post-intervention is unknown, we modeled optimistic, intermediate, and pessimistic scenarios. RESULTS: Over the 12-month intervention, per-participant cost to deliver attention control was $878, gamification $938, financial incentives $1534, and gamification+financial incentives $1712. Compared with attention control, gamification's cost-effectiveness ranged from $261 (95% CI, 259-263) per life-year gained if mean steps/day during the last 18 weeks of follow-up are maintained (optimistic), to $30 550 (95% CI, 30 503-30 597) per life-year if steps/day continue to decline at the rate observed during the full 26-week follow-up (pessimistic). Gamification+financial incentives cost <$50 000/life-year only under the optimistic and intermediate scenarios. Financial incentives was dominated by gamification and gamification+financial incentives. When all 4 trial arms, including attention control, were compared with no intervention, gamification again cost <$50 000/life-year across all durability scenarios. CONCLUSIONS: Across a range of scenarios about the durability of increases in steps/day post-intervention, gamification consistently cost <$50 000 per life-year gained, the threshold for high value interventions set by American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association guidelines. Gamification+financial incentives was high-value except in the pessimistic scenario. Financial incentives was dominated. REGISTRATION: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT03911141.

  PublisherDOI

Recent grants

• NIH Grant R01HL082637

  NIH · $1.6M · 2009

• Comparative effectiveness of process and outcomes incentives for lipid management

  NIH · $3.9M · 2014–2020

• University of Pennsylvania Prevention Research Center

  NIH · $8.7M · 2014–2019

• NIH Grant RC4AG039114

  NIH · $12.5M · 2014

• Administrative Core

  NIH · $7.0M · 2009–2029

Frequent coauthors

• David A. Asch

  357 shared

• Jingsan Zhu

  University of Pennsylvania

  260 shared

• Ezekiel Emanuel

  225 shared

• Allan S. Detsky

  University of California, Los Angeles

  218 shared

• Diggs Sledge

  Perspectives Charter School

  212 shared

• Gwenn Gregg

  Perspectives Charter School

  212 shared

• Joy Farrell

  Perspectives Charter School

  212 shared

• Carmina Conley

  Perspectives Charter School

  212 shared

Awards & honors

• Matilda White Riley Award by the Office of Social and Behavi…
• John Eisenberg Award from the Society of General Internal Me…
• Association for Clinical and Translational Science Distingui…