Behavioral Architecture in Public Health: A Comprehensive Analysis of Preventive Incentives, Legal Frameworks, and Design Efficacy

Executive Summary

The intersection of behavioral economics and public health policy represents one of the most dynamic frontiers in modern governance and preventive medicine. As traditional educational campaigns reach saturation and coercive mandates face political and social headwinds, the use of “preventive incentives”—mechanisms designed to nudge individuals toward desired behavior through positive reinforcement—has surged. This report provides an exhaustive analysis of the efficacy, legality, and design of these incentive structures, responding to the critical need for evidence-based strategies in vaccination uptake, safety adherence, and chronic disease management.

Drawing upon a synthesis of systematic reviews, randomized controlled trials (RCTs), and legal statutes, this analysis reveals that while financial incentives are generally effective in the short term, their specific architectural design is the primary determinant of their success. We find that non-cash incentives often perform on par with or better than cash equivalents when designed to leverage specific cognitive biases, such as regret aversion and social accountability. Specifically, “regret lotteries”—where participants are entered into a drawing but can only collect if compliant—consistently outperform standard lotteries by exploiting the psychological weight of “forgone gains” rather than just “future possibilities.”

A critical finding in the domain of safety compliance (e.g., seatbelt usage) is the superiority of shared incentives over individual rewards. The evidence suggests that pooling risks and rewards among a group creates a social enforcement mechanism that is more durable than individual financial gain. Furthermore, the report dissects the legal “consideration” trap, delineating how public health programs must navigate the thin line between legal sweepstakes and illegal gambling by offering Alternative Methods of Entry (AMOE) and eliminating monetary consideration.

Finally, we analyze the “Vax-a-Million” case study, concluding that while high-visibility lottery incentives generate immediate attention, they often fail to address deep-seated hesitancy, functioning better as a reward for the “complacent” rather than a converter of the “resistant.” The report concludes with a framework for designing “smart incentives” that maximize behavioral yield while minimizing legal risk and ethical concerns.

1. Introduction: The Behavioral Architecture of Public Health

To understand why certain incentive structures succeed where others fail, one must move beyond the classical economic model of the “rational actor” to the behavioral model of the “bounded rational” human. Traditional public health interventions often assume that if individuals are provided with accurate information about risks (e.g., smoking causes cancer, seatbelts save lives), they will logically alter their behavior. This “information deficit model” has repeatedly proven insufficient because it ignores the cognitive biases that govern human decision-making.

Behavioral economics posits that human cognition operates on two systems: System 1 (fast, automatic, emotional) and System 2 (slow, deliberative, logical). Preventive health behaviors—such as getting a flu shot, adhering to a medication regimen, or buckling a seatbelt—often suffer because the cost (time, discomfort, effort) is immediate and tangible to System 1, while the benefit (avoiding a disease or injury years in the future) is abstract and distant to System 2.1

Incentive programs essentially function as “temporal bridges.” They bring the reward for the healthy behavior forward in time, making it immediate and tangible to satisfy System 1. The efficacy of the programs reviewed in this report rests on several core psychological principles. First, Temporal Discounting (or Present Bias) means humans disproportionately value immediate rewards over future benefits. A $50 voucher today is often more motivating than a $500 reduction in future healthcare costs. This explains why immediate small rewards (e.g., gift cards) often drive higher compliance than long-term premium reductions. Second, Loss Aversion, defined by Prospect Theory, suggests the pain of losing a specific amount is approximately twice as psychologically powerful as the pleasure of gaining that same amount.2 Incentive designs that frame rewards as “something to be lost” (e.g., deposit contracts or regret lotteries) theoretically outperform those framed as “something to be gained.”

Third, Regret Aversion is a specific subset of loss aversion where individuals are motivated by the anticipation of future regret. In a “regret lottery,” an individual is informed they would have won had they been compliant. The fear of this specific counterfactual scenario is a potent driver of behavior.3 Finally, Social Norms and Accountability play a crucial role. Humans are inherently social animals. Interventions that make compliance visible (gamification, leaderboards) or interdependent (shared pots) leverage the desire for status and the fear of letting down the group.5

2. The Currency of Compliance: Cash vs. Non-Cash Incentives

A primary question for policymakers is whether the form of the incentive matters. Does cold hard cash work better than vouchers, lottery tickets, or goods? The evidence suggests that while cash is universally valued, non-cash incentives can be more effective when they carry symbolic value or restrict usage to “virtuous” consumption.

2.1 Efficacy of Financial Incentives in Clinical Settings

Systematic reviews of financial incentives in public health indicate that financial incentives are generally more effective than “usual care” or no intervention across a range of behaviors, including smoking cessation, weight loss, and screening attendance.7 However, the durability of these effects varies significantly.

In the realm of substance abuse and pregnancy, the data is particularly compelling. For example, one study examined the impact of cash ($20–$70) combined with WIC support versus WIC support alone on breastfeeding rates. The results were stark: breastfeeding rates at one month postpartum were 89% in the incentivized group compared to 44% in the control group. This disparity continued at six months, with 72% of the incentivized group still breastfeeding compared to 0% in the control group.8 This suggests that financial incentives can help bridge the critical early period of habit formation where the physical costs of the behavior are highest.

Similar efficacy is found in substance abstinence programs. In a randomized trial testing vouchers for cocaine and opioid abstinence among methadone-maintained pregnant women, substance abstinence was significantly higher among those receiving contingent vouchers (49%) compared to standard treatment (17%).8 Another study focusing on alcohol-using pregnant women utilized gift cards ranging from $10 to $50 paired with home visitations. This intervention resulted in 96% monitoring compliance and 0% alcohol-positive samples, demonstrating the power of combining financial incentives with social monitoring.8

2.2 Cash vs. Vouchers: The Mental Accounting Effect

While cash is fungible, “restricted” incentives like vouchers often perform as well as or better than cash in specific populations, likely due to “mental accounting.” Participants view vouchers as distinct from their general budget, often assigning them a “health” label that aligns with the program’s goals. This also mitigates political and ethical concerns that cash might be used for “vices” (alcohol, tobacco), making them more palatable for public funding.9

In trials with pregnant smokers, vouchers exchangeable for retail items (diapers, household goods) were highly effective. In one major trial involving 773 pregnant smokers, participants received vouchers worth $20 for diapers contingent on smoking cessation. The end-of-pregnancy smoking cessation rate was 41% for the contingent voucher group versus 10% for the non-contingent group.8 Furthermore, a meta-analysis of five RCTs demonstrated that abstinence was 2.73 times higher when financial incentives were offered and remained available postpartum.9

It is important to note that the schedule of the incentive matters as much as the type. Escalating voucher schedules, where the value of the voucher increases with each consecutive negative test, leverage the “sunk cost” fallacy to the patient’s benefit—breaking the streak becomes increasingly “expensive” to the participant.8

2.3 The “Crowding Out” Hypothesis vs. Reality

A persistent concern in behavioral design is the “crowding out” effect—the fear that extrinsic rewards (money) will erode intrinsic motivation (the desire to be healthy). Critics argue that once the money stops, the behavior will crash because the individual has not internalized the value of the action.10

However, the empirical data in this review paints a more nuanced picture. While some behaviors do revert to baseline post-intervention, there is little evidence that incentives reduce intrinsic motivation below baseline. Instead, incentives often serve as a “kickstart” mechanism. As noted in the literature, “people need skills and knowledge… simply giving them a financial incentive is not expected to teach them these skills,” but it can increase adherence to programs that do teach these skills.10 For simpler behaviors like vaccinations or screening attendance, where “skills” are not required, incentives are particularly effective at overcoming inertia without any detrimental long-term effects on motivation.1

In medication adherence, specifically, a review of 22 studies found that financial incentives significantly increased adherence in 16 of them. The pooled meta-analyses showed a significant positive effect on the percentage of adherent patients.11 This suggests that for chronic behaviors where the daily “cost” is low but constant (taking a pill), incentives can effectively maintain the behavior until it potentially becomes habitual.

3. The Architecture of Chance: Lotteries and Regret

The COVID-19 pandemic provided a global laboratory for testing high-stakes public health incentives, shifting the model from small, certain rewards to large, uncertain rewards (lotteries). This section analyzes the efficacy of these “probabilistic” incentives.

3.1 The “Regret Lottery” Mechanism

The “Regret Lottery” (often called the Dutch Lottery) is a potent variation of the standard sweepstakes that weaponizes the fear of missing out. In a standard lottery, you buy a ticket and hope to win. In a regret lottery, you are already entered, but you can only claim the prize if you were compliant at the time of the drawing.

The protocol typically works as follows: participants are assigned a unique number (e.g., a 2-digit number). A number is drawn daily. If the number matches a participant’s assigned number, the system checks their adherence (e.g., did they take their medication? Did they weigh themselves?). If they were adherent, they win a cash prize (e.g., $50 or $100). If they were not adherent, they are informed that they “would have won” had they been compliant, but they receive nothing.3

This mechanism exploits regret aversion. The psychological pain of “winning but losing” (foregone gain) is significantly stronger than the abstract “hope of winning” in a standard lottery. Studies show that regret lotteries can be vastly more cost-effective than standard lotteries. In one trial regarding weight loss, a regret lottery was found to be “vastly more cost effective” than a standard lottery at achieving behavior change.14 In another study on medication adherence, the implementation of an automated weekly regret lottery improved adherence significantly, with the probability of adherence increasing from 32% pre-lottery to 50% post-lottery initiation.15

3.2 Deposit Contracts and Loss Aversion

Another sophisticated model is the Deposit Contract, which invites participants to put their own money at risk. Based on Loss Aversion, this model posits that people will work harder to avoid losing $100 of their own money than to gain $100 of someone else’s.

In a weight loss study, participants in a deposit contract group (who put their own money at risk) lost a mean of 14 lbs, compared to 13.1 lbs for a lottery group and only 3.9 lbs for a control group.16 Furthermore, 36.8% of the deposit contract group lost at least 20 lbs, significantly higher than the control.

However, deposit contracts suffer from a fatal flaw: uptake. Most people are unwilling to risk their own money. In one study comparing deposit contracts to rewards, the deposit contract had a 62% uptake rate compared to 100% for the reward group.2 This creates a selection bias where only the most motivated individuals participate, potentially inflating the efficacy results while failing to help the general population. To mitigate this, some programs use “endowment” deposits, where the program gives the participant money upfront (e.g., in a virtual account) and deducts from it for non-compliance, thereby creating a sense of ownership and loss without the barrier to entry.

4. Case Study: The Ohio Vax-a-Million Experiment

In May 2021, Ohio Governor Mike DeWine announced the “Vax-a-Million” program, a lottery giving five vaccinated adults the chance to win $1 million each and five adolescents full college scholarships. This program represents the most high-profile application of behavioral lottery incentives in recent history.

4.1 Program Design and Initial Optimism

The logic of Vax-a-Million was grounded in the “lottery effect”—the tendency of individuals to overweight small probabilities of huge gains. Early internal data from the Ohio Department of Health suggested a 28% increase in vaccination rates among Ohioans 16 and older immediately following the announcement.17 The program was designed to capture the attention of the “complacent”—those who were not ideologically opposed to the vaccine but had simply prioritized other activities.

4.2 Rigorous Retrospective Analysis: Did it Work?

Subsequent rigorous analysis using “synthetic control” methods painted a sobering picture of the program’s true impact. Researchers created a “Synthetic Ohio”—a statistical composite of other states that did not have lotteries but matched Ohio’s pre-lottery trends—to serve as a control group.

One major study found that by the end of the lottery, the difference in vaccination rates between Ohio and Synthetic Ohio was statistically insignificant (0.98%).18 Another study analyzing the data found a statistically insignificant 1.3% decrease in the full vaccination rate relative to trends.20 While some arguments were made that the lottery “slowed the decline” compared to the rest of the US 21, the consensus from academic analysis is that the lottery failed to generate a substantial, sustained surge in new vaccinations.

4.3 Why Large Lotteries May Fail

The failure of Vax-a-Million to generate a sustained surge can be attributed to several behavioral factors. First, the Saturation of the Willing meant the lottery likely motivated those who intended to get vaccinated eventually but hadn’t gotten around to it, but it failed to move the “hesitant” or “resistant” populations who had safety concerns. Second, Denominator Neglect suggests that while the $1 million prize was attractive, the probability of winning was too low to alter the calculus for those with strong opposition. Finally, in terms of Cost-Effectiveness, estimates suggest the program cost approximately $49 to $75 per marginal vaccination induced (if any).19 This raises questions about whether a guaranteed $50 gift card for every participant—a “certainty” based incentive—would have been more effective than a “probability” based incentive for this specific demographic.

5. Gamification and Social Dynamics in Health

Beyond lotteries and cash, “gamification”—the application of game-design elements like points, leaderboards, and levels to non-game contexts—has emerged as a powerful tool for sustained behavior change.

5.1 The BE ACTIVE Trial

The BE ACTIVE randomized clinical trial provides some of the strongest evidence for the efficacy of gamification, especially when combined with financial incentives. The study compared four groups: a control group, a gamification group (points/levels), a financial incentive group, and a combination group.

The results demonstrated a clear additive effect. The change in daily steps from baseline to month 12 was +1,418 in the control group, +1,954 in the gamification group, and +1,915 in the financial incentive group. However, the combination group (Gamification + Financial Incentives) saw the largest increase, with +2,297 steps.23

Crucially, the study also analyzed cost-effectiveness. Gamification alone was found to be highly cost-effective, costing less than $50,000 per Quality-Adjusted Life Year (QALY) gained. The combination of gamification and financial incentives was also considered high-value, whereas pure financial incentives were “dominated” (less effective and more expensive) by the other arms in many scenarios.6

5.2 Leaderboards and Social Comparison

Leaderboards work by triggering social comparison, but their design is delicate. Research suggests that while leaderboards provide feedback and foster competition, they can demotivate those at the bottom of the rankings.25 Effective gamification often employs “relative ranking” or team-based competitions rather than absolute individual leaderboards. In the BE ACTIVE trial, the gamification element involved a weekly game with points, levels, and a “social support partner,” leveraging the desire for status and social connection rather than just raw competition.23

6. Safety Compliance: Telematics and Shared Incentives

The domain of safety compliance (e.g., seatbelts, safe driving) differs from health maintenance (exercise, diet) because the behavior is often binary (buckled/unbuckled) and momentary. Behavioral design here has evolved from police enforcement to “telematics nudges” and shared incentives.

6.1 The “Shared Pot” vs. Individual Incentive

A landmark study by the Penn Medicine Nudge Unit revolutionized our understanding of seatbelt incentives. The study sought to determine if social accountability could outperform individual greed. Drivers were monitored using telematics and assigned to different incentive groups.

In the Individual Lottery group, participants had a chance to win $125 alone. In the Shared Pot group, participants had a chance to split a $125 prize with a group, but—crucially—the payout was contingent on the group’s performance. If members of the group failed to buckle up, the pot was reduced or forfeited.

The results were decisive. The Shared Pot group achieved the highest buckling rate, with a 91.3% compliance rate. Conversely, the Individual Lottery group drove unbuckled 10.5% of the time, and the Feedback Only group drove unbuckled 10.6% of the time. The Control group drove unbuckled 11.9% of the time.5

The mechanism here is social accountability. In the shared pot, non-compliance doesn’t just hurt the individual; it hurts the group. This creates a powerful “team pact” mentality that overrides individual laziness or forgetfulness. Furthermore, the effect persisted: five weeks after the incentives ceased, the shared prize group maintained a 33% relative reduction in unbuckled trips compared to the control group.26

6.2 Telematics and Commercial ROI

Commercial fleets have adopted these behavioral principles aggressively because the ROI is tangible. Telematics systems, which monitor speeding, braking, and cornering, offer immediate feedback to drivers. Fleets implementing safety telematics have reported significant improvements: a 30-60% reduction in crashes, a 6-14% reduction in fuel costs, and an overall ROI of 650-850%.28

In the consumer market, Usage-Based Insurance (UBI) programs like Progressive’s Snapshot and State Farm’s Drive Safe & Save apply these principles. While marketed as discounts (saving ~$322/year on average for Snapshot users), they function behaviorally as “monitoring incentives”.30 The mere presence of the device (the “sentinel effect”) alters behavior because the driver knows they are being watched. These programs typically offer an initial participation discount (e.g., 10%) followed by a variable discount (up to 30% or more) based on actual driving metrics like braking, acceleration, and phone distraction.32

7. The Legal Landscape: Gambling, Sweepstakes, and Employment Law

Implementing incentive programs, particularly those involving chance (lotteries, raffles), requires navigating a complex minefield of state and federal gambling laws. A public health official or employer failing to distinguish between a “sweepstakes” and an “illegal lottery” risks criminal liability.

7.1 The Three Elements of Gambling

In almost all US jurisdictions, an illegal lottery or gambling operation exists when three elements are present simultaneously 33:

1. Prize: Something of value is awarded (cash, goods, vacations).
2. Chance: The winner is determined by luck, not skill.
3. Consideration: The participant must give up something of value (money, significant effort) to enter.

7.2 The “Consideration” Trap in Health Incentives

For a health incentive to be legal, it must eliminate one of these three elements. Since the Prize is necessary for motivation and Chance is inherent to the sweepstakes design, the legal strategy almost always focuses on eliminating Consideration.

In a commercial context, “consideration” is usually money (buying a ticket). In a public health context, “consideration” can be interpreted more broadly. Some legal interpretations suggest that requiring a medical procedure (which involves travel, time, and potentially insurance billing) constitutes consideration. However, most states (like Ohio during Vax-a-Million) bypassed this by funding the prizes with public money and arguing that the public benefit outweighed the “cost” to the entrant.35

To be absolutely safe from gambling laws, programs typically offer an Alternative Method of Entry (AMOE). This allows individuals to enter the sweepstakes without completing the health behavior, usually by mailing in a 3x5 card with their contact information. This removes the “consideration” (the health act) from the entry requirements.37 While this theoretically allows people to win without being healthy, the “hassle cost” of the AMOE (finding a card, buying a stamp, mailing it) is usually high enough that most people prefer to just perform the health behavior.

7.3 Employer-Mandated Incentives and the EEOC

When employers offer incentives (lotteries or cash) for health compliance (vaccines, wellness programs), they trigger the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) rules.

The central legal concept is coercion. The incentive cannot be so substantial that it effectively forces an employee to undergo a medical procedure they might object to for religious or disability reasons.38 The EEOC has historically struggled to define exactly what constitutes “coercive,” but general guidance suggests that incentives should not be so large that a reasonable person would feel compelled to participate against their will.

Furthermore, under the ADA, if an employee cannot get vaccinated or participate in a wellness activity due to a disability, the employer must provide a reasonable accommodation to allow them to earn the incentive (or enter the lottery) through alternative means. For example, if a lottery requires a COVID-19 vaccine, an employee with a medical exemption might be allowed to qualify by wearing a mask and submitting to weekly testing.38 Failure to provide this accommodation can result in discrimination lawsuits.

8. Ethical Considerations: Coercion and Equity

The use of psychological triggers to modify behavior raises deep ethical questions that policymakers must weigh against public health goals.

Coercion vs. Inducement: Bioethicists distinguish between an “inducement” (an offer you can refuse) and “coercion” (a threat you cannot refuse). Most public health incentives are technically inducements. However, for low-income populations, a large financial incentive might arguably become “coercive” if the need for money overrides their autonomy to make a medical decision. If a $100 voucher is the difference between eating and starving, is the choice to get vaccinated truly voluntary?.40

The Equity Paradox: Financial incentives can inadvertently exacerbate inequities. If a program offers a tax break or a reimbursement (e.g., gym membership reimbursement), it favors those with the capital to pay upfront. Conversely, cash incentives are often most effective in lower socioeconomic groups, serving as a redistributive mechanism that also improves health outcomes. Therefore, designing incentives that are accessible to the most vulnerable—such as immediate cash or grocery vouchers rather than tax rebates—is essential for equitable public health policy.42

9. Sustainability: Do Habits Stick?

The “holy grail” of behavioral design is habit formation—creating a behavior change that persists after the incentive is removed.

Meta-analyses suggest that while financial incentives are powerful during the intervention, their post-intervention effects are mixed. In smoking cessation, effects can persist for 3-6 months post-incentive, likely because the incentive helped the user bridge the difficult physiological withdrawal period.7 However, for physical activity, incentives often fail to create lasting habits on their own; once the money stops, the walking often stops.

This is where Gamification and Social Incentives show their superiority. In the BE ACTIVE trial, the gamification group maintained higher step counts during the follow-up period than the pure financial incentive group.43 Interventions that change the environment or social structure (like shared incentives that build team accountability) tend to be stickier than those that simply “rent” the behavior with cash.

10. Conclusion

The landscape of preventive incentives has matured from simple “carrots and sticks” to a nuanced architecture of behavioral nudges. The evidence reviewed in this report points to several key conclusions for the design of future public health programs.

First, Context is King. For simple, one-time behaviors like vaccinations, immediate cash or “Regret Lotteries” are effective tools, though they face saturation points. For continuous, habit-based behaviors like exercise or seatbelt usage, Gamification and Shared Social Incentives provide the durability that cash lacks.

Second, Design Trumps Magnitude. A smaller incentive designed around loss aversion (e.g., a deposit contract or regret lottery) can outperform a larger, standard incentive. The “Shared Pot” model for seatbelts demonstrates that social accountability is a more efficient currency than individual financial gain.

Third, Legal Safety Requires AMOE. To avoid the legal quagmire of gambling laws, public health lotteries must rigorously eliminate “consideration” by offering Alternative Methods of Entry.

Policymakers must view incentives not as a cost, but as an investment in behavioral infrastructure. The most expensive incentive is the one that fails to change behavior. By designing for the human mind—with all its biases, fears, and social needs—we can build public health programs that are not only compliant with the law but resonant with the people they serve.

Works cited

1. The Effectiveness of Financial Incentives for Health Behaviour Change: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis | PLOS One - Research journals, accessed January 6, 2026, https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0090347
2. Investigating Rewards and Deposit Contract Financial Incentives for Physical Activity Behavior Change Using a Smartphone App: Randomized Controlled Trial - PMC, accessed January 6, 2026, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11042509/
3. Limits on Regret as a Tool for Incentive Design - National Bureau of Economic Research, accessed January 6, 2026, https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w32759/w32759.pdf
4. reversals between one-shot and repeated decisions in incentive design: the case of regret - University of Pittsburgh, accessed January 6, 2026, https://sites.pitt.edu/~alistair/papers/Regret_Post.pdf
5. Study Finds Shared Incentive Increases Seat Belt Use - Penn Injury Science Center, accessed January 6, 2026, https://www.penninjuryscience.org/study-finds-shared-pot-incentive-increases-seat-belt-use/
6. Cost-Effectiveness of Gamification, Financial Incentives, or Both to Increase Physical Activity Among Patients With Elevated Risk for Cardiovascular Disease | Circulation - American Heart Association Journals, accessed January 6, 2026, https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/10.1161/CIRCOUTCOMES.124.011839
7. Financial Incentives for Patients - NIHR Evidence, accessed January 6, 2026, https://evidence.nihr.ac.uk/collection/financial-incentives-for-patients/
8. Systematic Review on Use of Health Incentives in U.S. to Change Maternal Health Behavior, accessed January 6, 2026, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7956068/
9. The use of financial incentives for smoking cessation in pregnant women: A parallel‐group randomised controlled trial protocol - PubMed Central, accessed January 6, 2026, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12046475/
10. A systematic review of financial incentives given in the healthcare setting; do they effectively improve physical activity levels? - NIH, accessed January 6, 2026, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4893256/
11. Evaluating Financial Incentives as a Tool to Increase Medication Adherence for Patients with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis - NIH, accessed January 6, 2026, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11868475/
12. Rationale and Design of EMPOWER, a Pragmatic Randomized Trial of Automated Hovering in Patients with Congestive Heart Failure - PMC - NIH, accessed January 6, 2026, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6450407/
13. Modeling lottery incentives for daily adherence - ResearchGate, accessed January 6, 2026, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/332175033_Modeling_lottery_incentives_for_daily_adherence
14. Applying Behavioral Economics Concepts in Designing Usage-Based Car Insurance Products - AgEcon Search, accessed January 6, 2026, https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/207274/files/2010_155_Applying_Behavioral_Concepts_Car_Insurance.pdf
15. Behavioral economics implementation: Regret lottery improves mHealth patient study adherence. - Donald and Barbara Zucker School of Medicine, accessed January 6, 2026, https://academicworks.medicine.hofstra.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=6245&context=publications
16. How deposits and lotteries increased short-term weight loss by 10 pounds, accessed January 6, 2026, https://thedecisionlab.com/intervention/how-deposits-and-lotteries-increased-short-term-weight-loss-by-10-pounds
17. Ohio Vax-a-Million Drives Increase in Vaccination Across State, accessed January 6, 2026, https://odh.ohio.gov/media-center/odh-news-releases/odh-news-release-05-20-21
18. Accessed January 6, 2026, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8323513
19. Impact of Vax-a-Million Lottery on COVID-19 Vaccination Rates in Ohio - PubMed Central, accessed January 6, 2026, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8323513/
20. Did Ohio’s Vaccine Lottery Increase Vaccination Rates? A Pre-Registered, Synthetic Control Study | Journal of Experimental Political Science, accessed January 6, 2026, https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/journal-of-experimental-political-science/article/did-ohios-vaccine-lottery-increase-vaccination-rates-a-preregistered-synthetic-control-study/07720E0BB974962FE4547FF2BCC71CAC
21. Million-dollar Ohio COVID lottery didn’t drive vaccine uptake: study | CIDRAP, accessed January 6, 2026, https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/million-dollar-ohio-covid-lottery-didnt-drive-vaccine-uptake-study
22. The Ohio Vaccine Lottery and Starting Vaccination Rates | American Journal of Health Economics: Vol 8, No 3, accessed January 6, 2026, https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/full/10.1086/718512
23. Gamification and financial incentives increase physical activity in patients at risk for CV events - - PACE-CME, accessed January 6, 2026, https://pace-cme.org/news/gamification-and-financial-incentives-increase-physical-activity-patients-risk-cv-events/2462681/
24. Cost-Effectiveness of Gamification, Financial Incentives, or Both to Increase Physical Activity Among Patients With Elevated Risk for Cardiovascular Disease - PubMed, accessed January 6, 2026, https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40525292/
25. Comparing the effectiveness of badges and leaderboards on academic performance and motivation of students in fully versus partially gamified online physics classes - PMC - NIH, accessed January 6, 2026, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8916940/
26. Small incentives drive lasting seatbelt habits | Penn Medicine, accessed January 6, 2026, https://www.pennmedicine.org/news/small-incentives-drive-lasting-seatbelt-habits
27. Small incentives drive lasting seatbelt habits, cut unbuckled trips by a third | Penn Today, accessed January 6, 2026, https://penntoday.upenn.edu/news/small-incentives-drive-lasting-seatbelt-habits-cut-unbuckled-trips-third
28. The ROI of Telematics: How Data-Driven Decisions Lead to Real-World Savings - HVI App, accessed January 6, 2026, https://heavyvehicleinspection.com/article/the-roi-of-telematics-how-data-driven-decisions-lead-to-real-world-savings
29. Safety Telematics: the ROI of Driver Safety - GreenRoad, accessed January 6, 2026, https://greenroad.com/blog/telematics-talking-roi/
30. Snapshot Rewards You for Good Driving - Progressive, accessed January 6, 2026, https://www.progressive.com/auto/discounts/snapshot/
31. Progressive Snapshot Review: How It Works, Savings, and Whether It’s Worth It - Insurify, accessed January 6, 2026, https://insurify.com/car-insurance/companies/progressive/snapshot/
32. Drive Safe & Save® – Safe Driver Discounts - State Farm®, accessed January 6, 2026, https://www.statefarm.com/insurance/auto/discounts/drive-safe-save
33. Planning a Giveaway: Legal Considerations for Contests and Sweepstakes - Varnum LLP, accessed January 6, 2026, https://www.varnumlaw.com/insights/planning-a-giveaway-legal-considerations-for-contests-and-sweepstakes/
34. Super Bowl LVIII Betting Highlights the Difference between ‘Gambling’ and ‘Sweepstakes’, accessed January 6, 2026, https://www.enteractivesolutions.com/blog/super-bowl-betting-highlights-the-difference-between-gambling-and-sweepstakes/
35. Section 2915.01 - Ohio Revised Code - Ohio Laws, accessed January 6, 2026, https://codes.ohio.gov/ohio-revised-code/section-2915.01
36. COVID-19 financial lottery effect on vaccine hesitant areas: Results from Ohio’s Vax-a-million program - PMC - PubMed Central, accessed January 6, 2026, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8387135/
37. Shield your sweepstakes from gambling laws - Thompson Coburn LLP, accessed January 6, 2026, https://www.thompsoncoburn.com/insights/shield-your-sweepstakes-from-gambling-laws/
38. COVID-19 Vaccination Sweepstakes: Best Practices for Employee Incentives - K&L Gates, accessed January 6, 2026, https://www.klgates.com/COVID-19-Vaccination-Sweepstakes-Best-Practices-for-Employee-Incentives-1-18-2022
39. What You Should Know About COVID-19 and the ADA, the Rehabilitation Act, and Other EEO Laws - EEOC, accessed January 6, 2026, https://www.eeoc.gov/wysk/what-you-should-know-about-covid-19-and-ada-rehabilitation-act-and-other-eeo-laws
40. Coercive public health policies need context-specific ethical justifications - PMC - NIH, accessed January 6, 2026, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7617997/
41. Attachment A - Addressing Ethical Concerns, Payment to Research | HHS.gov, accessed January 6, 2026, https://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/sachrp-committee/recommendations/attachment-a-september-30-2019/index.html
42. Personal financial incentives in health promotion: where do they fit in an ethic of autonomy?, accessed January 6, 2026, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3123700/
43. Effect of Gamification, Financial Incentives, or Both to Increase Physical Activity Among Patients at High Risk of Cardiovascular Events: The BE ACTIVE Randomized Controlled Trial | Circulation, accessed January 6, 2026, https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.124.069531
44. Heart Patients Walked More by Using Games and Incentives Not to Lose Money - Penn LDI, accessed January 6, 2026, https://ldi.upenn.edu/our-work/research-updates/heart-patients-walked-more-by-using-games-and-incentives-not-to-lose-money-new-study-showed/