We save money by having more obese patients.

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.

Faebinder

Slow Wave Smurf
15+ Year Member
Joined
May 24, 2006
Messages
3,508
Reaction score
14
http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1709882,00.html

Study: Obese are Cheaper to Treat
Monday, Feb. 04, 2008 By AP/MARIA CHENG Article ToolsPrintEmailSphereAddThisRSS (LONDON)—Preventing obesity and smoking can save lives, but it doesn't save money, researchers reported Monday. It costs more to care for healthy people who live years longer, according to a Dutch study that counters the common perception that preventing obesity would save governments millions of dollars.

Related Articles

After the Flood
The small village of Velankanni, on the southeastern coast of India, is thought to be a holy place. ...
Is It O.K. to Be Pudgy?
Millions of pleasantly plump Americans were stepping a little lighter. A study from the Centers for ...
Moore in The E.R.
Here’s something that won’t surprise you: Michael Moore has some gripes about how things are going i...
A Healthy Idea?
President Bush says health savings accounts will expand medical coverage to the uninsured and help c...


"It was a small surprise," said Pieter van Baal, an economist at the Netherlands' National Institute for Public Health and the Environment, who led the study. "But it also makes sense. If you live longer, then you cost the health system more."

In a paper published online Monday in the Public Library of Science Medicine journal, Dutch researchers found that the health costs of thin and healthy people in adulthood are more expensive than those of either fat people or smokers.

Van Baal and colleagues created a model to simulate lifetime health costs for three groups of 1,000 people: the "healthy-living" group (thin and non-smoking), obese people, and smokers. The model relied on "cost of illness" data and disease prevalence in the Netherlands in 2003.

The researchers found that from age 20 to 56, obese people racked up the most expensive health costs. But because both the smokers and the obese people died sooner than the healthy group, it cost less to treat them in the long run.

On average, healthy people lived 84 years. Smokers lived about 77 years, and obese people lived about 80 years. Smokers and obese people tended to have more heart disease than the healthy people.

Cancer incidence, except for lung cancer, was the same in all three groups. Obese people had the most diabetes, and healthy people had the most strokes. Ultimately, the thin and healthy group cost the most, about $417,000, from age 20 on.

The cost of care for obese people was $371,000, and for smokers, about $326,000.

The results counter the common perception that preventing obesity will save health systems worldwide millions of dollars.

"This throws a bucket of cold water onto the idea that obesity is going to cost trillions of dollars," said Patrick Basham, a professor of health politics at Johns Hopkins University who was unconnected to the study. He said that government projections about obesity costs are frequently based on guesswork, political agendas, and changing science.

"If we're going to worry about the future of obesity, we should stop worrying about its financial impact," he said.

Obesity experts said that fighting the epidemic is about more than just saving money.

"The benefits of obesity prevention may not be seen immediately in terms of cost savings in tomorrow's budget, but there are long-term gains," said Neville Rigby, spokesman for the International Association for the Study of Obesity. "These are often immeasurable when it comes to people living longer and healthier lives."

Van Baal described the paper as "a book-keeping exercise," and said that governments should recognize that successful smoking and obesity prevention programs mean that people will have a higher chance of dying of something more expensive later in life.

"Lung cancer is a cheap disease to treat because people don't survive very long," van Baal said. "But if they are old enough to get Alzheimer's one day, they may survive longer and cost more."

The study, paid for by the Dutch Ministry of Health, Welfare and Sports, did not take into account other potential costs of obesity and smoking, such as lost economic productivity or social costs.

"We are not recommending that governments stop trying to prevent obesity," van Baal said. "But they should do it for the right reasons."

I have been saying it's a conspiracy for YEARS!!! HAHAHAHAA

Members don't see this ad.
 
I have two initial responses to this without actually looking at the data. First of all, where are they getting their cost data, the fact that 4 more years of life for a healthy person amounts to an increase in cost of around $50K over an obese person, and $100K for a smoker (over 7 more years) seems really really overestimated. When I first heard that the length of life was the determining factor in healthy people costing more, I assumed they were talking like 15 years minimum.

Secondly, I would be curious if insurance is involved at all. If they are including primary care/preventative care activities, which tend to include a deductable, equally to healthcare where the majority of the burden falls upon insurers, there is a disconnect there. In other words, did they normalize the cost data with the out of pocket amounts paid by the respective samples. It seems to me that healthy people would have a disproportionate percentage of their cost as a deductible compared to obese/smokers.
 
I have two initial responses to this without actually looking at the data. First of all, where are they getting their cost data, the fact that 4 more years of life for a healthy person amounts to an increase in cost of around $50K over an obese person, and $100K for a smoker (over 7 more years) seems really really overestimated. When I first heard that the length of life was the determining factor in healthy people costing more, I assumed they were talking like 15 years minimum.

Secondly, I would be curious if insurance is involved at all. If they are including primary care/preventative care activities, which tend to include a deductable, equally to healthcare where the majority of the burden falls upon insurers, there is a disconnect there. In other words, did they normalize the cost data with the out of pocket amounts paid by the respective samples. It seems to me that healthy people would have a disproportionate percentage of their cost as a deductible compared to obese/smokers.

This is a Dutch Study, and they have a universal healthcare system that probably keeps all of this data funneled away.
 
Members don't see this ad :)
I know there has been data published that estimates the amount of money lost yearly due to obesity-related health problems. Considering this, plus the years of work lost to obese who pass away at a young age due to heart attacks and whatnot, I wonder how much cheaper it is in the long run to take care of the healthy vs. the obese.
 
Well, considering that private insurance in the US has the power to dump you even after 10 years of you paying their premiums.... why would they keep you when the diabetes and smoking catches up with you?

Now if they were forced to keep you after 10 years... then yeah, they should try and recruit those who will die first.... obese and smokers.
 
I have two initial responses to this without actually looking at the data. First of all, where are they getting their cost data, the fact that 4 more years of life for a healthy person amounts to an increase in cost of around $50K over an obese person, and $100K for a smoker (over 7 more years) seems really really overestimated. When I first heard that the length of life was the determining factor in healthy people costing more, I assumed they were talking like 15 years minimum.

Secondly, I would be curious if insurance is involved at all. If they are including primary care/preventative care activities, which tend to include a deductable, equally to healthcare where the majority of the burden falls upon insurers, there is a disconnect there. In other words, did they normalize the cost data with the out of pocket amounts paid by the respective samples. It seems to me that healthy people would have a disproportionate percentage of their cost as a deductible compared to obese/smokers.

You don't know that the 50K and 100K are applied to only a single person. I highly doubt that. If you read the report, the wording strongly suggests that that costs they gave were for each group, and it was a pool of 1000 subjects. Divide the costs per person and it'll probably make a whole lot more sense.

Or maybe it's just easier to wear the tinfoil hat and call conspiracy on the big bad gub't.
 
You don't know that the 50K and 100K are applied to only a single person. I highly doubt that. If you read the report, the wording strongly suggests that that costs they gave were for each group, and it was a pool of 1000 subjects. Divide the costs per person and it'll probably make a whole lot more sense.

The 50 and 100k are per person.

Van Baal and colleagues created a model to simulate lifetime health costs for three groups of 1,000 people


Ultimately, the thin and healthy group cost the most, about $417,000, from age 20 on.
The cost of care for obese people was $371,000, and for smokers, about $326,000.

I doubt that the average cost of care per person for each of the groups is $417, $371 and $326 from age 20 until death. Talk about cheap health care.

Or maybe it's just easier to wear the tinfoil hat and call conspiracy on the big bad gub't

untitled-2.jpg
 
Ugh, then I'll eat my own words and stand corrected. My sincere apologies, I wasn't in the best of moods when I wrote that post.

But the second comment was more directed to the guy implying that the government was essentially making crap up.

Who knows, maybe health care costs become exponentially more expensive in your geriatric years. Paying for a nurse aide, meds, etc. I have more faith in the rigorous peer-review system of science, but then again nothing is perfect.
 
Top