SubscribeObese People Have Lower Health Costs
New research shows that the lifelong healthcare costs of obese people are lower than that of healthy people.
The reason is simple: obese people don't live as long as their thinner counterparts.
The study (appearing in the Public Library of Science Journal) determined the following using a simulation model.
Cost of lifelong care (from age 20 onwards)
- Slim and Healthy Group: $417,000
- Obese Group: $371,000
- Smoking Group: $326,000
From ages 20 to 56 obese people had the most expensive health costs - but because they died sooner (aged 80 years vs 84 years) - overall costs were less.
Researchers made an interesting conclusion:
Obesity prevention may be an important and cost-effective way of improving public health, but it is not a cure for increasing health expenditures.
Lead Researcher Van Baal suggested 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."
Now that really makes you think about quality of life.
Dude, don't tell the health insurance companies! They'll start looking for my name in local half marathon and 10K results and giving a rate hike for each result they find! ;)
ReplyI'm trying not to laugh. Everything revolves around money. Thank goodness we have a National Health Service in the UK, though it is somewhat lacking in efficiency and quality - the politicians are blowing the budget on other stupid things, I think they're still looking for weapons of mass destruction. Someone needs to tell them, you can't find something that doesn't exist!
ReplyYeah but shorter life spans is bad for the economy...as you have to keep spending money as long as you can! So no worries, the govt will try to keep us healthy. Ha.
Replyi have yet to see the US really advocate health programs that actually motivate people to be healthy- you would think with fresh produce and healthier foods being more expensive that our govt would want us to spend our money on those items than letting us buy all those cheap processed foods... their too busy helping the UK and those WOMD's!!
ReplyNo... they're too busy getting political contributions from the sugar industry to advocate subsidizing actual HEALTHY foods.
ReplyAgreeing with Heather here. Don't tell the insurance companies. That would lead to bad, bad things.
ReplySo I should be obese instead of fit to save money on the healthcare system? Talk about ass-backwards.
ReplyIt only talks about health care costs. The study doesn't look at money cost to the economy in either ways - lost productivity, etc.
In a way, it makes sense. A fit person will live longer.. and if something does happen like a heart attack or the sort, a fit person is more likely to survive and need care afterwards.
It does point out that the argument I have shuddered to hear that one has a right to judge another because they hurt the whole system everyone pays into is flawed at best.
Admittedly, no one is going to live unhealthfully to save their insurance company a few dollars. (Especially since it means they'll die sooner, and have a lower quality of life before death.) They are going to do what they are going to do either way-- and just like insults are not going to lead a morbidly obese person to fitness, a study such as this is not going to have someone adjust their degree of fitness.
ReplyEverything is all about money, isn't it? I'm betting the costs of healthcare would be a lot less for all groups if insurance companies weren't involved. They jack up the rates for EVERYTHING. Considering that my clinic billed my insurance for $700 for my last PAP smear, it's no wonder that routine stuff that healthy people need is running the costs up. I would rather have a life of health care money spent on things like routine health screenings, etc., instead of things like diabetes testing supplies, CPAP machines, tons of cholesterol and blood pressure meds, and that sort of thing.
ReplyI agreed at this point. There is no consideration how the healthy people could contribute to the country. The obese people tend to have clonic diseases and have limitations of their life, so they could not work for their country. Healthier people tend to live longer resulting in more health cost, but they can earn enough money to take care of themselves.
ReplyMmm, yes. Thank goodness for the NHS. Did you catch that article about how the NHS would like to cut costs by denying care to the obese/smokers/heavy drinkers? http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-wellbeing/health-news/obese-may-be-denied-priority-nhs-care-429844.html
Or how about the British government paying the obese to lose weight?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=509867&in_page_id=1770
Of course it is all about the money.
ReplyYataiblue, can you give us some statistics to back up your claims? And no anecdotal evidence please.
ReplyQFT
Reply80% of the 2 TRILLION $$$ the US spends on healthcare is spent on 5 chronic conditions. Diabetes, obesity and hypertension are three of the 5 conditions and are primarily preventable (cancer and CV are the other two). While the absolute cost of obesity may be less than that of a healthy person, life expectancy is a large consideration in the disparity. Additionally, the healthy person is more likely to be working and contributing to the system rather than out on disability and taking from the system.
re: Spectra
I would rather have a life of health care money spent on things like routine health screenings, etc., instead of things like diabetes testing supplies, CPAP machines, tons of cholesterol and blood pressure meds, and that sort of thing.
I think we all would. However what are you going to do when the screening tests come back positive?
Replysorry, it was my guess. If I could prove it, I would have not posted the comment here. I would have submit the paper...
ReplyI just would like to know how much money the both the obese group and healthy group contribute to the society(government) during their lifetime.
ReplyContribution to society is definitely a huge piece of the puzzle. How many obese people are there that are on disability because they are unable to work? I'm guessing there are quite a few. So the medical bills of the obese aren't being paid by the obese, but rather by the taxpayers.
Healthy-weight people are more likely to be fully functioning members of society and better able to pay for their medical bills. Also, it's probably a fair bet to say that non-obese people probably keep up with their preventative care more than obese people do. A lot of obese people avoid checkups and routine tests because they are afraid the doctor will comment on their weight. So it would make sense that a person of a healthy weight would possibly undergo a scenario like this: Get a mammogram, find a tumor that is cancerous, get surgery to remove the tumor and undergo the cancer treatment process, end up cancer-free. The total cost would be higher than an alternate scenario that an obese person may face: Not get regular mammograms and finally go to the doctor because of some very intense pain in their breasts, get a mammogram and find cancer that has metastasized to the lungs and bones that is already inoperable by the time it's discovered.
ReplyThis seems an incredibly cynical way to look at health care costs. It does send a bit of a chill down my spine -- it's all to easy to envisage a future where we encourage people to die young and cheap :-S
ReplyAli
I think this study is cool, I wish we'd stop acting like we want fat people to lose weight for "their" health when we know it's mostly about vanity.
ReplyInteresting. I was just reading that the study, which is Dutch, is counter to multiple studies on the US population. So while this may be a correct finding in some other countries, the US data proves the exact opposite.
Q: A recent Dutch study found that it costs more to provide medical care for healthy people than the obese or smokers, who tend to live shorter lives. What do you make of these results? Are they different from, or similar to studies you address in your book? [The Fattening of America]
A: I am familiar with that analysis. It is well known that smokers tend to subsidize non-smokers because the former pay so much in taxes and die before they can collect their due in social security and Medicare benefits. The researchers’ finding that obese people also cost less is new, and probably not correct for a U.S. population.
It is well established in the U.S. that obese individuals cost more than normal weight individuals at each age of life. I have published several papers showing that result. Recent studies by Fontaine and Flegal also show a relatively small impact of obesity on mortality for BMIs less than 35 (about 70 pounds overweight). As a result, higher age-specific costs and only a slightly shorter life expectancy suggest that the lifetime costs of obesity are indeed positive for most obese adults. The same goes for overweight adults, as they do not seem to have any shorter life expectancy. So I doubt their results for obesity are accurate for the U.S. population.
http://freakonomics.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/02/08/the-economics-of-obesity-a-qa-with-the-author-of-the-fattening-of-america/
Reply