Smokers, the obese cheaper to treat than healthy, long-living people: study

[lockedout]

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.

"It [the finding] 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 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 US, from age 20 on.

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

Obesity not as costly as once thought: study

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 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."

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."

http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/sm...study-1.764092

[Krille]

That's really all there is to say.

Yes. Groundbreaking study right there. Probably took them 2 weeks to figure that out.

[Daymanmb]

In short: Let people smoke and eat and mind your own goddamn business.

We need a like button.

[GennGreymane]

Turns out living longer is expensive

get them fat and dead.

[Arewn]

Oh, that thing we all already knew implicitly. But now they've found a way to present it so that it completely ignores the significance of weight and smoking related medical costs. Neat.

[Kalis]

Did they take into account loss of productivity?

[sweatshopkids]

Turns out living longer is expensive

get them fat and dead.

I agree with you. Obese and smokers should be dead.

[May90]

Supporting retired people was never about economical benefit, it was about... well, humanity. So the results of this study aren't exactly condensed matter physics.

[Noradin]

"A surprise"? Really?

- - - Updated - - -

Did they take into account loss of productivity?

Unlikely, they do not have to pay for that.

[Underverse]

*Not including opportunity costs and costs of disability

This will also change when we have more widespread medical treatment options for obesity, and better treatment options for things like emphysema, heart disease, and lung cancer.

[Cthulhu 2020]

Fatter and less healthy populace that dies earlier = less productivity as well. As this study ONLY looked at the cost to the health care system... well, let's get a broader reaching study.

[Tojara]

Did they take into account loss of productivity?

"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. "

Which is huge IMO, considering the article mentions that between ages of 20 and 56, obese people were the most expensive group to care for. At least where I live the most productive years of your life are basically those ages.

[Underverse]

"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. "

Which is huge IMO, considering the article mentions that between ages of 20 and 56, obese people were the most expensive group to care for. At least where I live the most productive years of your life are basically those ages.

I wonder how much productivity is lost in 15m smoking breaks? Probably a lot, when you net it over a lifetime and a population.

[Nihilist74]

Fatter and less healthy populace that dies earlier = less productivity as well. As this study ONLY looked at the cost to the health care system... well, let's get a broader reaching study.

We can use machines that will be more productive anyways.

[Hotmail]

The so-called cost-benefit analysis all too often suffers from a failure to account for ALL costs and ALL benefits. By electing to engage in activities that can send you to an early meeting with your maker, you cost your family the benefits of your work, your employer your labor and even your neighbor the benefits of your neighborliness. Count these, and you have only started...

[Underverse]

We can use machines that will be more productive anyways.

Not for all jobs.

[Breccia]

Well I think we all know where this is going. Looks like the Surgeon General's got a lot of work Monday morning.

[Kalis]

"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. "

Which is huge IMO, considering the article mentions that between ages of 20 and 56, obese people were the most expensive group to care for. At least where I live the most productive years of your life are basically those ages.

Looks like I should learn to skim read better.

[Flutterguy]

"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. "

Which is huge IMO, considering the article mentions that between ages of 20 and 56, obese people were the most expensive group to care for. At least where I live the most productive years of your life are basically those ages.

You have to factor in the sheer amount they spend though on food and cigarettes.

[Hotmail]

Looks like I should learn to skim read better.

There are only so many available comments out there.