I've read several studies published in recent weeks that suggest the U.S. is over-reacting to the high rates of obesity and that since the obese will have shorter expected lifespans, the cost of obesity is negligible, if not positive. I disagree with the findings of Pieter van Baal at the Netherlands' National Institute of Public Health. The study estimated, using models and not actual subjects, the lifespan and health care costs for three groups: thin non-smokers, obese non-smokers and smokers. The following table are their estimates for lifespan and health care costs from the age of 20 forward:
| Lifespan | Health care cost | Incremental cost for final years | Average Cost |
Thin non-smoker | 84 | $ 417,000 | $ 11,500 | $ 6,516 |
Obese non-smoker | 80 | $ 371,000 | $ 15,000 | $ 6,183 |
Smoker | 77 | $ 326,000 | | $ 5,719 |
Essentially, this analysis suggests that the obese non-smoker will live four fewer years than their non-obese peers, and save $11,500 per year in medical costs. As people in their 80's are also receiving Social Security from the government, there would be additional savings.
The study was again based solely on models and not actual data. Additionally, a lifespan of 80 or 84 years is longer than the average lifespan observed today. Also, the costs in the final years of life are high enough to drive the average health costs per year up nearly $800 for a 60 year period. My final critique is that there was no estimate for lost productivity or a decrease in quality of life between the groups.
This would be very interesting analysis to see, however, I feel the van Baal study has enough holes to draw the findings into question. If anyone is aware of a study with normalized data from actual subjects, please let me know.
Thank you.
No comments:
Post a Comment