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.
"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 nonsmoking), 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.
Comments
LJWorld.com doesn’t necessarily condone the comments here, nor does it review every post. Read our full policy. Also, read about banned accounts and harassing comments.
canyon_wren (anonymous) says…
What strange logic! Why does the article assume that all healthy people who live longer will NEED expensive treatment?
It's not surprising that this study would come from the Netherlands, where euthanasia has been in place for some time. I suppose pretty soon they will decide to get rid of people who are obese in that country, as well.
seriouscat (anonymous) says…
Yet another way to place a price tag on human life. Way to go Western Culture!
blue73harley (anonymous) says…
Hey, I am doing my part by staying as unhealthy as possible!
consumer1 (anonymous) says…
Just curious? Does this cost analysis factor in the social cost of providing welfare to obese people who don't work?
Increased premiums the rest of us pay, because of indigent smokers/ obese folks? The cost of research over the last 35 years creating these theories? The increase in insuranace premiums we all must shoulder because of risk factors related to hospital cost of obese people/smokers?
Studies and data collected can always be manipulated to represent the agenda of someone trying to make a point.
jonas (anonymous) says…
Kyahahahahahaha. That's pretty funny.
Con1: Two things. First line, why would it factor in the social cost of providing welfare to obese people who don't work? Might as well ask why it doesn't factor in the social cost of fat people suing newspapers for libel. Because its another issue.
Last line, I agree completely, but suggest you think about the necessity of applying that mindset as well to the research done to support theories against smoking. I think if anyone believes that they have the full picture of the different costs and benefits on both sides of the aisle on smoking and its effects, they have probably been misled at some point.
BrianR (anonymous) says…
Darn...healthy people, they have their nerve finding the slowest possible way to die.
Sigmund (anonymous) says…
BrianR (Anonymous) says: "Darn:healthy people, they have their nerve finding the slowest possible way to die."
As long as they are paying for their own health costs, no problem. Bbut once we have National Health Care they costs the rest of us big bucks!
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/02/...
BrianR (anonymous) says…
And so the American insurance driven system is not more expensive for the same reasons? Of course it is.
canyon_wren (anonymous) says…
scenebooster--I am opposed to euthanasia--if people really want to "die with dignity," I have no problem with them committing suicide, though I personally think that is wrong. But helping someone else kill himself/herself is going too far. If it ended there, maybe I could bear the idea, but in our lifetime, there are going to be some scary decisions made about who deserves to live and who doesn't. Maybe YOU wouldn't mind being among those considered dispensible, but I WOULD.
Sigmund (anonymous) says…
BrianR (Anonymous) says: "And so the American insurance driven system is not more expensive for the same reasons? Of course it is."
You can opt out of private systems, or choose a private system that doesn't allow the obese, or only covers catastrophic health issues, etc. You get to choose.
I see Hillary Clinton wants to garnish the wages of people who don't have health care, forcing enrollment in a system that costs more the healthier America becomes.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/04/us/...
Sigmund (anonymous) says…
BTW, if any group of people know how broken National Health Services are, it is the blokes in the UK.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/02/...
BrianR (anonymous) says…
Ok, so the bottom line is, I won't read anything here that I don't already know or haven't already heard.
SpeedRacer (anonymous) says…
Why are we looking at a London study? Hasn't Congress allocated several hundred million dollars in porkbarrel spending on the same studies in the U.S. over the last 20 years? (money that could actually have been spent on health care instead of studies)
Sigmund (anonymous) says…
It is not the governments job to force healthy young people to pay for the health care of aging baby boomers. But hey, if you have the free cash please be sure to vote for National Health Services candidates!