Science Get Fat, Start Smoking…
posted by on February 6 at 14:00 PM
… and save us all some cash, by dying earlier.
With a simulation model, lifetime health-care costs were estimated for a cohort of obese people aged 20 y at baseline. To assess the impact of obesity, comparisons were made with similar cohorts of smokers and “healthy-living” persons (defined as nonsmokers with a body mass index between 18.5 and 25). Except for relative risk values, all input parameters of the simulation model were based on data from The Netherlands…(Emphasis added.)Until age 56 y, annual health expenditure was highest for obese people. At older ages, smokers incurred higher costs. Because of differences in life expectancy, however, lifetime health expenditure was highest among healthy-living people and lowest for smokers. Obese individuals held an intermediate position. Alternative values of epidemiologic parameters and cost definitions did not alter these conclusions.
It’s long been assumed if we—through clever preventive medicine and public policy—prevent people from becoming obese or smoking, lifetime medical expense should decrease. Right? Maybe wrong.
(Standard disclaimers apply: This study may only apply to the Dutch, those living below sea level or the blonde. Data from US population studies was applied to a different population. This is a simulation study, rather than a study of actual people. Nor was it an interventional study. Any premature death or incurred expense from reading this post or article is entirely your fault.)
Duh.
yeah -- but a healthy person theoretically pays more into the system as well. to be fair, the fees would be determined considering all these details, and would have to even out.
in that way -- with a distributed cost -- a healthy person gets to pay less because other people are dying sooner.
and a healthy person possibly also enjoys life more and it is worth the added cost.
I had always assumed this to be the case, but it's nice to see some research on it. Think about it - who costs us the most money? Retired people. Die before then, and nobody has to pay out a dime. Soylent Green, anyone?
Hmm. Maybe I should gain some weight: I'd rather die of a heart attack than a stroke or Alzheimers. I helped my Dad take care of my Grandpa after his stroke, and it's nothing I'd ever want for myself. Locked in a non-functioning body, stuck in a bed, with my mind not working quite right either? *Shudder*
Smoking's just too icky to contemplate though, I never could stomach its smell--nauseating. I do like the scent of unburnt tobacco, if it wasn't supporting an industry I dislike, I'd buy some for poupourri.
By this logic, a SIDS baby is the ultimate in health care savings.
Gitai just may be on to something!
#6, what about aborted fetuses?
@2,
Unless they live past retirement age, when, under our current tax code, many people's tax burden decreases.
also, what is their health cost per year and their quality of life per year?
well, think of it like an investment. as you are investing, if you pull the money out early, you get less. if you pull it out later, you'll have more -- in fact, much more.
so if you smoke, you'll need the money earlier. but if you don't, you're investment into the system has had longer to grow. while it might cost more in terms of dollars, it's not necessarily more of a financial burden on the system.
add to that that the rates (in a socialized system) should be equitable, and it should work in favour of the healthy, and costs should go down over time by encouraging healthy behavior. unhealthy behavior would just be a shorter-term investment.
Comments Closed
In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 14 days old).