Prevention that saves money....
Today's Post: Thursday, 6-25-2009
Today, a health article on the AP online news had this headline.:
“Disease prevention often costs more than it saves”
This post gives a very different view of disease prevention!
That article gives a small handful of examples they say save money.
The authors say that vaccinations save money -- both for children and for adults. They say that even if it takes doctor visits and medicines such as Zyban and prescription nicotine that gradually is reduced to a zero dose, smoking cessation saves far more than it costs.
The evidence supports that. Vaccines are relatively cheap and many of them are close to 100 % effective. And smoking creates so many medical costs, even an inefficient preventive will save money on health care costs.
1. They leave out seat belts and laws mandating their use and the funds to enforce those laws.
That set of things cuts deaths and the medical costs of the injuries in accidents and all the money that costs from what it would have been from those events to only one THIRD of that amount. (Quite often, people who wore seat belts walk away unharmed from accidents that would have injured, maimed, or killed them otherwise.)
2. And, they leave out laws against smoking in public, in hospitals, or around children – and community wide smoking cessation programs.
And, they leave out having high taxes on cigarettes and tobacco and increases in those taxes!
Such taxes RAISE money and reduce health care costs both directly from lower amounts of use and by reducing the number of smokers since fewer kids will start and more smokers will quit.
THAT is prevention that not only SAVES money at no cost, it actually PAYS to do it right up front.
The state of California is now considering a $1.50 per pack tax on cigarettes. Any politician who opposes this is either quite uninformed, not quite bright, or taking money in my opinion.
We now know that because smoking directly causes heart disease, harms both nonsmokers subject to second hand smoke and smokers -- & also tends to TRIGGER heart attacks on top of all that, that the measures we’ve just described when effective cut heart disease and heart attacks enough in one year or less to save MORE money in medical costs than the program to do these things in a year or less. And then they continue to save money year after year.
3. They also leave out that EFFECTIVE prevention efforts do save more than they cost. Their example used a program that involved “weight” loss that was clearly meant to help people eat a more health supporting diet, exercise, and lose excess fat.
They also forget to note that some companies, notably the Safeway company that has the supermarket grocery stores in many communities has that kind of program in place. At a time when other businesses of similar size have had dramatic increase in the costs of health care, Safeway has had almost none and has clearly saved millions of dollars a year and continues to do so.
They give an example of someone using a health coach but suggest that at a success rate of only 1 of 9, as a group prevention measure this does not save money on a system basis because all 9 pay & only one gets prevention.
To be sure fatloss IS difficult because virtually all of us are descendants of the people who SURVIVED famines often more than once before having children.
a) But most people in the United States eat so poorly and exercise so little, simply making doable changes that completely avoid triggering the famine response to eat right and get even some regular exercise would help most Americans lose 5 to 20% of their current bodyweight.
The wonderful news is that those changes in health habits and that much fat loss convey dramatic amounts of prevention.
Studies show fat people who do exercise regularly cut their chances of getting related disease almost in half.
And, people who eat enough better without, or better WITH exercise, to lose just 5 to 10 % of their bodyweight show these dramatic amounts of prevention. Their protective HDL cholesterol goes up. Their dangerous LDL cholesterol, triglycerides, and C Reactive protein inflammation goes down. If their blood pressure or blood sugars were too high, they go down too.
c) AND, heavy taxes on sugar, high fructose corn syrup, artificial sweeteners, refined grains, and separate and additional heavy taxes on all soft drinks other than carbonated water would not only raise money for the government, they would tend to make these behavioral changes happen even for people unable or unwilling to make them on their own. Just like cigarette taxes, these taxes would not only slash health care costs, they would have no costs themselves. In fact they would raise money!!
d) Low to low moderate increases in taxes on alcohol would tend to save money and improve health.
Alcoholic beverages give people enjoyment, relieve stress, and can -- when used wisely -- help people socialize. We even now know that one or two drinks a day and half that amount for women actually improve health compared to people who drink none. And we know that red wine and dark beer actually have additional and positive health effects. This level of drinking increases HDL cholesterol for example.
But drinking beyond those levels and/or drinking more than 3 drinks at a time both makes people fat virtually every time and quite often causes injuries, disrupts families, causes deaths and huge amounts of medical care and property damage that would not have happened otherwise.
So, since moderate increases in taxes on alcohol have been shown to prevent that kind of high consumption to some degree, such taxes WOULD be very cost effective prevention.
4. We are beginning to know a large number of ways that people can improve and protect their health that ARE effective. If more people do them, avoidable disease and health care costs will go down.
5. Lastly, arguments against prevention completely lose sight of an extremely important benefit of effective prevention. People who actively work to practice good health habits, exercise regularly, and prevent avoidable disease are from somewhat to dramatically more productive economically than people who do not.
People who die before retirement age are no longer productive! People who are at the doctors office or home sick or involuntarily retired or disabled or in the hospital are not doing productive work.
People who, because of avoidable illness, don’t think well, feel bad enough they don’t concentrate well, who have no energy, or who have leaky memories, or who have very low stress tolerance or resilience are much less productive than people who are healthy and who exercise regularly.
To put it simply, PREVENTION PAYS.
And informed, smart, and effective prevention pays off BIG!!
Today's Post: Thursday, 6-25-2009
Today, a health article on the AP online news had this headline.:
“Disease prevention often costs more than it saves”
This post gives a very different view of disease prevention!
That article gives a small handful of examples they say save money.
The authors say that vaccinations save money -- both for children and for adults. They say that even if it takes doctor visits and medicines such as Zyban and prescription nicotine that gradually is reduced to a zero dose, smoking cessation saves far more than it costs.
The evidence supports that. Vaccines are relatively cheap and many of them are close to 100 % effective. And smoking creates so many medical costs, even an inefficient preventive will save money on health care costs.
1. They leave out seat belts and laws mandating their use and the funds to enforce those laws.
That set of things cuts deaths and the medical costs of the injuries in accidents and all the money that costs from what it would have been from those events to only one THIRD of that amount. (Quite often, people who wore seat belts walk away unharmed from accidents that would have injured, maimed, or killed them otherwise.)
2. And, they leave out laws against smoking in public, in hospitals, or around children – and community wide smoking cessation programs.
And, they leave out having high taxes on cigarettes and tobacco and increases in those taxes!
Such taxes RAISE money and reduce health care costs both directly from lower amounts of use and by reducing the number of smokers since fewer kids will start and more smokers will quit.
THAT is prevention that not only SAVES money at no cost, it actually PAYS to do it right up front.
The state of California is now considering a $1.50 per pack tax on cigarettes. Any politician who opposes this is either quite uninformed, not quite bright, or taking money in my opinion.
We now know that because smoking directly causes heart disease, harms both nonsmokers subject to second hand smoke and smokers -- & also tends to TRIGGER heart attacks on top of all that, that the measures we’ve just described when effective cut heart disease and heart attacks enough in one year or less to save MORE money in medical costs than the program to do these things in a year or less. And then they continue to save money year after year.
3. They also leave out that EFFECTIVE prevention efforts do save more than they cost. Their example used a program that involved “weight” loss that was clearly meant to help people eat a more health supporting diet, exercise, and lose excess fat.
They also forget to note that some companies, notably the Safeway company that has the supermarket grocery stores in many communities has that kind of program in place. At a time when other businesses of similar size have had dramatic increase in the costs of health care, Safeway has had almost none and has clearly saved millions of dollars a year and continues to do so.
They give an example of someone using a health coach but suggest that at a success rate of only 1 of 9, as a group prevention measure this does not save money on a system basis because all 9 pay & only one gets prevention.
To be sure fatloss IS difficult because virtually all of us are descendants of the people who SURVIVED famines often more than once before having children.
a) But most people in the United States eat so poorly and exercise so little, simply making doable changes that completely avoid triggering the famine response to eat right and get even some regular exercise would help most Americans lose 5 to 20% of their current bodyweight.
The wonderful news is that those changes in health habits and that much fat loss convey dramatic amounts of prevention.
Studies show fat people who do exercise regularly cut their chances of getting related disease almost in half.
And, people who eat enough better without, or better WITH exercise, to lose just 5 to 10 % of their bodyweight show these dramatic amounts of prevention. Their protective HDL cholesterol goes up. Their dangerous LDL cholesterol, triglycerides, and C Reactive protein inflammation goes down. If their blood pressure or blood sugars were too high, they go down too.
c) AND, heavy taxes on sugar, high fructose corn syrup, artificial sweeteners, refined grains, and separate and additional heavy taxes on all soft drinks other than carbonated water would not only raise money for the government, they would tend to make these behavioral changes happen even for people unable or unwilling to make them on their own. Just like cigarette taxes, these taxes would not only slash health care costs, they would have no costs themselves. In fact they would raise money!!
d) Low to low moderate increases in taxes on alcohol would tend to save money and improve health.
Alcoholic beverages give people enjoyment, relieve stress, and can -- when used wisely -- help people socialize. We even now know that one or two drinks a day and half that amount for women actually improve health compared to people who drink none. And we know that red wine and dark beer actually have additional and positive health effects. This level of drinking increases HDL cholesterol for example.
But drinking beyond those levels and/or drinking more than 3 drinks at a time both makes people fat virtually every time and quite often causes injuries, disrupts families, causes deaths and huge amounts of medical care and property damage that would not have happened otherwise.
So, since moderate increases in taxes on alcohol have been shown to prevent that kind of high consumption to some degree, such taxes WOULD be very cost effective prevention.
4. We are beginning to know a large number of ways that people can improve and protect their health that ARE effective. If more people do them, avoidable disease and health care costs will go down.
5. Lastly, arguments against prevention completely lose sight of an extremely important benefit of effective prevention. People who actively work to practice good health habits, exercise regularly, and prevent avoidable disease are from somewhat to dramatically more productive economically than people who do not.
People who die before retirement age are no longer productive! People who are at the doctors office or home sick or involuntarily retired or disabled or in the hospital are not doing productive work.
People who, because of avoidable illness, don’t think well, feel bad enough they don’t concentrate well, who have no energy, or who have leaky memories, or who have very low stress tolerance or resilience are much less productive than people who are healthy and who exercise regularly.
To put it simply, PREVENTION PAYS.
And informed, smart, and effective prevention pays off BIG!!
Labels: disease prevention, disease prevention that lowers health care costs, disease prevention that saves more than it costs, health care policy, lowering health care costs
posted by David at 2:01 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home