|
|
|
|
cherylpf
crazy cat lady
|
|
|
Joined: 14 May 2002
Posts: 17304
|
| Back to top
|
|
 Posted: 06/29/05 - 09:26 Post subject: Obesity health costs increase
No real debate here, I just found the numbers eye opening.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/usatoday/healthspendingsoarsforobesity
Health spending soars for obesity By Nanci Hellmich, USA TODAY
Mon Jun 27, 7:17 AM ET
Private health insurance spending on illnesses related to obesity has increased more than tenfold since 1987, according to the first research to quantify the trend.
The growth in obesity has fueled a dramatic increase in the amount spent treating diabetes, heart disease, high cholesterol and other weight-related illnesses, says the study, which is published today in Health Affairs, an online journal of health policy and research.
Overall, employers and privately insured families spent $36.5 billion on obesity-linked illnesses in 2002, up from an inflation-adjusted $3.6 billion in 1987. That's up from 2% of total health care spending on obesity in 1987 to 11.6% in 2002, the latest year for which data are available.
On average, treating an obese person cost $1,244 more in 2002 than treating a healthy-weight person did. In 1987, the gap was $272.
And the obesity problem is "only going to get worse," says lead author Kenneth Thorpe, chairman of the department of health policy and management at Emory University in Atlanta. "The costs are up because so many more Americans are obese and because they're being more aggressively treated for weight-related illnesses."
About 31% of U.S. adults are obese - 30 or more pounds over a healthy weight. That's up from 23% in the late 1980s and 15% in the late 1970s.
The study comes as businesses, the government and consumers are struggling with soaring health care costs. "Most of what is going on now to try to control health care spending is missing the target," Thorpe says. "Companies are tweaking co-pays and talking about health care savings accounts when really they need to redirect their focus to reduce the prevalence of obesity among children and workers."
Thorpe and his colleagues analyzed national surveys of about 14,000 people from 1987 and 2002. The data included health care spending, medical conditions and trips to the doctor, hospital and pharmacy. Findings:
• The percentage of obese people being treated for high cholesterol, mental disorders and upper gastrointestinal disorders increased 10 percentage points.
• The increase in adult-onset diabetes contributed to a 64% rise in diabetes treatment from 1987 to 2002.
• About 25% of the extremely obese (80 or more pounds overweight) were being treated for six or more conditions in 2002, compared with 14% in 1987.
Thorpe's findings add to growing evidence that extra pounds increase medical costs. A study last year by RTI International in Raleigh, N.C., and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention showed that obese and overweight Americans racked up about $75 billion in weight-related medical bills in 2003. Because much of this is covered by Medicare and Medicaid, taxpayers pay about half the total, the study found.
|
|
|
|
|
sonnylax
Member
|
|
|
Joined: 30 Sep 2003
Posts: 2942
Location: Living in a lollipop and unicorn world
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 06/29/05 - 09:40 Post subject:
Staggering.
Wouldn't it be cool if insurance companies could offer you a premium based on maintaining a certain weight/body fat percentage? Imagine how much cheaper your insurance would be for those of us that took better care of ourselves. Don't think the govt. will allow that to happen anytime soon.
|
|
|
|
|
Gogirlgo
Member
|
|
|
Joined: 25 Jul 2002
Posts: 4776
Location: No deal, stalker.
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 06/29/05 - 10:42 Post subject:
| sonnylax wrote: | Staggering.
Wouldn't it be cool if insurance companies could offer you a premium based on maintaining a certain weight/body fat percentage? Imagine how much cheaper your insurance would be for those of us that took better care of ourselves. Don't think the govt. will allow that to happen anytime soon. |
Where have you been? Insurance companies already do things like pay for a certain amount of the cost if you're obese, go to Weight Watchers or some other gov-sanctioned program, take the weight off and keep it off for a year. They've been doing this for years.
|
|
|
|
|
copteacher
Adjunct
|
|
|
Joined: 08 Jun 2002
Posts: 20588
Location: Teaching in the Halls of Justice
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 06/29/05 - 11:02 Post subject:
| Gogirlgo wrote: |
Where have you been? Insurance companies already do things like pay for a certain amount of the cost if you're obese, go to Weight Watchers or some other gov-sanctioned program, take the weight off and keep it off for a year. They've been doing this for years. |
but that does not affect the premium or co pay of said person. It may help the group as a whole but I think Sonny is talking more about the individual subscriber.
I see your point M, but once it is paid for, there is no real reward for maintenance. I think that would be a great motivator.
|
|
|
|
|
Gogirlgo
Member
|
|
|
Joined: 25 Jul 2002
Posts: 4776
Location: No deal, stalker.
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 06/29/05 - 11:11 Post subject:
I just think it isn't the gov that wouldn't want it to happen, it's the insurance companies themselves.
|
|
|
|
|
sonnylax
Member
|
|
|
Joined: 30 Sep 2003
Posts: 2942
Location: Living in a lollipop and unicorn world
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 06/29/05 - 15:11 Post subject:
| Gogirlgo wrote: | | I just think it isn't the gov that wouldn't want it to happen, it's the insurance companies themselves. |
Nope. The federal government mandates that companies provide universal coverage for all. Companies aren't allowed to pick and choose individuals who they get to sell insurance to. They can't choose to only cover "healthy" people. They are also mandated to cover things like pregnacies. (Last time I checked, I couldn't get pregnant.)
Bottom-line: If there was less federal red-tape, insurance companies could provide more coverage, for less dollars. But that's big government at work for you.
|
|
|
|
|
runaroundsue
Member
|
|
|
Joined: 18 Sep 2002
Posts: 6629
Location: supporting GREENer pastures
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 06/29/05 - 18:17 Post subject:
| sonnylax wrote: |
Nope. The federal government mandates that companies provide universal coverage for all. Companies aren't allowed to pick and choose individuals who they get to sell insurance to. They can't choose to only cover "healthy" people. They are also mandated to cover things like pregnacies. (Last time I checked, I couldn't get pregnant.)
Bottom-line: If there was less federal red-tape, insurance companies could provide more coverage, for less dollars. But that's big government at work for you. |
and the govt covers gastric bypass now, so where is the incentive to lose weight slowly???? I've actually heard of people gaining a few to push them into obese to qualify. Face it, we've become a fat, lazy country
|
|
|
|
|
Gogirlgo
Member
|
|
|
Joined: 25 Jul 2002
Posts: 4776
Location: No deal, stalker.
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 06/29/05 - 20:32 Post subject:
| sonnylax wrote: |
Nope. The federal government mandates that companies provide universal coverage for all. Companies aren't allowed to pick and choose individuals who they get to sell insurance to. They can't choose to only cover "healthy" people. They are also mandated to cover things like pregnacies. (Last time I checked, I couldn't get pregnant.)
Bottom-line: If there was less federal red-tape, insurance companies could provide more coverage, for less dollars. But that's big government at work for you. |
Your argument doesn't negate my point. I didn't say the companies wouldn't insure them. What I said was they are the ones who don't want to do it for less money, the gov has no incentive there.
If you're distressed about Big Gov, are you fighting the premise that it mandates universal coverage, too?
|
|
|
|
|
runaroundsue
Member
|
|
|
Joined: 18 Sep 2002
Posts: 6629
Location: supporting GREENer pastures
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 06/29/05 - 21:55 Post subject:
| Gogirlgo wrote: |
Your argument doesn't negate my point. I didn't say the companies wouldn't insure them. What I said was they are the ones who don't want to do it for less money, the gov has no incentive there.
If you're distressed about Big Gov, are you fighting the premise that it mandates universal coverage, too? |
but the gov't hasn't proved that it is even capable of running the healthcare aspects that ARE suppose to be gov't run! They basically hand it over to private companies, why? Because TPA run it more effectively and efficiently and don't have to pay government salaries.
More and more military hospitals are directing their patients where? private hospitals. If government can prove that they actually can run these two aspects efficiently, without the help of private carriers or hospitals, I'd have more confidence that this country can turn to universal healthcare. But then again, veterans appear to be so happy with their medical care 
|
|
|
|
|
sonnylax
Member
|
|
|
Joined: 30 Sep 2003
Posts: 2942
Location: Living in a lollipop and unicorn world
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 06/30/05 - 08:03 Post subject:
| Gogirlgo wrote: |
Your argument doesn't negate my point. I didn't say the companies wouldn't insure them. What I said was they are the ones who don't want to do it for less money, the gov has no incentive there.
If you're distressed about Big Gov, are you fighting the premise that it mandates universal coverage, too? |
Whose to say they wouldn't do it for less money if they could pick and choose or provide health care benefits "a la carte" style? My point is that the govt. doesn't let them do that.
|
|
|
|
  |
All times are GMT - 4 Hours
|
|
