A new, eye-wateringly high estimate of the cost of obesity in the US

A report released this week puts a surprisingly high figure on the societal cost of obesity in the US: $ 1.72 trillion annually, or 9.3 percent of GDP. By contrast, the current CDC estimates are in the $ 150 billion region, less than one tenth as high.

$ 1.72 trillion is the $ 1.24 chill trillion attributed to the "indirect" costs of obesity: the "work absences, lost wages, and reduced economic productivity for the individuals suffering from the conditions and their family caregivers," the report explanation. That is, the bulk of costs other than healthcare spending. The estimate for healthcare spending- $ 480.7 billion annually-is somewhat higher than a range of estimates in the literature, which hover around $ 150 to $ 300 billion, but are still on the same scale.

Estimates like these can vary greatly because of the different methods used in calculating them. For example, a review from 2017 catalogs the different obesity-related diseases that were included in various studies across different countries; respiratory disorders and musculoskeletal disorders A 2016 meta-analysis describes a similarly large range in which medical costs are calculated.

How much is cancer obesity-related?

The new report was published by the Milken Institute, a think tank that aims to increase global prosperity by … widen[ing] access to capital, creat[ing] jobs, and improv[ing] health. "That means that, while reporting heavily on the academic literature, it has not been scrutinized through the process of scientific peer review and does not have the same obligations as its scientific workings.

Hugh Waters and Health Research Analyst Marlon Graf collects data from a range of chronic health conditions. That range includes the culprits like stroke and type 2 diabetes. They used CDC data to establish how common these diseases are in the US.

Next, they calculated how much of this prevalence could be attributed to obesity. Obviously, it would be insane to consider every case of cancer to be the result of obesity, even though obesity is linked to a higher risk of various cancers. So, for instance, to work out what proportion of the total prevalence of cancer can be attributed to obesity, and the risk of cancer is much higher than that of cancer, and they are extrapolated that to the overall prevalence numbers.

The data on costs from a few different sources-a national survey that includes a household survey, along with data from medical insurance, the CDC, and various academic sources. These sources cover both the direct medical costs and the indirect costs of each condition; for instance, one paper estimates the total cost of chronic pain in the US.

Waters and Graf to reach their new estimate of $ 1.72 trillion annually.

Pinning economic value on humans

This method is based on a wide range of data, which is based on a large number of variables. But it is different, different assumptions, and different methods can affect the overall results.

There are still other factors that the report could have taken into account when casting its net. For example, reducing the prevalence of fatal diseases leads to a society with longer lifespans and more, both of direct and indirect, of an aging society. That 's an incredibly complex relationship: it has made it more difficult to treat these conditions.

Another complication pops up, too: additional lifespan does not only bring cost-it has economic gain. "There are, in fact, quantitative methods used by health economists to place a dollar value on additional years of healthy living," says Waters. "These types of studies are usually worth $ 50,000 and the value of $ 2 million and $ 3 million in value." been much higher. "

Adding these factors to the equation would introduce new layers of complexity. Then there are complexities in how do they care? And of course, these calculations would all play out differently in other healthcare systems.

Research that compares the costs of fatal diseases is often conducted with the assumption that "people living health is an inherently positive social goal," "Waters says-this research is not arguing that fatal diseases are a good thing for society, just that the costs should be understood properly.

But the argument has been made elsewhere: Waters points to a tobacco industry-funded study of the case that "smoking was good for the public finances of the Czech Republic," -funded health care. "Philip Morris, he adds, did not come out of that looking very good.

Any attempt to turn human lives into numbers, however, appears in the middle of a fraught conversation on obesity, with wildly varying arguments all resting on the same set of facts. Although the costs of obesity are used to build an economic case, the cost of obesity is also used. Because of this tug of war, precision becomes more essential.