An opinion piece in
The Australian makes a point that I have argued for a long time: Reducing smoking doesn't save the health system
anything. In this case they are arguing
preventative medicine but the only difference between them is that one they can tax to the hilt without opprobrium, the other actually COSTS the budget.
PREVENTIVE has become the hottest word in healthcare. From politicians in parliament to talking heads on television, everyone seems to be saying that preventive care is the smart way to get more bang for our healthcare dollar.
The most common targets for prevention are obesity, inactivity, excessive drinking and other risk factors for chronic disease. Unlike the wowsers of yesteryear, today’s proponents of preventive medicine don’t just claim that discouraging these sinful behaviours is worthwhile in its own right. They rest their case on the more ambitious argument that targeting these behaviours will save money in the long term by preventing costly illness from arising.
To make that case, preventive care advocates need to prove that government programs can successfully reduce rates of obesity, harmful drinking and the like; and, second, that those changes will lower long-term health costs.
Unfortunately, neither claim is backed by slam-dunk evidence. Take the second.
Will lowering rates of obesity result in reduced healthcare spending? At least one study has shown lifetime health costs are higher for patients of normal weight than patients who are obese because the reduction in obesity-related disease is offset by increased health costs of longer lifespans. Obesity reduction may be a net positive for people but it isn’t a long-term money-saver.
More at:
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opi...ures-dont-add-up/story-e6frg6zo-1227134827089
