Does preventing chronic illness now pay off later?
Whether spending now to prevent chronic illnesses actually reins in costs is a huge issue lawmakers will confront when they return to Washington next week to battle out health care reform.
Many lawmakers and the Obama administration assert there will be huge savings down the road from preventing chronic diseases now -- enough to pay for a health care overhaul. But a new study from the journal Health Affairs, pokes holes in those claims. Researchers found that while costs will likely decrease over time, prevention efforts will not result in enough savings to pay for reforming the entire health care system.
Still, the authors say, if the government took a longer view on costs, it would see greater savings. The Congressional Budget Office projects the cost of prevention efforts over 10 years, and finds that most preventive services, result in greater spending, not savings. But the study's authors think the government would find a rosier picture if it projected out 25 years. The bottom line:
The study is just the latest to weigh in on the question of whether prevention saves money and the opinions vary widely.
For instance, the New England Journal of Medicine found last year that expensive preventive measures don't save money in the long run. It doesn't call into question eating right and exercising, but rather questions specific interventions, such as screening tests and costly monitoring of people with chronic diseases.
Meanwhile, a recent CDC study said better prevention efforts are desperately needed to bring down costs of such chronic illnesses as obesity. Others, however, caution that money must be spent only on interventions that are proven to be effective.
Then of course, there are others who argue that preventing diabetes and teaching our kids to eat healthier are simply the right thing to do, cost savings or no.
Baltimore Sun photo
Comments
Putting aside the obvious benefits of having a healthier society, and just from an economic perspective: Even if promoting good health does not create enough savings to pay for health coverage reform in the near term, certainly society would benefit economically because of fewer days lost from work, reduced disability leave, etc.
Posted by: mjr | September 3, 2009 4:56 PM