Chronic diseases, many caused by personal health risk factors like smoking and obesity, are driving high health care expenditures in Michigan and nationally, according to a new report from the Ann Arbor-based Center for Healthcare Research and Transformation.
The report found that average annual spending for a patient with a single chronic condition can range from $3,785 to $38,270 more than spending for people without a chronic condition. Data from Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan showed that the 35 percent of patients with at least one chronic condition accounted for more than 64 percent of its total spending.
The report goes on to say that “modifiable health risk factors, such as cigarette smoking and overweight/obesity, are responsible for much of the illness, healthcare utilization, and subsequent costs related to chronic disease.”
“This study offers us a credible early warning system. We must work together, at a community level, to reduce drivers of chronic disease,” says Marianne Udow-Philips, director of CHRT. “When we reduce the incidence of chronic disease, we improve the health of the population.”
Michigan’s 20.5 percent smoking rate is higher than the national average of 18.4 percent. Smoking-related illnesses account for $3.3 billion in annual health care expenditures. I have been using 22 percent as the Michigan smoking rate. Perhaps now opponents of the workplace smoking ban can tell me how just 20.5 percent of the Michigan population can account for a bar allegedly losing 40-50 percent of their business.
Michigan has a higher rate of obesity at 29.5 percent than the U.S. average of 26.7 percent. In fact, in 2008, Michigan was 9th highest in the U.S. of the percentage of adults who are obese.
Udow points to the newly approved federal Affordable Care Act, where there are dollars tagged for public health improvement, to reduce drivers of chronic disease, and it will reduce the incidence of chronic disease and improve the health of the population.
“We can work together in Michigan to use these funds toward strategies that have been proven to work,” Udow said.
The Center for Healthcare Research & Transformation (CHRT) is a non-profit partnership between the University of Michigan and Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan Housed at the University of Michigan. CHRT sponsors research and public information to promote evidence based care delivery, improve population health, expand access to care and to test the best ideas for improving the effectiveness and efficiency of the health care system.
13 comments:
Let's just outlaw smoking. Ban it.
As for obesity, let's make everybody fall out for PT at 0 dark 30 and outlaw fatty foods.
We could also prosecute parents for not feeding their children properly.
Get the state involved in the personal lives of these irresponsible people and there's no telling what we can accomplish!
Prohibition has not worked very well in this country.
As for obesity, let’s make physical education mandatory in schools, maybe ban high-fructose corn syrup and have some truth in labeling.
Prosecuting parents for “not feeding their children properly” is ridiculous, and I totally disagree with getting the state involved in the personal lives of “these irresponsible people.”
You're not for getting the state involved in personal lives?
What do you call telling an owner of a private business that he cannot allow a licit and legal activity within the confines of his property?
What is the difference between banning smoking and banning "dangerous" foods?
Another question:
Why tax tanning parlors but not drinking establishments or coffee shops?
No.
The workplace smoking ban is a public health issue.
No one is banning smoking.
Who says they are not being taxed?
A smoking ban is a smoking ban. If people don't like smoking they don't have to visit the establishment or work there.
Tanning salons were singled out for a special tax by congress this session:
http://www.kbtx.com/home/headlines/97715629.html
Again, why tanning salons? Why not the Waffle House, Dairy Queen, or dangerous sports?
And speaking of high fructose corn syrup, why does our government protect the sugar industry with special subsidies and import tariffs which keep the price artificially high, which, btw, opened the door for the much cheaper and unhealthier high fructose corn syrup. This in turn is responsible for more obesity and diabetes.
No collection of people is so smart of so wise that they can regulate such a large and varied economy.
They "solve" one problem and cause two more. It's a hydra-headed monster.
A smoking ban is to protect the 80 percent of the population who do not smoke.
I’m well aware of the tax on tanning salons. In fact, I blogged about it.
http://liberalmedianot.blogspot.com/2010/07/rogers-tax-worse-than-cancer-and.html
Experts at the International Agency for Research on Cancer in Lyon, the cancer arm of the World Health Organization, “moved tanning beds and other sources of ultraviolet radiation into the top cancer risk category, deeming them as deadly as arsenic and mustard gas."
Considering we now have a service economy, a tax on services makes sense. Not only that, the damage caused by tanning beds is very expensive.
As for your tale about the sugar industry, I don’t have a problem supporting American farmers growing crops in the U.S., like when sugar beets were once grown in Michigan. As I understand High-fructose corn syrup, it is also a preservative. It extends the shelf life of processed foods and is cheaper than sugar. I’m not even sure how much that contributes to the out of control obesity rates, and that’s why I said, “maybe ban high-fructose corn syrup.” I do know that the most important weapon is education.
The FDA has a duty to ban things that are harmful, and many chemicals that were once thought safe have turned out to be harmful and banned, such as Aspartame, Saccharin and Bisphenol.
OK. I accept the logic of your argument. Again, I ask, why not tax every damned thing that is unhealthy or dangerous?
Legislating has turned into a money-making enterprise. They craft thousand page Franenstein's monsters and then sell exemptions to the highest bidder.
This is the problem with an activist, moralistic statism unmoored from any first principles or foundational rights.
The people end up ruled by fiat, slaves to the whims of their overlords.
I don’t know, why not? No, legislating has not “turned into a money-making enterprise.” The fact is wars, roads, infrastructure, police, fire and many other services cost money.
“This is the problem with an activist, moralistic statism unmoored from any first principles or foundational rights?” Huh?
No, the people are governed by their elected officials. Now, moneyed corporations have too much power in choosing those elected officials, but they are, nevertheless, elected.
But here are a few basic facts getting lost in your rhetoric about “activist, moralistic, statism and overlords.” The average annual spending for a patient with a single chronic condition can range from $3,785 to $38,270 more than spending for people without a chronic condition.
Modifiable health risk factors, such as cigarette smoking and overweight/obesity, are responsible for much of the illness, healthcare utilization, and subsequent costs related to chronic disease. In fact, smoking-related illnesses account for $3.3 billion in annual health care expenditures.
Roads, infrastructure, police, fire... Those are legitimate government functions. I made no argument against them.
As for the rest, your faith in government is stunning.
You seem like a smart man, you should cast your information gathering net a little wider. Demican and Republicrat politicians use legislation and bureaucratic regulation to garner political contributions.
The sugar thing is but one example:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Fanjul_Brothers#Controversy_and_U.S._Trade_Restrictions_on_Sugar
You’re right: I do have lots of faith in the government because the government is the people. You don’t think wars are a legitimate government function? I think any thing the people deem and is not specifically banned by the Constitution is a legitimate government function.
I have no idea what the hell a “Demican” and “Republicrat” are, other than you trying to be clever, but to make the ridiculous claim that “politicians use legislation and bureaucratic regulation to garner political contributions” is simply not true for the vast majority of government officials.
“The sugar thing is but one example of what? What I did note was that the Wikipedia article said, “The neutrality of this article is disputed.” You will also note I said, “Now, moneyed corporations have too much power in choosing those elected officials.”
I will put my faith in the people every single time.
I didn't invent "demican and republicrat," but I wish I had. It's the bipartisan looting of America.
I too have unbounded faith in the people, but not the District of Criminals.
http://councilfor.cagw.org/site/PageServer?pagename=policy_Sugar_Subsidies
http://www.fff.org/freedom/0498d.asp
Add to this ethanol subsidies and flex fuel credits and it is a multi-billion dollar corporate welfare scam.
Anyway, I'm off topic and I apologize for the hijack.
We should not hate our government, but we should be very skeptical. They are spending us into oblivion and every corner of government needs to be scrutinized under a microscope.
Post a Comment