Key words: Healthcare reform, preventive costs, obesity
The recently passed Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010 summons a $940 billion budget focused
primarily on providing health care coverage for every American. In 1965, the government had a similar goal, which
led to the implementation of Medicare and Medicaid. Unfortunately, these programs ended up costing ten times
what was originally estimated. Perhaps this was partially due to the rising rates of disease in recent years,
particularly obesity. In order for the government to stay within its current budgetary limitations and for America
to sustain long-term control over its health concerns, we feel that there should be a shift towards more preventive
care instead of primarily focusing on reactive care (treating the symptoms). We set out to discover if preventive
care is more cost-effective than reactive care, limiting our focus strictly to rising obesity rates and its associated
costs. In this paper we summarize the current literature on the subject and discuss both the advantages and difficulties
of establishing a more preventive approach toward healthcare. We conclude that prevention would extend quality
years of life to more Americans at a lower cost than when primarily implementing reactive care. Our main goal
in writing this article is to raise awareness of this potential. To illustrate this, we analyzed three preventive
approaches: school-based programs, dietary restrictions, and increased exercise. These three examples are effective
at reducing obesity and cost-efficient. Together, they serve as the general framework of preventive care upon
which more advanced and specific programs can be discussed.
In 2006, America spent 2.1 trillion dollars (an astounding
16% of its gross domestic product) on health care, more than any other country in the world (Marmor, Oberlander, & White,
2009). Even with such spending, over 45 million Americans are uninsured and millions of others are unsatisfied
with their current health insurance policies (Marmor et al., 2009). There is little doubt that reform is needed.
The recently passed Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010 Bill draws on a massive budget ($940 billion)
and primarily focuses on covering more Americans with more affordable health care (Henry J. Kaiser Foundation,
2010). Although these goals are commendable, the rising levels of unhealthy and diseased Americans, specifically
those with obesity-related illnesses, cast a shadow on the potential of such reforms.
Evidence shows that over-eating is America’s most expensive and dangerous habit, and as such, should be the focus of
the government’s preventive action. As of 2008, 65 percent of Americans were considered either overweight
or obese, and nearly 10 percent of health expenditures are attributed to obesity-related illnesses (Center for
Disease Control and Prevention [CDC], 2010). In 2009, the CDC also showed that obesity-related deaths account
for two out of the three leading causes of death in the United States (CDC, 2010, Figure 1).
Figure 1. Actual causes of death, 2009
This evidence suggests that many citizens are not exercising responsibility for their health despite demanding
rights to healthcare coverage. Such startling health concerns raise questions about whether reforms should focus
on providing expanded coverage at better prices or on preventing diseases like obesity and implementing healthier
lifestyles. Regardless, while many Americans are concerned with gaining the financial benefits that will allow
them to eat, drink, and be merry, rising levels of obesity and sedentary lifestyles have brought about
one shocking reality—tomorrow we die.
As U.S. citizens and government officials attempt to come to a mutual understanding about affordable healthcare
options, both fail to realize that understanding is never a one-way street. Reducing medical costs is directly
related to increasing the number of proactive and healthy individuals. However, the public eye seems to focus
solely on the costs of their current insurance premiums rather than the status of their own health. It is this
lack of attention on general health and over-emphasis on healthcare that fuels the bulk
of America’s healthcare problems. Although the majority of government and public attention is given to
reactive, short-term policies regarding healthcare, improving awareness and policy for preventive measures is
the best way for America to solve its long-term crisis. We will demonstrate America’s need for a preventive
healthcare movement by comparing and contrasting preventive and reactive policies specifically regarding obesity,
discussing the need for increased obesity awareness at multiple government and social levels, and exploring the
monetary and societal costs associated with implementing preventive action against this growing epidemic. In
doing so, we will limit our discussion to primary prevention (avoiding the disease before it occurs). Our goal
is to raise awareness about simple, cost-efficient preventive methods that could potentially be implemented into
healthcare reform, as well as discuss the many difficulties involved in creating effective preventive policy.
An in-depth analysis of current healthcare legislation should be reserved for a separate discussion.
A look at the past
In processing the undertaking facing American healthcare legislators, it is important to remember that the United
States government has sought to reform healthcare in the past and has been dissatisfied with the outcome of its
efforts. In the Social Security Act of 1965, President Lyndon B. Johnson introduced Medicare and Medicaid into
the country’s healthcare system (Derthick, 1979). Medicare provides coverage for citizens over 65 years
and Medicaid provides coverage for low-income families and individuals. The implementation of these two programs
was projected to cost $12 billion (Myers, 1967) in 1990, but actual government spending exceeded $110 billion
(Budget, 2010). Even with the onset of inflation, which was undoubtedly accounted for in the original estimate,
the government still failed to provide any data that were even remotely accurate.
Perhaps one reason for this gross misestimate was the government’s inability or reluctance to
foresee the sharp rise in obesity coming in future years. For example, statistics from the CDC show that from
1950-1970, obesity rates rose only 3.5 percent (National Center for Health Statistics [NCHS], 2002). However,
in a later eight-year period from 1980-1988 obesity rates rose 10 percent (NCHS, 2002). Government’s
lack of focus on prevention in 1965 led them to underestimate the cost of its reforms by almost $100 billion.
This ten-fold fallacy of the past threatens the credibility of today’s healthcare cost projections, especially
in light of similar negligence regarding preventive care. With current estimated costs at $940 billion, one
can only hope the margin of error for today’s reform is somehow less than it was in the past. In reference
to the current cost estimates, The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) recently wrote a letter to Speaker of
the House, Nancy Pelosi, stating that, "it is unclear whether such a reduction in the growth rate of spending
could be achieved, and if so, whether it would be accomplished through greater efficiencies in the delivery
of health care or through reductions in access to care or the quality of care" (Congressional Budget Office
[CBO], 2010). Again, the fact that a government office solely responsible for calculating costs of governmental
programs is unable to provide reliable data for the current reform creates a sense of fear in many who oppose
the direction congress is moving. Regardless of the reliability of current estimates, history has shown that
government tends to overestimate the effectiveness of their programs while underestimating their costs. Both
government legislators and the American public should keep these facts at the forefront of their minds when
judging the severity of the crisis they face.
The balance of preventive and reactive care
Given the vast array of healthcare concerns needing attention and the various parties interested in receiving
government financing, the issue of money has become a key area of dispute. America’s political and scientific
communities heavily debate where this money should be spent, particularly how much should be partitioned to
reactive measures versus preventive measures.
On March 23, 2010, President Obama signed the new health bill that focuses primarily on providing insurance
to most Americans, although it does have a small section on preventive strategies. One of the bill’s goals
is to “improve prevention by covering only proven preventive services and eliminating cost-sharing for
preventive services in Medicare and Medicaid” (Henry J. Kaiser Foundation 2010, p. 32). The preventive
services directly referred to in the bill are immunizations, screenings, and additional preventive care approved
by the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Although proper immunizations and screenings are very important,
nothing in the new bill directly addresses the obesity epidemic. Perhaps this topic will be addressed in the
bill’s strategy to “establish the National Prevention, Health Promotion and Public Health
Council to coordinate federal prevention, wellness, and public health activities” and to “develop a
national strategy to improve the nation’s health” (Henry J. Kaiser Foundation, 2010, p. 31). It is
important to note that although 65 percent of Americans are either overweight or obese, the government is just
beginning to propose a plan of action. Actually, they are not fully proposing a plan, just a plan to make
a plan—a mindset all regular dieters can appreciate.
For many who strongly support a more reactive healthcare program, reducing the focus on reactive healthcare measures
only means that more people will get sick and fewer people will be readily available to help them. Although these
concerns are legitimate, looking at the projected costs of a future America unregulated by health education and
self-control highlights the fact that a much larger population would ultimately be negatively affected by a lack
of preventive care than would now be affected by rising health costs. In essence, although reactive policy can
be effective in addressing immediate health concerns, overtime no amount of reactive policy will be able to combat
the excessive health problems plaguing U.S. citizens.
To illustrate the importance of preventive
care, one team of researchers conducted an extensive study that projected financial estimates for the years
2020-2050, assuming the rise in obesity continued at its current rate. To accomplish this they divided annual
direct medical costs from annual indirect costs due to loss of work productivity in wages, absence from work,
and premature death (Lightwood et al., 2009). The results of their study are startling. In direct medical costs
alone, they showed that costs will increase from approximately $130 million in 2020 to over $10 billion by
2050. Even more shocking were their indirect cost estimates. In 2020, projected indirect costs stemming from
obesity and obesity-related diseases are $942 million. By 2050 those estimates are expected to rise to $36
billion, a $35 billion dollar increase in 30 years (Figure 2). Ultimately, the study concluded that “most
of the projected economic burden consists of indirect costs from lost productivity caused by premature death
or absence from work, with direct healthcare costs accounting for only 12 to 21 percent of the total economic
burden” (p. 2223).
Figure 2. Direct vs. indirect medical cost projections
This study provided important insight into the reactive versus preventive healthcare debate. Reactive measures
focus primarily on the direct costs discussed in this model. Although it is apparent that there are direct medical
costs stemming from future obesity-related problems, it is the indirect costs associated with the increase in
obesity that form the bulk of America’s future financial burdens. Reducing direct medical costs through
better and more affordable insurance regulation will help to some degree, but reducing obesity levels seems to
be a more effective way to see significant improvement. Perhaps this study provides a good illustration of how
much attention government legislators should give to reactive versus preventive measures by looking at direct
versus indirect estimated costs respectively.
Does preventive care reduce costs?
Although most Americans agree about the need for some preventive care, it is important to evaluate the cost-effectiveness
of the preventive policies themselves. Studies have shown that although some forms of preventable action can
save money, others only add to costs (Russell, 2007). In fact, some estimates claim that fewer than 20 percent
of preventive options would be cost-saving (Cohen, Neumann, Weinstein, 2008). Whether these estimates nullify
the importance of more preventive measures is debatable. Often, a preventive measure’s effectiveness is
directly correlated to the population or risk group to which it is applied. One study gave the example of drugs
used to treat high levels of cholesterol and illustrated that the drug has a much higher yield in monetary value
if the targeted population is at high risk for coronary heart disease (Russell, 1993). In this sense, implementing
preventive policies is somewhat hit or miss. If, for example, an anti-obesity ad that attempts to motivate an
overweight target group to exercise and eat healthier is shown primarily to an audience who is not overweight
and already exercising, the ad will fail to be effective. However, localizing programs to only those at high
risk is easier said than done. This substantiates the need for further investigation into forming more effective
preventive programs. Fundamentally, government must not only strive for increased preventive programs but smarter
ones as well.
Part of the difficulty in establishing good preventive programs is in defining which aspects of prevention should
be emphasized. Experts on preventive methods maintain that programs emphasizing medical services (screenings,
medicines, doctor visits, etc.) rather than behavioral changes (diet and exercise) are typically more expensive
and could increase medical costs (Russell, 2007). It is apparent that even within the category of preventive
care itself, some hierarchy of options exists, each having its own benefits or drawbacks in terms of projected
costs. However, when speaking of obesity, it is important for the general public to be aware that this disease
is not an infection or virus requiring a vaccine; it is almost always self-controllable.
Clear secondary preventive costs like vaccines or cancer screenings are unavoidably associated with other
diseases. However, obesity represents a rare prevention category, in that its costs could theoretically be
eliminated over time. For example, as people become more aware of and proactively engaged in their own health,
a self-promoting culture of exercise and wellness could replace the need for expensive preventive advertising
campaigns. Popular chef and media personality, Jamie Oliver, has taken this approach in his recent television
show, Jamie Oliver’s Food Revolution (Jamie Oliver’s Platform for Change, 2010). Jamie focuses
his work in Huntington, West Virginia, previously rated by the CDC as the unhealthiest city in America, by
teaching the residents how to buy and prepare nutritious foods in an attempt to help them implement a self-promoting
culture of health and well-being. As of March 23, 2010, Jamie Oliver reported via the Late Show with David
Letterman that “since making the show, [Huntington’s] ranking has changed . . . and it’s
in seventh place now” (Worldwide Pants Incorporated, 2010). The success of public awareness programs
like Oliver’s provides evidence for the self-sustaining possibilities of preventive action.
A study published in the New England Journal of Medicine offers a good summary of the overall costs associated
with preventive versus reactive programs. In this study, 600 different articles on cost-effectiveness ratios
between many different reactive and preventive measures were compiled and charted based on the costs of their
quality-adjusted-life-year (QALY). This was a comparison between the costs of a particular intervention and the
number of quality life-years that would be added to a patient’s life upon the intervention being implemented
(Cohen et. al, 2008, Figure 3).
Figure 3. Cost-effectiveness ratios between preventive measures and treatments for existing condintions
As indicated from these comparisons, it is apparent that some preventive methods equal or outweigh their reactive
counterparts in terms of their cost per quality-adjusted-life-year. Although this may be discouraging for preventive
care enthusiasts, it is not altogether conclusive. Most of these studies pertain to secondary prevention measures
(reducing the effects of a disease before it becomes dangerous) and tertiary prevention (reversing or slowing
the progression of an existing condition) (Marmor et al., 2009). As previously noted, these types of preventions
cost significantly more than primary prevention. For example, screening all 65-year-olds for diabetes costs more
($590,000 per QALY) than screening just those with hypertension (Marmor et al., 2009). Still, screenings fall
under the category of secondary prevention. Ideally, primary preventive measures would be effective enough to
significantly reduce the need for screenings, greatly reducing their costs.
The notion that the effectiveness of a program can be judged solely by its costs is also incorrect. This same
study concluded that “the illusion of painless savings . . . confuses our national debate on health reform
and makes the acceptance of cost control’s realities all the more difficult” (Marmor et al., 2009,
p. 488). In assessing the goals of improved healthcare, one must realize that there are psychological and social
benefits available through a preventive lifestyle that cannot be achieved through more reactive methods. Although
it is possible that initiating certain preventive measures may cost the same or slightly more than their
reactive counterparts up front, prevention will save more money in the long run and is more beneficial to a self-maintained,
Although not all preventive programs for obesity are
less costly than their reactive counterparts, several are. Evidence suggests that school-based interventions,
dietary restrictions, and increased physical activities are all cost-efficient and can significantly reduce obesity.
The Coordinated Approach to Child Health (CATCH), a health promotion program, conducted an extensive study in
El Paso, Texas that tracked the health-effectiveness and cost-efficiency of a school-based obesity prevention
program (Brown et al., 2007). From 2000-2002, faculty from four elementary schools were either hired or given
special training in physical education, nutrition, and health promotion. Data were collected as to how many cases
of overweight children were averted and how many QALYs were added to the children’s lives. These numbers
were then compared with other studies that defined the costs of obesity in terms of lost wages and increased
medical costs. Those costs were then subtracted from the total cost of implementing the intervention (hiring
faculty, etc.) to project a total net benefit for the program (Brown et al., 2007). Although the intervention
cost was calculated at $44,039, the net benefit after subtracting the medical costs and lost wages associated
with the potential obesity cases that were averted was estimated at $83,368. In a separate comparison that used
more modest estimates of medical costs provided by other studies, the net benefit was recalculated to $68,125
(Brown et al., 2007, Figure 4). Even with the disparity between the two estimates, it is clear that preventive
programs such as CATCH are both highly cost-efficient and effective in reducing obesity.
Figure 4. Net Benefits and Cost-Effectiveness Ratio of CATCH Program in El Paso, TX School District
Skeptics of such studies might be concerned with the reliability of the data or with its application to the
United States as a whole, in that obesity rates are often demographic-specific (with higher rates of obesity
often found among lower income families and certain minority groups). Fortunately, this study was purposely conducted
in a school district containing 94% Hispanic students (one of the more obese minority groups), so that the effect
of the CATCH program could be monitored in an environment ideal for making these changes (Brown et al., 2007).
A separate estimate that incorporated the potential lower incomes of Hispanics showed that even with a lower
level of lost wages subtracted from the intervention costs, the net benefit of the CATCH program is still $43,000-$58,000,
depending on the medical cost estimates used.
Given these findings, if a fairly “obese” state such as Mississippi (which has 3,714 elementary schools)
chose to implement the CATCH program state-wide, their net savings would exceed $46 million, even with a very
modest estimate of CATCH savings at $50,000 per four schools (Council of Chief State School Officers, 2010).
The savings of a nation-wide CATCH program would carry over into the billions of dollars. On a cost factor alone,
school-based preventive programs such as CATCH are well worth the investment. When addressing external factors,
such as increased quality of life, their importance is even further substantiated.
Another health promoting and economical way of preventing obesity-related disease is through exercise. In 1988,
researchers analyzed the cost-efficiency of implementing daily exercise by calculating the costs associated with
burning 2,000 kcal per week and then comparing those costs to the direct costs of medical treatments for coronary
heart disease, a condition commonly associated with obesity and lack of exercise (Hatziandreu, Koplan, Weinstein,
Caspersen, & Warner, 1988). In calculating the total direct costs of exercise, they included the price of
regular doctors’ visits, which helped implement and maintain a routine exercise program. By doing this,
they addressed one of the more difficult issues of attempting to apply preventive programs—changing the
behavior of the unhealthy individual. Ultimately, exercise was estimated to cost $1,395 per QALY, whereas a coronary
bypass graft or treatment for hypertension was estimated to cost anywhere from $5,000-$65,000 per QALY (Hatziandreu
et al., 1988, Figure 5).
Figure 5. Prevention Costs vs. Costs of Medical Interventions for CHD
Although this study was conducted in the 1980s and current inflation of medical prices would significantly alter
these estimates, the cost difference between reactive and preventive interventions would still be relatively
proportional to this data. Calculating the savings on a national level is inexact, but a rough estimate can be
given using the numbers in this study. Given the CDC’s estimate of 631,636 people dying from heart disease
in 2009, and a modestly estimated average savings of $25,000 per QALY per person with coronary problems, affected
Americans would save almost $16 billion per QALY if they had chosen to implement weekly exercise rather than
incur the medical costs associated with preventable heart problems (CDC, 2010). Keep in mind that this estimate
is only for individuals who died last year and in the latest term of their illness.
The American Heart Association estimates that over 17,000,000 victims of heart disease or angina (chest pain
ensuing from heart disease) are still living and that over 500,000 new cases of angina surface each year (American
Heart Association [AMA], 2010). By taking these active cases into account, the estimated savings would increase
more than ten-fold. Either way, it is clear that a preventive exercise approach saves a substantial amount
of money. It is important to note that these numbers do not take into account many peripheral factors such
as the costs (emotional and financial) associated with getting 630,000 people to start exercising, despite
encouraging visits with their doctor. However, it is still necessary to establish the long-term savings potential
of preventive methods with the goal that they would one day be somewhat self-maintained.
Although decreasing the obesity levels of millions of Americans may seem like an enormous undertaking, a third
area of prevention, maintaining energy balance, focuses primarily on halting these rising rates rather than altogether
reversing them. In theory, scientists propose that the only way to gain a firmer grasp on reducing obesity in
the long term is to plateau gradual weight gain short term. A study published in Science Magazine addressed
these same concerns (Hill, Wyatt, Reed, & Peters, 2003). Researchers were determined to find how many excess
calories the average American was consuming per day, and subsequently what action could be taken to eliminate
this excess. Their goals were consistent with the tenets of preventive programs. Ultimately, they showed that
an average of 90 percent of the population stores an extra 100 kcal per day in their bodies (Hill et al., 2003).
They then went on to propose several simple, cost-effective ways to reduce this excess. For example, by eating
15 percent (about 3 bites) less of a typical fast-food hamburger, the excess 100 kcal would be avoided (Hill
et al., 2003). Additionally, food packagers and restaurants could reduce their packaging and portion sizes by
10-15 percent to offset the excess calorie intake. If portion control doesn’t appeal to those wishing to
drop the excess calorie intake, the study suggests that walking one extra mile a day (about 2000 steps) would
adequately expend the excess. In accordance with this concept, Colorado, the state with the lowest obesity rates
in the nation, implemented a state-wide program called Colorado on the Move (University of Colorado at
Denver and Health Sciences Center [UCDHS], 2004). This program encouraged the reduction of 100 kcal/day per person
through widely distributing pedometers that track steps taken throughout the day (UCDHS, 2004).
Many overweight or obese individuals succumb to their disheartening condition and fail to realize the relative
ease through which significant weight control can be maintained, as suggested in the aforementioned examples.
As government increases attention and funding for preventive movements, a larger percentage of people will realize
that the pathway to a healthier lifestyle is well within their reach.
Opposing views of preventive healthcare
Despite the idealistic goals of preventive healthcare, attention should be given to every counter-argument
to ensure that intelligent and functional policies are maintained. Most opponents of increased preventive care
do not completely deny the need for prevention. Rather, they claim that in order to reduce obesity and its
associated healthcare costs, coverage must be extended to lower income households in order to receive preventive
instruction and care from the hand of a physician. To a large degree, these concerns are legitimate and emphasize
the need for both extended coverage and preventive measures. Some evidence shows a direct relationship between
lower household income and higher rates of obesity (Krisberg, 2009). Assuming decreased access to healthcare
is attributable to lower incomes, the argument for extended medical coverage holds water. However, the evidence
supporting this claim is not conclusive when considering other factors. For example, studies show that the
level of patient trust for their doctor declines when there is a decrease in any of the following factors:
education, income, amount and type of health insurance, and health status (Doescher, Saver, Franks, & Fiscella,
2000, Figure 6).
Furthermore, levels of patient trust for doctors vary according to different ethnicities and are especially low
for African-American and Latino groups, which are the two most obese ethnic groups in the United States (Krisberg,
Relationships Between Satisfaction and Trust of Physician and Selected Patient Characteristics
Figure 6. Relationships Between Physician Trust and Selected Patient Characteristics
The lower rate of trust for doctors among people within these different categories weakens the theory that increased
coverage would equate to healthier individuals. Patients will respond to their physicians’ preventive suggestions
only to the degree that they trust or value the doctors and their advice. In one aspect, the data show a clear
relationship between having insurance and trusting doctors, as apparent from non-insurance holders giving an
average trust score of 3.98 on a 5-point scale, while patients with private, non-health maintenance organizations
(HMO) insurance give a higher average trust rating of 4.27 (Doescher et al., 2000). In this sense, expanding
coverage to those without insurance might have a positive outcome in terms of increased doctor trust and subsequent
acceptance of preventive instruction. But two problems exist with this hypothesis. First, Medicaid is a common
prototype for government-provided insurance and is a useful example in assessing the type of care that would
be provided in reforms involving expanded coverage. With this in mind, notice that those with Medicaid coverage
gave a doctor trust rating of 3.97, slightly lower than those with no coverage at all (Doescher et al.,
2000). If government hopes to promote better doctor-patient relationships by introducing low-cost coverage to
the uninsured, there is obviously need to provide them with a new and better service. Second, while extending
coverage to those without it may enhance their trust of physicians in one aspect, it fails to address any of
the other categories represented in the study. Extending coverage is not going to make someone change ethnicities,
increase their years of education, or boost their income. Clearly, there are other reasons besides the issue
of coverage that motivate people to choose whether or not to implement advice from their doctors. Furthermore,
it seems that those groups of people most prone to obesity (low income, select ethnicities, poorer health,
etc.) are least prone to listen to their doctors.
Although some legislators may have good intentions in wanting to extend these individuals greater healthcare
coverage, evidence like this raises doubt that some groups of people will actually take advantage of the services
they are provided. Some may question how this inconsistency comes about: do people choose not listen to their
doctors because they have poorer health, or do they have poorer health because they will not
listen to their doctors? Regardless, this is rarely a discussion heard among legislators responsible for forming
America’s healthcare policy, yet it is an essential conversation for those who intend to shape reform
that actually works. Investigating the reason for these disparities will help government form better health
programs and will help doctors form better relationships with their patients. When the goal of improved doctor-patient
relationships are factored in to insurance reform, then expanding coverage really becomes a type of preventive
measure in itself, and the two opposing sides can collaborate and reach common ground. Ultimately, if government
chooses to extend coverage in hopes of preventing disease, they will need to focus more on the success of their
programs in aiding prevention and less on how inexpensively they can obtain them.
Looking outside the costs
In order to gain a proper perspective of the various
arguments for and against prevention, it is important to remember the origin of those debates—health, not costs.
Since 1946, the World Health Organization (WHO) has defined health as “a state of complete physical, mental, and
social well-being, not merely the absence of disease or infirmity” (International Health Conference, 1946,
p. 100). When this broader view of health is considered, the voices of those who oppose preventive care become
greatly subdued. In order to abide by the tenets of this definition, Americans need to realize the benefits associated
with living a balanced and healthy life, rather than just utilizing the marvels of modern medicine after the
fact. Only prevention can accomplish this.
If the definition of “health” includes mental
and social well-being, one must also consider studies that look at factors other than costs influenced by the onset of
obesity. For example, a study sponsored by the AMA found a direct relationship between obesity and symptoms of depression
(J. Dixon, M. Dixon, & O’Brien, 2003). Their data suggest that over 53 percent of obese patients had a Beck
Depression Inventory (BDI) score greater than 16, indicating moderate to extreme depression. They ultimately concluded
that “symptoms of depression in these obese subjects . . . were strongly associated with poor quality-of-life scores
. . . especially those related to social functioning, emotional role, and mental health” (p. 2063). A related study
directly linked increased body mass index (BMI) to an increase in suicidal ideation and attempts (Eaton, Lowry, Brener,
Galuska, & Crosby, 2005). Although these are obviously extreme side-effects of the obesity epidemic, they
must be given consideration in the preventive healthcare debate.
These findings reiterate the fact that there is no substitute
for a healthy lifestyle. It is true that reactive medicine is a medium for healing and comfort to millions of
suffering Americans, and as such, should be honored, invested in, and continued. But the restorative capabilities of modern
medicine do not justify the onset of diseases that are preventable or the propagation of a low quality life.
Creating a prevention-based mindset—the future of healthcare
Changing the behavior of millions
of Americans is not going to be accomplished merely through strategic legislation. In reality, such a change
cannot come from any one office or program. Indeed, changing the behavior of millions of Americans requires just
that—millions of Americans.
Perhaps the answer to America’s healthcare issue does not lie in a change of policy but in a change of
mindset. Efforts need to be made on every level to establish a culture of health promotion and disease prevention.
Current norms about body image, for example, are destructive to the goals of prevention. The U.S. government,
the public, and the scientific community could all benefit from a refreshed view of what it means to be healthy.
One small example of how Americans might change their
viewpoints is demonstrated by the way Singapore chooses to define weight norms. Instead of labeling weight categories with
terms like “overweight” and “obese,” Singapore labels their BMI cutoffs in terms of potential risks
with categories such as “high risk” or “low risk” for heart disease or other health problems (Misra,
2003). Although these labels are not overly encouraging to those who are obese, at least they communicate the real risks
and consequences associated with the individual’s behavior. These classifications are proactive in nature and encourage
patients to be proactive as well by educating them about the risks they face and then motivating them to make necessary
changes. The American system, on the other hand, leaves the obese individual with nothing more than the knowledge that
one more doctor or professional is confirming what they probably already knew—they are unhealthy. Although Singapore’s
model may be just a minute example of a preventive attitude, it is a powerful one.
Although establishing an enhanced affinity for health
and wellness sounds ideal, one question remains unanswered—just what is government’s role in seeking
this goal? The catalyst for a changing America is much stronger with the synergistic cooperation of its population than
with simply the voice of a few government officials. To that end, the U.S. government has the responsibility to effectively
publicize and promote the need for cooperative and united citizens in this cause. The fight against obesity requires wise
stewardship and government legislators who resist the urge for “quick fixes” or short-term answers only. Just
as individual weight loss is a gradual, often painful, time-consuming process, so is the road to its implementation nation-wide.
Increasing funding, attention, and awareness of a preventive lifestyle is the only responsible pathway to that goal. As
America faces a dawn of difficult change and decision-making, government’s role is essentially the same
as it has always been: to promote rather than provide; to persuade rather than prescribe; and to prevent rather
than to predestine.
American Heart Association, (2010). Preventive Health Care. Retrieved from http://www.americanheart.org/
Brown, H. S., Perez, A., Li, Y. P., Hoelscher, D. M., Kelder, S. H., & Rivera, R. (2007). The cost-effectiveness
of a school-based overweight program. International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity, 4:47
Budget of the U.S. Government, (Fiscal Year 2010). Historical Tables, table 16.1, p. 334. Retrieved
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, (2010). Overweight and Obesity. Retrieved from http://www.cdc.gov/obesity/index.html
Cohen, J. T., Neumann, P. J., & Weinstein, M. C. (2008). Does preventive care save money? health economics
and the presidential candidates. The New England Journal of Medicine, 358 (7), 661-663.
Congressional Budget Office, (2010). H.R. 4872,
Reconciliation Act of 2010. Retrieved from http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/113xx/doc11379/Manager%27sAmendmenttoReconciliationProposal.pdf
Council of Chief State School Officers, (2010). School Matters. Retrieved from http://www.schoolmatters.com
Derthick, M. (1979). Policymaking for social security. Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution.
Dixon, J. B., Dixon, M. E., & O’Brien, P. E. (2003). Depression in association with severe obesity
changes with weight loss. Archives of Internal Medicine, 163 (17), 2058-2065.
Doescher, M. P., Saver, B. G., Franks, P., & Fiscella, K. (2000). Racial and ethnic disparities
in perceptions of physician style and trust. Archives of Family Medicine, 9, 1156-1163.
Eaton, D. K., Lowry, R., Brener, N. D., Galuska, D. A., & Crosby, A. E. (2005). Associations of
body mass index and perceived weight with suicide ideation and suicide attempts among
US high school students. Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine, 159, 513-519.
Hatziandreu, E. I., Koplan, J. P., Weinstein, M. C., Caspersen, C. J., Warner, K.E. (1988). A cost-effectiveness
analysis of exercise as a health promotion activity. American Journal of Public Health, 78, 1417-1421.
Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation, (2010). Side-by-Side Comparison of Major Health Care Reform Proposals. Retrieved
Hill, J. O., Wyatt, H. R., Reed, G. W., & Peters, J. C. (2003). Obesity and the environment: where
do we go from here? Science Magazine, 299 (5608), 853-855.
International Health Conference (1946). Preamble to the Constitution of the
World Health Organization. Official Records of the World Health Organization,
Jamie Oliver’s Platform for Change, (2010). Retrieved from http://www.jamieoliver.com/jfr-beta/pdf/Jamie-Oliver_Platform-for-change.pdf
Krisberg, K. (2009). U.S. obesity trends are growing worse, adding to health costs. Nation's Health, 39 (7),
Lightwood, J., Bibbins-Domingo, K., Coxson, P., Wang, Y. C., Williams, L., & Goldman, L. (2009). Forecasting
the future economic burden of current adolescent overweight: An estimate of the coronary heart disease policy
model. American Journal of Public Health, 99 (12), 2230-2237.
Marmor, T., Oberlander, J., & White, J. (2009). The Obama administration’s options for
health care cost control: Hope versus reality.
Annals of Internal Medicine, 150, 485-489.
Misra, A. (2003).Revisions of cutoffs of body mass index to define overweight and obesity are needed
for the Asian-ethnic groups. International Journal of Obesity, 27, 1294–1296. doi:10.1038/sj.ijo.0802412
Myers R. (1967). Actuarial cost estimates for the old-age, survivors, disability, and health insurance system
as modified by the social security amendments of 1967. committee print, committee on ways and means, House
of Representatives, 90th Congress, 1st Session; December 11, 1967.
National Center for Health Statistics (2002). National health and nutritional examination survey. United States. Retrieved from http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/hestat/overweight/overweight_adult.htm
Russell, L.B. (1993) The role of prevention in health reform. New England Journal of Medicine, 329,
Russell, L.B. (2007). Prevention’s potential for slowing the growth of medical spending. National Coalition on Health Care, Washington D.C. 2007.
University of Colorado at Denver and Health Sciences Center, (2004). Colorado on the Move. Retrieved
Worldwide Pants Incorporated (2010, March 23). Interview with Jamie Oliver. The late show with David Letterman. New York, NY: CBS, Inc.