• Not everything good saves money

    I’ve taken a lot of heat on this blog for my stance on preventive care. Unlike a lot of politicians, I’ve often held that it doesn’t necessarily save a lot of money. It might, sometimes, but it doesn’t always. After all, if you reduce spending in one area, it may increase in another. Also, extending one’s life often means increased lifetime medical expenses.

    None of this means prevention isn’t important. Increasing people’s lives, and the quality of them, is not only an outcomes-good, it’s likely a moral-good. I think we should do it. I just think it should be pitched in that way instead of a bottom line-good.

    I bring this up because a recent study published in Health Affairs is right on point. “Simulation Of Quitting Smoking In The Military Shows Higher Lifetime Medical Spending More Than Offset By Productivity Gains“:

    Despite the documented benefits of quitting smoking, studies have found that smokers who quit may have higher lifetime medical costs, in part because of increased risk for medical conditions, such as type 2 diabetes, brought on by associated weight gain. Using a simulation model and data on 612,332 adult smokers in the US Department of Defense’s TRICARE Prime health plan in 2008, we estimated that cessation accompanied by weight gain would increase average life expectancy by 3.7 years, and that the average lifetime reduction in medical expenditures from improved health ($5,600) would be offset by additional expenditures resulting from prolonged life ($7,300). Results varied by age and sex: For females ages 18–44 at time of cessation, there would be net savings of $1,200 despite additional medical expenditures from prolonged life. Avoidance of weight gain after quitting smoking would increase average life expectancy by four additional months and reduce mean extra spending resulting from prolonged life by $700. Overall, the average net lifetime health care cost increase of $1,700 or less per ex-smoker would be modest and, for employed people, more than offset by even one year’s worth of productivity gains. These results boost the case for smoking cessation programs in the military in particular, along with not selling cigarettes in commissaries or at reduced prices.

    Quite simply, this study modeled what would happen to adult smokers in the TRICARE health plan who quit smoking. They found that quitting, even if it led to weight gain, increased the average person’s life by 3.7 years. That’s great! It also led to some nice decreases in health care spending due to improved health. But these savings were more than offset by increased health care spending due to a longer life.

    The study goes on to try and say it’s still worth it because they would have increased productivity in an economic sense. It also makes the point that the increased spending is modest. I think that’s besides the point. We should get people to quit smoking because it will make their lives better and their lives longer. If that causes them to cost the health care system more eventually, so be it. I’m a doctor, and making lives better and longer is why I got into this. It’s also what the health care system is for. That should be the focus. It’s not always about saving money.


    • I hate it that have to be the one to say this but it is impossible for us to sure that no one benefits from smoking. Smokers must get something from smoking at least when they start or else why would they start and it is impossible for us to knew if the early benefits of smoking are out weighed by he later costs. Most smoker regret starting but that is not proof because people tend to discount the past. We do many things that shorten our life expectancy, we ride motorcycles, women have children, we drive fast, we drink etc so we understand that long life is not the whole goal in life.

      Therefore the government can only look at the cost and say that smoking reduces spending or not.

      Note: I encourage everyone to not smoke and to at least consider the costs before starting.

    • So many health care costs can be justified with the statement that it improves quality of life. Whether the data is strong or weak, the cost gets added to the ever-growing mountain.

      If we could differentiate between valuable and value-less care, then we might be able to spend health care dollars more wisely. Unfortunately, we cannot and anyone who tries to impose rational thought to the process is accused of being a cold-hearted bureaucrat, intent on killing the weak.

      Has the point come yet that we say health care costs are consuming too great a share of our resources? And even if we could make lives longer or better, we cannot afford the steep trade-offs of putting ever-more money into health care. The non-financial benefit of more health care cannot continue to justify the high financial cost.