"
SCIENTISTS in Scotland have devised a formula revealing the cost of excessive weight gain: each 7lb an adult puts on produces a £16 bill for taxpayers.
"
http://www.scotsman.com/news/health/obesity-in-scotland-costs-around-475m-a-year-1-2784364
CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » Debate!
"Obesity in Scotland costs around £475m a year"
(32 posts)-
Posted 11 years ago #
-
I don't know whether to despair more for the scientists, with their back of an envelope calculation, or the Scotsman for writing it up as 'devising a formula'.
But really, what kind of serious medical interventions are these obese people needing that costs a whopping £300-700 a year to treat. I mean, I paid £350 on Friday to have a tooth filled.
Posted 11 years ago # -
Is it maybe just an averaged figure based on, say, number of heart disease patients requring surgery who happen to be obese?
There are some definite knock-on financial aspects. Ambulances are having to be upgraded to take the weight for example (you do get lots of little insights into the world of the NHS when your other half works for the organisation - though you could argue they should have ordered better quality ambulances in the first place... :P).
I'd put money on the scientists looknig at the report and saying, "but, that's not what we said!".
Posted 11 years ago # -
No, it is a random selection of 3324 patients who have gone to their GP, many of those are going to have gone in for a sore toe or something and not for rare and expensive diseases.
Posted 11 years ago # -
I am not tempted to read the paper but in the news report, the following statement is interesting:
"after adjusting for sex, age, smoking, alcohol consumption and physical activity level"
especially the last bit.
Posted 11 years ago # -
Yes, I don't understand that. In the abstract they also seem to be suggesting that non-smokers are more expensive than smokers.
Posted 11 years ago # -
Sorry, it is non-drinkers are more expensive than drinkers. Non-smokers are cheaper than smokers.
Posted 11 years ago # -
I would imagine that the average seriously obese person is paying more than £700 a year to the Treasury in food related VAT? Just as, as a whole smokers pay more to the Treasury in taxes than they cost to treat.
Yes, they may be a drain on the system, but they die young. Are they any more of a drain on the system that a 90 year old who can't look after themselves, and require constant care for years?
I must admit, I don't like targeting specific demographics because we may not like the life choices they make. Should I not have received treatment when I had broken ribs as a result of a cycling accident 3 years ago? Or what about immigrants who are imagined to be stressing the system, should we stop treating them?
Posted 11 years ago # -
It must be better to point out the benfits that an improved lifestyle would offer to the individual.
The cost argument could be used to demonstrate to the NHS the benefit of offering preventative treatment rather than waiting for problems to pile up.
Posted 11 years ago # -
I have to admit, I'd doubted that the revenue was more than the expenditure, but this from ASH (who let's face it aren't impartial) suggests it may be the case.
On costs:
"Research commissioned by ASH has shown that the cost to the NHS of treating diseases caused by smoking is approximately £2.7 billion a year.6 Another study put the estimated cost as high as £5.2 billion.7 A report by the Policy Exchange in 2010 estimated the total cost to society of smoking to be £13.74 billion. This includes the £2.7bn cost to the NHS but also the loss in productivity from smoking breaks (£2.9bn) and increased absenteeism (£2.5bn). Other costs include: cleaning up cigarette butts (£342 million), the cost of fires (£507m), the loss of economic output from the death of smokers (£4.1bn) and passive smokers (£713m).8 However, it is also estimated that about £380 million a year is being saved by the NHS as a result of public health strategies such as the ban on tobacco advertising and the creation of the stop smoking services which have resulted in fewer people smoking"
On revenue:
"The Treasury earned £9.5 billion in revenue from tobacco duties in the financial year 2011-2012 (excluding VAT).16 This amounts to 2% of total Government revenue. Including VAT at an estimated £2.6bn, total tobacco revenue was £12.1bn"
I find it hard to include in the costs the 'loss of economic output from the death of smokers' since, presumably, they'll be replaced by someone, so exactly where lies the cost (as I say, ASH aren't impartial).
Of course I'm not advocating that anyone should smoke, but it's interesting. It's a pity the money from smoking revenue isn't hypothecated, but overall smokers possibly are net contributors... I'd stick my neck out and ssay food revenues wouldn't add up tot he cost of obesity realted 'costs' - the cigarette tax is apparently 78%, which is somewhat higher than VAT.
Posted 11 years ago # -
I would imagine that the average seriously obese person is paying more than £700 a year to the Treasury in food related VAT?
I thought the whole controversy with all the sugar and salt encrusted food was that it is too cheap and needs to be taxed higher?
Posted 11 years ago # -
There are some stats to the effect that a small amount of the right kind of alcohol appears to have a benificial effect on people of a particular age...
wrt "adjusting for ... physical activity level" the following may or may not be relevant: some time ago I read an article contrasting a "Mr Fat" and a "Mr Thin". The reason I read it was that "Mr Fat" was a member of the triathlon forum at that time. He'd been very obese, had got into triathlon and was now merely somewhat overweight (and continuing to lose weight) and a regular exerciser. The "Mr Thin" on the other hand, smoked and did no exercise whatsoever. Mr Fat scored better on all the various heath measures that they tested than Mr Thin did (except weight, of course). What this actually goes to show I don't quite know. (I refuse to locate the article as it was on the Daily Mail.)
Posted 11 years ago # -
Yes, being fat and fit is better than being thin and unfit - I thought. But this paper seems to be suggesting that more physical exercise increases your cost to the NHS. Unfortunately I can't access it.
Posted 11 years ago # -
I thought food was zero VAT, except in certain cases (eg. takeaways)?
Posted 11 years ago # -
From HMRC web site:
Food and drink for human consumption is, in general, zero-rated but many items are standard-rated, including alcoholic drinks, confectionery, crisps and savoury snacks, hot food, sports drinks, supplies of food made in the course of catering including hot takeaways, ice cream, soft drinks and mineral water.
Because certain food and drink is zero-rated, so too are certain animals and animal feeds, and plants and seeds - if the animal or plant in question produces food that is normally used for human consumption.
Posted 11 years ago # -
I read a few years ago that the figures for people who don't drink includes people who used to drink a lot and were told to give up. This might cause a surprising result as they would be lumped in with people who stopped drinking it when they were 17 and in the last 30 years have had half a bottle of champagne and half a glass of wine (1988 and 1996 respectively).
Posted 11 years ago # -
Did the study uncover what momentous event happened in 1988?
Posted 11 years ago # -
Passed finals in 1988. Bottle of Moet was sitting in a Botany dept cold room.
Sister's wedding in 1996.
Posted 11 years ago # -
Posted 10 years ago # -
Greggs in Gordon St, Glasgow, is open till 0400 or 0500 hrs. I've never been there late enough to check.
Posted 10 years ago # -
My biggest cost to the NHS so far was caused by cycling ;)
Posted 10 years ago # -
Ahem!
It's actually 10 times that figure:
Obesity costs Scotland up to £4bn, says parliament report
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-30712231
Posted 9 years ago # -
Posted 3 years ago #
-
Fortunately he is more nuanced than that. His Gene research with labradors reported in the sun as Flabradors.
Some people are predisposed to not put on weight (I was like that for years but metabolic rate or whatever slowing down now) others predisposed to pile on the beef. But he did emphasize lifestyle choices.
The poor used to be malnourished, now they are obese.
Posted 3 years ago # -
Genes code for proteins and nothing else. I will die on this hill.
Labradors have a gene that codes for a protein that is a stomach stretch-receptor that isn't as responsive as other dogs' versions?
Posted 3 years ago # -
He has located the receptor in 25 per cent of labradors. POCM.
Posted 3 years ago # -
Enzymes are proteins. Enzyme expression and regulation a complicated mix of instructions/templates and environment, but where the environment can be as small and specific as a sub-cellular vesicle.
Posted 3 years ago # -
I am also big on epigenetics which is fascinating. Particularly the Dutch post-war famine studies which bear on obesity.
Posted 3 years ago # -
Programme basically concluded that while there is an element of ‘personal choice’, ‘solution’ includes ‘fixing the environment’ - ie availability of fast food etc. (Don’t think advertising was mentioned.)
Didn’t hear the word obesogenic.
Posted 3 years ago #
Reply »
You must log in to post.
posts
