Economic Causes and Consequences of Obesity

1
Presented by Eric Finkelstein, Ph.D.
3040 Cornwallis Road P.O. Box 12194
Research Triangle Park, NC 27709
Phone [phone]
Fax [phone]
e-mail finkelse_at_rti.org www.rti.org
RTI International is a trade name of Research
Triangle Institute
2
Outline

• Obesity Prevalence
• Economic Causes
• Other Causes of Obesity
• Why Should (or Shouldnt) We Care About Obesity?
• Proper Role of Government
• The Employers Dilemma
• Can the Economy Solve the Problem?
• Conclusion

3
Current Obesity Prevalence Rates Select
Countries
Source WHO Global Database on Body Mass Index
and OECD Factbook 2006 Quality of Life
Obesity
4
Trends Among Youth

• 17 of U.S. children are overweight and many
  more are at-risk
• Over the last 30 years
• rate of overweight for 6-11 year olds tripled
  (from 4 to almost 19)
• rate of overweight for 12-19 year olds increased
  from 6 to over 17
• Since 1990, twice as many children aged 2-5 are
  overweight (13.9 vs. 7.2)
• Large racial disparities among kids
• Overweight prevalence rose by more than 120
  among African American and Hispanic children
  compared with 50 among Caucasians from 1986 to
  1998

5
Calories In
Foods Equivalent to about 100 Calories

• A net caloric imbalance of about 100 calories
  per day could generate an average weight gain of
  10lbs per year (Hill et al).

6
Calories In

• In 2004, the average American consumed 52 gallons
  of soft drinks
• represents a 50 increase from 1980
• Fruit juice consumption increased by 40 since
  1980
• Soft drinks are the number one food consumed in
  the American diet
• accounting for 7 of all calories consumed

7
Calories In (youth)

• Caloric intake changes from NHANES I (1971-74) to
  NHANES (1999-2000)
• Children
• Boys 2,550 to 2,800 kcal/day (10)
• Girls 1,780 to 1,900 kcal/day (7)
• Boys consume 300 more soft drinks than in the
  1970s (from 7oz. to 22oz. per day)
• Childrens sugar consumption is twice what is
  recommended

8

• But why the increase in consumption?

9
Cheap Food Gets Cheaper

• Food costs (both money and time) have been
  steadily declining
• Greatest drops are for calorie dense foods
• Since 1960, the relative price of food compared
  with other goods has decreased by 16
• Since 1978, food prices have dropped by 38
  (until very recently)
• Since 1983, prices of fresh fruits and
  vegetables, all fruits and vegetables, fish, and
  dairy products have increased by 190, 144, 100
  and 82, respectively
• Fats and oils, sugars and sweets, and carbonated
  beverages increased at much lower ratesby 70,
  66, and 32, respectively

10
Non-Monetary Costs

• Opportunity cost of preparing foods from scratch
  continues to increase relative to purchasing
  prepared and pre-packaged foods
• Increased prevalence/convenience of fast-food and
  restaurants lowers acquisition costs
• Technology lowers the cost of preparing
  pre-packaged foods more than it does for foods
  cooked from scratch
• Consider the microwave
• 95 of homes have them today
• 8 had them in 1978

11
Calories Out
12
Activities and Calories Burned Per Hour
Source METs Compendium
13
Changes in Caloric ExpenditureLeisure Activity

• The (opportunity) costs of being physically
  active continue to increase

14
Changes in Caloric ExpenditureLeisure Activity

• The benefits of inactive leisure have gone up
  so we would expect leisure time physical activity
  to decrease
• Internet, computer games, cable TV,
• Between 1970 and 2000, the of homes with more
  than one TV rose from 35 to 75
• Those with cable TV rose from 7 to 76
• 55 of homes now have Internet access

15
Average Hours Per Day Spent in Leisure and Sports
Activities
Source Bureau of Labor Statistics, Dept. of
Labor, U.S. GovernmentAmerican Time Use Survey
(ATUS) 2003 Released September 2004
16
Inactivity Among Youth

• 1/4 of U.S. young people (ages 12-21 years)
  report no vigorous physical activity
• About 14 of young people report no recent
  vigorous or light to moderate physical activity
• Participation in all types of physical activity
  declines as grade in school increases
• 17 of children watch TV for 5 hours a day vs.
  36 who watch TV for less than an hour a day

17
Non-Leisure Time Physical Activity

• The (opportunity) costs of being active on the
  job have gone up
• Due to technology, you can accomplish more by
  doing less (energy expenditure)
• More physical activity would decrease
  productivity (and wages)
• Many of us could choose more active (and lower
  paying) jobs but at a significant cost (Ill
  return to this point)

18
Non-Leisure Time Physical Activity

• After 18 years, an average male worker will weigh
  25 pounds more if he works in the lowest-fitness
  demanding job than if he had worked in the
  highest fitness-demanding jobs
• Accidental exercise is hard to come by
• We used to get paid to exercise, we now have to
  pay to exercise (Lakdawalla Phillipson, 2007)
• Note a 30-minute jog followed by 8 hours at a
  desk job falls short of the 10,000 Steps
  recommendation

19
Recap

• The rise in obesity rates is a direct result of
  changes in relative costs that promote excess
  food consumption and inactivity (at work, at
  home, and in between)
• Prices and opportunity cost of food consumption
  has decreased
• Largest decrease is for high calorie foods
• Benefits of inactive leisure have gone up
• Opportunity costs of active labor have gone up
• Net Effect rising rates of obesity
• Note much of these changes are technology
  driven and reflect consumer preferences

20
Other Causes of Obesity?
21
Sprawl

• In 1960, 64 of people drove to work, 10 walked,
  and 12 used public transportation
• In 2000, 88 drove to work, 3 walked, and 5
  used public transportation
• A survey of Atlanta residents (Frank) found that
  each half-hour spent in the car is associated
  with a 3 greater likelihood of being obese.
  Those who commuted by foot were far less likely
  to be obese
• For many, long commutes are also a choice and are
  largely driven by property values

22
One More Potential Cause of Rising Obesity Rates
Moral Hazard
23
Moral Hazard

• Over the past few decades, there has been a
  tremendous increase in medical, pharmacological
  and surgical treatments for the risk factors and
  diseases that are promoted by obesity
• Statins for cholesterol
• Metformin for diabetes
• Many new BP meds
• Over 1.5 million procedures performed last year
  in the U.S. aimed at opening up clogged arteries

24
Moral Hazard

• Among todays obese population, the prevalence of
  high cholesterol and high blood pressure are now
  21, and 18 percentage points lower, respectively,
  than among obese persons 30 to 40 years ago
  (Gregg et al)
• Todays obese population has better BP and
  Cholesterol values than normal weight adults had
  a few decades ago (Gregg et al)
• Maybe being obese is not so costly anymore

25
Recap Its the Economy, Stupid

• Obesity is the result of technological
  advancements that have changed relative costs of
  food consumption, physical activity, and obesity
• Decreased cost of food consumption
• Increased cost of physical activity
• Decreased health costs of being obese
• Technology (or a growing economy) is responsible
  for (or at least exacerbates) rising rates of
  obesity
• Obesity is a side-effect of our own success

26

• We may be fatter, but are we worse off?

27
A Growing Waistline Can Be Bad For Your Health

• Substantial excess weight reduces life
  expectancy, but most notably for BMIs 35
• Excess weight causes 70 of diabetes cases in the
  United States
• Excess weight greatly increases the risks of
  developing hypertension and high cholesterol
• Obesity adversely affects nearly every system of
  the human body

28
A Growing Waistline Can Be Bad For Your Health
SOURCE NAASO, The Obesity Society
29
Utility Maximizing
A Growing Waistline Can Be Bad For Your Health
but Diet and Exercise have their own costs
30
So Is There a Role for Government?
31
Role of Gov. as Seen by Economists

• Government should intervene only in the case of
  market failures (or undo past government
  failures)
• Market Failure occurs when resources are not
  being allocated efficiently by the private sector
• Externalities
• Market Power
• Public Goods
• Imperfect (Asymmetric) Information
• Consumer Irrationality

32
The Role of Government When It Comes to Obesity

• Where are the market (or government) failures?

33
Externalities

• Second-hand smoke provides a clear motivation for
  government interventions to reduce smoking rates
• Smokers impact non-smokers
• Does obesity increase the health risks of those
  they come into contact with?
• Not likely
• Obesity in Pregnancy may be one exception
• Increases risk for the offspring
• During pregnancy delayed diagnosis, increased
  cesarean and instrumental delivery, preeclampsia,
  eclampsia, and gestational diabetes
• For the child neural tube defects, spina bifida,
  heart defects and delivery-related neonatal
  morbidity
• Provides a role for government to address obesity
  among women of child-bearing age

34
Market Power

• More (not less) market power would be helpful
  when it comes to obesity
• Monopolists tend to raise prices
• Recent surge in food prices may slow rising rate
  of obesity

35
Public Goods

• The government already funds many public goods
  related to obesity
• 83.6 million acres of public parks and
  recreational facilities
• Food Guide Pyramid
• 200 million Steps to a HealthierUS Initiative
• CDC funded obesity prevention programs
• 440 million NIH budget for obesity research (up
  250 since 1998)
• Could gov. do more, yes, but would it help?

36
Imperfect (Asymmetric) Information

• Lots of markets function fine with asymmetric
  information
• Should government force mandatory labeling for
  store-bought foods or restaurant foods?
• FDA advisory panel says no
• Key Question - Can the market solve this issue
  without government intervention (i.e., is there a
  market failure)?

37
Irrationality

• Are consumers able to maximize utility subject to
  their constraints?
• Evidence of food addictions but can these be
  overcome?
• Can we not over-exercise to make up for
  over-consumption or control our consumption?
• Some cannot but most can

38
Financial Externality

• Is government intervention warranted to save
  money?

39
Financial Externality

• Overweight and obesity increase the annual
  medical bill by 90 billion per year
• In the absence of overweight and obesity, health
  insurance expenditures would be 9 lower
• Medicare expenditures would be 11 lower
• The government finances half of the total annual
  medical costs attributable to obesity, or more
  than 45 billion per year
• The average taxpayer spends 175 per year to
  finance obesity-related medical expenditures
  among Medicare and Medicaid recipients

40
Financial Externality (cont.)

• But is this a reasonable justification for
  government intervention?
• Arent Medicare and Medicaid entitlement programs
  by design?
• Hard to use these costs to justify government
  intervention
• If unhappy about these costs, solution is easy
• Experience rate
• Resolving the financial externality would suggest
  that only cost-saving interventions are warranted
• These dont exist to my knowledge
• Would also suggest giving away free cigarettes!

41
So Is There a Role for Government?

• Government imposes laws and regulations that
  influence food consumption and physical activity
  decisions
• This ultimately influences rates of obesity
• An appropriate role may not be to solve existing
  market failures, but to revisit past laws and
  regulations to determine whether or not they may
  be doing more harm than good
• Farm bill, zoning, publicly provided health
  insurance,
• But kids are a different story
• The utility maximization argument is unlikely to
  hold for them
• Bad decisions as youth are especially hard to
  undue
• Easier sell for youth-focused government
  interventions

42
The Employers Dilemma
43
CHAPTER TEN
44
The Employers Dilemma

• Why Dont Businesses Invest More in the Health of
  their Workforce?

45
Missed Work Days by BMI Category
46
Annual Medical Expenditure for Normal Weight and
Obese Employees 2001-2003 Medical
Expenditure Panel Survey
Source Finkelstein, E.A. and D.S. Brown. 2006.
Why Does the Private Sector Underinvest in
Obesity Prevention and Treatment? North Carolina
Medical Journal 67(4)310-312
47
Why Dont Businesses Invest More in the Health of
their Workforce?

• Unlike government, most employers are profit
  maximizers and will invest in their workforce
  only to the extent that it is profit maximizing
  to do so
• Even though the costs of obesity to employers are
  high, expensive obesity-related initiatives are
  likely to be a bad investment for many firms

48
Why Dont Businesses Invest More in the Health of
their Workforce?

• Employers rarely look further than 5 years down
  the road
• Individuals switch jobs roughly every 4-5 years
• Investment return is likely to be received by
  another businesspossibly even competitor (e.g.
  gastric bypass surgery)
• Little financial incentive to invest in younger
  obese workers who are not yet costly
• Medicare further reduces incentives to invest in
  obesity treatment
• 38 of the 58,000 cost of obesity accrues after
  age 65
• Retiree health insurance benefits are
  increasingly uncommon

49
So Whats an Employer to Do?

• A successful obesity prevention program should
  make it cheaper and easier to be thinnot fat
• Interventions that change marginal costs and
  benefits are likely to be followed by changes in
  behavior
• It also needs to be profit maximizing for the
  employer
• Incentive-based programs are increasingly common
  and may be cost-saving (Finkelstein et al JOEM)

50
Will the Market solve the Obesity Problem?
51
Private Sector Solutions

• There is a huge demand for effective weight loss
  solutions (and even ineffective ones)
• 50 million Americans will attempt to lose weight
  this year through many different mechanisms
• Companies are hard at work looking for innovative
  strategies to reduce rates of obesity and improve
  health
• Potential profits are enormous

52
Private Sector Solutions

• The commercial weight-loss industry is a 49
  billion per year industry
• Health club memberships have doubled in past 15
  years
• Sales for anti-obesity agents in the U.S. are
  expected to triple by 2010 from 723 million in
  2005 to 1.4 billion
• Between 1998 and 2004, bariatric procedures,
  including bypass and banding, have increased by
  more than 800 in the U.S.
• Active video games and other technologies are
  increasingly popular
• Public health folks may not like some of these
  solutions but they may be optimal from a utility
  maximizing perspective

53
Conclusion

• Obesity is a side-effect of our own success
• Utility maximizing individuals may optimally
  choose to weigh more than public health officials
  would like
• Government efforts should focus on revisiting
  past policies that may have inadvertently
  promoted rising rates of obesity
• Optimal private sector response may be to use
  incentives or other strategies that make it
  cheaper and easier to be thin, not fat
• Technology is part of the problem but will also
  be part of the solution