Thursday, August 05, 2004
Unchecked weight-loss spending
[Editorial, "Encouraging options for treating obesity," The Kansas City Star, 5 August 2004.]
Today's Kansas City Star offers a some cautious words of advice to policymakers: spending your way out of debt can be a dangerous course of action. No one will argue with the fact that obesity among Americans drives up health costs, but the questions that should precede government intervention include whether such intervention will be effective and whether the costs will outweigh the benefits.
A recent rule change enabling Medicare to regard obesity as a disease is both sensible and worrisome.
While opinions differ on whether obesity is a sickness, it is a critical factor in some of America's most debilitating and costly health problems, including diabetes, heart disease and some forms of cancer. Yet state and federal health insurance programs have long ruled out reimbursement for obesity treatments.
Health professionals who treat low-income and elderly people have had good reason to protest this exclusion. Medicare has covered some programs for alcoholism, drug addiction and sexual impotence but excluded obesity treatments. Most state Medicaid programs will not fund weight-loss efforts.
Health and Human Services Secretary Tommy G. Thompson announced recently that Medicare would consider funding some obesity treatments. He left the door open for similar changes in Medicaid.
The news was encouraging to the staff at Swope Community Enterprises in Kansas City, which serves mostly low-income patients. Obesity, hypertension and diabetes are seen frequently among poor people and minorities.
At this point the shift in policy means only that Medicare will review evidence to determine which weight-loss methods work best. Gastric bypass surgery will be one of the first options considered.
Government has good reason to be cautious. Weight loss has often been a field for hucksters, and the idea of federal reimbursements is likely to set off more of a deluge of new diet and exercise schemes.
Complicating the issue is the fact that obesity treatments often have high rates of failure. Losing weight and keeping it off require a patient's willingness to adopt lifestyle changes and new attitudes about food.
It makes sense for the government to tackle obesity before it leads to the more serious diseases.
But caution is needed. Unchecked weight-loss spending could cause more bloating for the government than a supersized fast-food diet.
[Editorial, "Encouraging options for treating obesity," The Kansas City Star, 5 August 2004.]
Today's Kansas City Star offers a some cautious words of advice to policymakers: spending your way out of debt can be a dangerous course of action. No one will argue with the fact that obesity among Americans drives up health costs, but the questions that should precede government intervention include whether such intervention will be effective and whether the costs will outweigh the benefits.
A recent rule change enabling Medicare to regard obesity as a disease is both sensible and worrisome.
While opinions differ on whether obesity is a sickness, it is a critical factor in some of America's most debilitating and costly health problems, including diabetes, heart disease and some forms of cancer. Yet state and federal health insurance programs have long ruled out reimbursement for obesity treatments.
Health professionals who treat low-income and elderly people have had good reason to protest this exclusion. Medicare has covered some programs for alcoholism, drug addiction and sexual impotence but excluded obesity treatments. Most state Medicaid programs will not fund weight-loss efforts.
Health and Human Services Secretary Tommy G. Thompson announced recently that Medicare would consider funding some obesity treatments. He left the door open for similar changes in Medicaid.
The news was encouraging to the staff at Swope Community Enterprises in Kansas City, which serves mostly low-income patients. Obesity, hypertension and diabetes are seen frequently among poor people and minorities.
At this point the shift in policy means only that Medicare will review evidence to determine which weight-loss methods work best. Gastric bypass surgery will be one of the first options considered.
Government has good reason to be cautious. Weight loss has often been a field for hucksters, and the idea of federal reimbursements is likely to set off more of a deluge of new diet and exercise schemes.
Complicating the issue is the fact that obesity treatments often have high rates of failure. Losing weight and keeping it off require a patient's willingness to adopt lifestyle changes and new attitudes about food.
It makes sense for the government to tackle obesity before it leads to the more serious diseases.
But caution is needed. Unchecked weight-loss spending could cause more bloating for the government than a supersized fast-food diet.
Comments:
Post a Comment
