Assessing the Impact of Prevention

One of the more interesting discussions within the larger health reform debate concerns the financial impact of wellness and disease prevention initiatives.  Logic says that doing a better job of preventing disease and keeping people healthier will save money in the long run through fewer lengthy hospitalizations and emergency room visits.

The Congressional Budget Office says otherwise, asserting that any savings would be negated by the costs of extending prevention initiatives to the full U.S. population. 

A new study, though, says the problem lies in the expanse of time over which government budget counter measure the financial effect of federal programs. 

A study by University of Chicago researchers, sponsored by Novo Nordisk and published in the Health Affairs journal this week, says that cost estimates for healthcare legislation should be examined over a period of 25 years in order to better ascertain how having healthier, longer-living patients would affect costs.  Currently, legislative proposals are evaluated over a 10-year period.

It makes sense that early treatment of a chronic disease for a middle-aged patient will result in significant savings when that patient reaches Medicare age levels.  It seems to also make sense that budget officials should take that same type of long-range view in evaluating costs and benefits.  At the very least, it’s a concept worth discussing.