The economic cost of type 2 diabetes attributable to physical inactivity in the United States and Texas in 2007

Type 2 diabetes has grown to epidemic proportions in the U.S., and its prevalence has been steadily increasing in Texas. The physical activity levels in the population have remained low despite it being one of the primary preventive strategies for type 2 diabetes. The objectives of this study were to estimate the direct medical costs of type 2 diabetes attributable to not meeting physical activity Guidelines and to physical inactivity in the U.S. and Texas in 2007. This was a cross sectional study that used physical activity prevalence data from the 2007 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS) to estimate the population attributable risk percentage (PAR%) for type 2 diabetes. These data were combined with the prevalence and cost data of type 2 diabetes to estimate the cost of type 2 diabetes attributable to not meeting Guidelines and to inactivity in the U.S. and Texas in 2007.^ The cost of type 2 diabetes in the U.S. in 2007, attributable to not meeting physical activity Guidelines was estimated to be $13.29 billion, and that attributable to physical inactivity (no leisure time physical activity) was estimated to be $3.32 billion. Depending on various assumptions, these estimates ranged from $7.61 billion to $41.48 billion for not meeting Guidelines, and $1.90 billion to $13.20 billion for physical inactivity in the U.S. in 2007. The cost of type 2 diabetes in Texas in 2007 attributable to not meeting physical activity Guidelines was estimated to be $1.15 billion, and that attributable to physical inactivity (no leisure time physical activity) was estimated to be $325 million. Depending on various assumptions, these estimates ranged from $800 million to $3.47 billion for not meeting Guidelines, and $186 million to $1.28 billion for physical inactivity in Texas in 2007. These results illustrate how much money could be saved annually just in terms of type 2 diabetes cost in the U.S. and Texas, if the entire adult population was active enough to meet physical activity Guidelines. Physical activity promotion, particularly at the environmental and policy level should be a priority in the population. ^

ECONOMIC ANALYSIS OF THE DEMAND FOR PRESCRIPTION MEDICINE IN THE UNITED STATES

The purpose of this study was to understand the role of principle economic, sociodemographic and health status factors in determining the likelihood and volume of prescription drug use. Econometric demand regression models were developed for this purpose. Ten explanatory variables were examined: family income, coinsurance rate, age, sex, race, household head education level, size of family, health status, number of medical visits, and type of provider seen during medical visits. The economic factors (family income and coinsurance) were given special emphasis in this study.^ The National Medical Care Utilization and Expenditure Survey (NMCUES) was the data source. The sample represented the civilian, noninstitutionalized residents of the United States in 1980. The sample method used in the survey was a stratified four-stage, area probability design. The sample was comprised of 6,600 households (17,123 individuals). The weighted sample provided the population estimates used in the analysis. Five repeated interviews were conducted with each household. The household survey provided detailed information on the United States health status, pattern of health care utilization, charges for services received, and methods of payments for 1980.^ The study provided evidence that economic factors influenced the use of prescription drugs, but the use was not highly responsive to family income and coinsurance for the levels examined. The elasticities for family income ranged from -.0002 to -.013 and coinsurance ranged from -.174 to -.108. Income has a greater influence on the likelihood of prescription drug use, and coinsurance rates had an impact on the amount spent on prescription drugs. The coinsurance effect was not examined for the likelihood of drug use due to limitations in the measurement of coinsurance. Health status appeared to overwhelm any effects which may be attributed to family income or coinsurance. The likelihood of prescription drug use was highly dependent on visits to medical providers. The volume of prescription drug use was highly dependent on the health status, age, and whether or not the individual saw a general practitioner. ^

A model of factors determining levels of public support for health care policy in the United States

Public preferences for policy are formed in a little-understood process that is not adequately described by traditional economic theory of choice. In this paper I suggest that U.S. aggregate support for health reform can be modeled as tradeoffs among a small number of behavioral values and the stage of policy development. The theory underlying the model is based on Samuelson, et al.'s (1986) work and Wilke's (1991) elaboration of it as the Greed/Efficiency/Fairness (GEF) hypothesis of motivation in the management of resource dilemmas, and behavioral economics informed by Kahneman and Thaler's prospect theory. ^ The model developed in this paper employs ordered probit econometric techniques applied to data derived from U.S. polls taken from 1990 to mid-2003 that measured support for health reform proposals. Outcome data are four-tiered Likert counts; independent variables are dummies representing the presence or absence of operationalizations of each behavioral variable, along with an integer representing policy process stage. Marginal effects of each independent variable predict how support levels change on triggering that variable. Model estimation results indicate a vanishingly small likelihood that all coefficients are zero and all variables have signs expected from model theory. ^ Three hypotheses were tested: support will drain from health reform policy as it becomes increasingly well-articulated and approaches enactment; reforms appealing to fairness through universal health coverage will enjoy a higher degree of support than those targeted more narrowly; health reforms calling for government operation of the health finance system will achieve lower support than those that do not. Model results support the first and last hypotheses. Contrary to expectations, universal health care proposals did not provide incremental support beyond those targeted to “deserving” populations—children, elderly, working families. In addition, loss of autonomy (e.g. restrictions on choice of care giver) is found to be the “third rail” of health reform with significantly-reduced support. When applied to a hypothetical health reform in which an employer-mandated Medical Savings Account policy is the centerpiece, the model predicts support that may be insufficient to enactment. These results indicate that the method developed in the paper may prove valuable to health policy designers. ^

Current United States stem cell policy considerations and a recommendation for an alternative policy based on guidelines from existing international policies

Embryonic stem cell research is a widely debated topic in modern politics and religion. Differing views on the fetal rights conflict with the rights of an embryo. Those who believe an embryo has the same human qualities as a fetus accordingly believe embryonic stem cell research is unethical because it destroys a potential human life. However, scientists advocate the embryo does not have human qualities and should be used for valuable research in the stem cell field. Stem cell research may lead to vast developments in medical treatments, including cancer and brain conditions and injuries that are currently incurable. ^ The current stem cell policy introduced by President Bush in 2001 in an attempt to balance the moral issues with the need for scientific research has broad negative implications on the furthering of stem cell research. There is a limited diversity of available stem cell lines, there may be constitutional issues, there is an increasing disparity between the public and private research spheres, and the U.S. is struggling to maintain its scientific community. The U.S. must develop a new stem cell research policy that will balance the interest of science and public health with the moral issues that concern the public. ^ The United Kingdom allows researchers great liberty in conducting research, permitting the creation of embryos for the sole purpose of research, while Germany is equally conservative in their laws, as their policies support the philosophy that all embryos deserve the protection of full life. The United States should adopt a policy that takes the "middle ground" approach and permit research on excess embryos created for IVF purposes, rather than simply discarding those potentially valuable research tools. ^