prev next front |1 |2 |3 |4 |5 |6 |7 |8 |9 |10 |11 |12 |13 |14 |15 |16 |17 |18 |19 |20 |21 |22 |23 |24 |25 |26 |27 |28 |29 |30 |31 |32 |33 |34 |35|36 |37 |38 |39 |40 |41 |42 |43 |44 |45 |46 |47 |48 |49 |50 |51 |52 |53 |54 |55 |56 |57 |58 |59 |60 |61  |62|63 |64 |65 |66 |67 |68 |review

Uses the 1989 cost of obesity ($464 million) as a base line cost

Assumes that the cost  of obesity will rise 1:1 with the prevalence of obesity (ie if the prevalence of obesity rose 6.1% then the total cost of obesity has also risen 6.1%

Obesity is assumed as BMI 30+

The cost of obesity is direct cost only (this means the costs associated with worker absenteeism and premature deaths are excluded)

The cost of obesity should be viewed as very conservative because of a narrow range of diseases was included in the analysis (non-insulin-dependent diabetes, gallstones, coronary heart disease, hypertension, breast cancer and colon cancer): the potential cost associated with overweight (BMI 26 to 29.9) was not included;  not all cost categories were estimated and the analysis did not include the costs of obesity treatment outside the formal healthcare system (Such as weight control centres and health clubs)

The total cost is calculated by working out the average growth in prevalence and then multiplying that growth estimate ( a percentage) by the cost. The cost per year is only changing due to the prevalence rates. This will mean an underestimate as health system costs are increasing.

The cost estimates assumes that obesity will grow at the same rate every year. This rate is the rate that prevalence grew from 1995-2000 and is a lot lower than the rate in previous years, therefore the actual rate could be much higher.