Indirect Costs of Obesity a Review of the Current Literature

Learning Objectives

• Discuss previous knowledge of the economic brunt of obesity in the The states workforce.
• Summarize the new findings on direct and indirect costs associated with different classes of obesity in the privately insured population.
• Discuss differences between employment industries in the role of body mass index (BMI) as a cost predictor.

Obesity is increasingly mutual in the United States (Us), with the age-standardized prevalence rising significantly from 34% in 2007 to 2008 to 40% in 2015 to 2016.¹ Obesity is defined by the Globe Health Arrangement (WHO) as backlog adiposity that may impair health, and is estimated by a trunk mass index (BMI) of more or equal to thirty.0 kg/yard^two, with divisions into grade I (xxx.0 ≤ BMI ≤ 34.ix kg/one thousand²), class II (35.0 ≤ BMI ≤ 39.9 kg/m²), and grade III (BMI ≥ xl.0 kg/chiliad²) obesity.² While previously understood as merely a upshot of voluntary overeating and/or inactivity, obesity is now recognized every bit a disease with genetic, ecology, physiological, and psychological factors contributing to its pathophysiology, and with pregnant effects on morbidity and mortality.ⁱⁱⁱ Appropriately, it is a prime number correspondent to many chronic wellness conditions, including, only not limited to, hypertension, type 2 diabetes, coronary artery disease, stroke, and some cancers.⁴

Consequently, people with obesity have higher healthcare resource utilization (HRU) rates than individuals with normal BMI, leading to considerable excess healthcare costs.^5–13 Obesity is also associated with substantial indirect costs, such as those related to disability, workers' bounty, absenteeism (absence from work, such every bit sick exit), and presenteeism (reduction in productivity while at piece of work).^xi–19 Co-ordinate to a written report by the Milken Institute, in 2016, obesity/overweight and its associated chronic diseases were estimated to account for more than $480 billion in direct healthcare costs and $1.24 trillion in indirect work loss costs in the The states.²⁰ To this end, obesity has a large affect on both affected employees and their employers. Moreover, studies have shown that the prevalence of obesity varies beyond dissimilar employment industries,^21,22 suggesting that occupation-specific nuances may be associated with the risk of obesity and its burden. It is therefore imperative to proceeds a better understanding of the distribution of obesity-related costs across the United states workforce. Although the economical burden of obesity has been documented in the literature,^{v,7–9,18,23} at that place is a lack of studies comprehensively assessing the industry-specific costs of obesity in the employed population.^six,14,17 Insights on these patterns of obesity-related expenditures are needed to empathise the relationship betwixt occupation and economical impact of obesity, and to promote the implementation of much-needed comprehensive (eg, behavioral, dietary, physical action-related, pharmacological, and surgical) work-based intervention programs. Therefore, this written report was conducted to present a gimmicky assessment of the direct and indirect costs associated with obesity classes I, Ii, and III compared with normal weight in the privately insured population and to specifically explore and characterize these costs amid employees of major US industries. Additionally, the role of BMI as a predictor of high healthcare costs was evaluated inside each of the industries of employment.

METHODS

Data Source

This study was conducted using data from the Optum Wellness Reporting and Insights employer claims database (Employer database) from January 1, 2010 to March 31, 2017. The Employer database includes administrative claims for over 19.1 meg privately insured individuals covered past 84 cocky-insured Fortune 500 companies in the US for services provided from 1999 through the first quarter of 2017. These companies have operations nationwide in a wide array of industries and job classifications (eg, financial services, manufacturing, telecommunications, energy, and food and beverage). The data include claims for all of the companies' beneficiaries (ie, employees, spouses, dependents, and retirees) nationwide. In improver, for 42 of the 84 companies, some work loss data for employees (approximately 4.4 meg lives) are available, including short- and long-term disability claims.

The Employer database contains information on eligibility (eg, demographics, employment condition, and relationship with the primary plan holder), medical claims (eg, accuse, payment, and days supplied data for provider and date of service; and International Classification of Diseases, ninth revision [ICD-9-CM], International Classification of Diseases, 10th revision [ICD-10-CM], and Current Procedural Terminology [CPT] codes), prescription drug claims (eg, charge, payment, days supplied, corporeality supplied, date of service, and National Drug Codes [NDC], and disability claims [eg, employer payments and days of disability]). Of annotation, the Employer database contains no information to measure the indirect impact costs of obesity on presenteeism and workers' compensation.

Data were de-identified and complied with the Wellness Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA). Therefore, no reviews past an institutional review lath were required.

Study Design and Cohorts

A retrospective longitudinal cohort study was conducted. Patients (ie, all included employees, spouses, dependents, and retirees) were classified into 1 of the following report cohorts based on BMI: (1) obesity class I (patients with BMI betwixt 30.0 and 34.9 kg/mⁱⁱ); (2) obesity class Two (patients with BMI between 35.0 and 39.9 kg/m²); (iii) obesity course Iii (patients with BMI 40 kg/k² or over); and (four) reference cohort, every bit a proxy for the normal-weight population, consisting of a randomly selected sample of patients without overweight, obesity, or underweight BMI codes and without overweight or obesity term ICD diagnosis codes. Patients with a normal BMI diagnosis code were not called for the reference cohort because preliminary assessments identified a possible selection bias, where this group represents a higher proportion of female person patients compared with a random sample of patients without diagnosis or BMI codes for overweight or obesity, and a college proportion of patients with disability claims compared with obesity course I and II patients. Furthermore, normal weight/not-obesity diagnosis codes were not frequently used by healthcare providers unless accompanied past another underlying condition, biasing this population to exist unhealthier.

Amongst employees (ie, those with employment data), cohorts were further stratified past industry of employment as reported in the Employer database: transportation; manufacturing and energy; retail and consumer goods; government, education, and religious services (GERS); healthcare; engineering science; finance and insurance; and other (ie, food services, amusement, and other service industries).

The index date was divers equally the first claim with a diagnosis code for BMI on or afterwards January 1, 2010 (obesity cohorts) or a randomly selected date within study eligibility (reference cohort). Baseline characteristics were evaluated in the 12 months pre-index date (baseline period), while outcomes were evaluated from the index engagement up to the end of wellness plan eligibility or end of information availability on March 31, 2017, whichever was earliest (ascertainment period).

Sample Choice

Patients were included in the study if they were aged 18 to 64 years at the index date and had continuous health plan enrollment in the 12 months prior to the index engagement (baseline flow) and 3 months later the index engagement. Patients in the obesity cohorts were also required to have at least i claim with a diagnosis code for a BMI of more than or equal to 30.0 kg/m² (ICD-9-CM: V85.3x for thirty.0 ≤ BMI ≤ 39.9 and V85.4x for BMI ≥ twoscore.0; ICD-ten-CM: Z68.3x for xxx.0 ≤ BMI ≤ 39.ix and Z68.4x for BMI ≥ 40.0). Patients in the reference cohort were also required to have no diagnosis or BMI code for obesity, overweight, or underweight. Exclusion criteria included health maintenance organization (HMO) coverage during the written report period, for which complete price information may not be available; Medicare coverage during the written report period, for which payment information may not be available; and the presence of any pregnancy-related indication for female patients (eg, any merits with the CPT code: 59xxx; ICD-9-CM: V22.10; ICD-10-CM: Z34.xx).

Study Outcomes

Study outcomes measured during the observation period included direct healthcare costs (all patients) and indirect costs (employees only). Direct healthcare costs included chemist's costs and medical costs, including hospitalization, emergency department (ED), outpatient, home healthcare, and other (ie, ambulance, dentist, laboratory, and everything not previously identified) costs.

To identify possible reasons for hospitalization, the superlative primary ICD-10-CM diagnosis codes during hospitalization were evaluated by cohort. ICD-nine-CM codes were converted to ICD-10-CM to avoid duplication of diagnoses, and each code was represented once per patient.

Indirect costs were evaluated amid employees with piece of work loss information and included imputed medical-related absenteeism costs and curt-term and long-term disability costs.

In add-on, to provide a more comprehensive assessment of the indirect costs associated with obesity, presenteeism and workers' bounty costs were extrapolated from the literature for the descriptive overall and per-industry cost analyses. Extrapolation for presenteeism costs was washed using a study conducted by Finkelstein et al,^eleven which was chosen because information technology provided the almost applicable assessment of medical and indirect costs by obesity class in a nationally representative population. Based on Finkelstein et al,¹¹ presenteeism costs were calculated as 1.7-times the absenteeism costs for the reference and obesity class I cohorts and as two.ix-times the absenteeism costs for the obesity class II and III cohorts. Workers' bounty costs were extrapolated based on a study conducted by Kleinman et al,¹² which was chosen because information technology was the only report reporting numerical workers' bounty costs from a large U.s.a. employee database. Based on Kleinman et al,¹² workers' compensation costs were calculated as 0.27-times the brusque- and long-term inability costs for the reference cohort and equally 0.43-times the brusk- and long-term inability costs for the obesity form I, Two, and Iii cohorts.

Costs were adjusted for inflation using the US consumer cost alphabetize (CPI) for medical services from the Bureau of Labor Statistics from the US Department of Labor, and are reported in 2018 US dollars. Similarly, the wages of employees with piece of work loss data were adjusted using the United states of america hourly bounty index (HCI) and are reported in 2018 US dollars. To explore the relationship between the type of industry and the incremental economical bear on of obesity, directly and indirect costs (including price extrapolations) were as well evaluated for each of the employment industries.

Statistical Analysis

All analyses were conducted using SAS Enterprise Guide software Version seven.1 (SAS Establish, Cary, NC) and a two-sided alpha mistake of 0.05 was used to declare statistical significance. To minimize the potential confounding betwixt patients with obesity and the reference cohort, the inverse probability weighting (IPW) approach was used to evaluate the impact of obesity in the entire population based on the propensity score (PS).²⁴ The PS was estimated using a multinomial logistic regression model conditional on baseline covariates including age, sexual activity, geographical region, type of healthcare programme, Quan-Charlson comorbidity alphabetize (Quan-CCI), comorbidities (overall prevalence more than or equal to five%), and type of beneficiary (for overall population just). Probability weights were calculated as ane/PS for the obesity cohort, and ane/(ane–PS) for the reference cohort. Differences in baseline variables between cohorts were assessed using standardized differences (more than than or equal to ten% indicating imbalance between cohorts).

Direct healthcare and indirect work loss costs were calculated and expressed as mean cost per-patient-per-year (PPPY). Inability costs were calculated for employees as short- and long-term disability information multiplied by the workers' recorded wages. Ill get out costs were calculated from employees' resources utilization. Each hospitalization accounted for viii hours of absenteeism from piece of work (i work day) and each ED, outpatient, and other visit accounted for 4 hours of absence (ane/ii a work 24-hour interval). V-sevenths of the full ill leave hours were used in the adding to business relationship for weekend visits that did not result in piece of work loss costs.²⁵

Straight, medical-related absenteeism, and disability costs were compared in the weighted cohorts of the overall population using cost differences. Because price data have positive values and follow a non-normal distribution, non-parametric bootstrap procedures with 499 replications were used to gauge 95% confidence intervals (CI) and P values.

Multivariate generalized linear models (GLM) with a logit link for binary outcomes were used to guess the association between obesity classes and high healthcare costs past type of industry. Employees with yearly healthcare costs or medical-related absenteeism and inability costs at the 80th percentile and to a higher place were classified as high-toll employees. The 80th percentile threshold is based on previous literature, which has shown that the top twenty% of healthcare spenders accounts for more 80% of all spending.^26,27

RESULTS

Baseline Characteristics

A total of 86,221 patients (including employees, spouses, dependents, and retirees) were included in the study. IPW resulted in by and large well-balanced cohorts (ie, standardized differences less than ten%). The hateful age of patients was similar across all cohorts (Tabular array 1). The proportion of female patients was 51.4% in the reference cohort, 54.v% in the obesity grade I cohort, 55.3% in the class Ii cohort, and 55.1% in the class Iii cohort. Included patients had proficient geographical representation across all 4 demography regions. Patients with obesity had a relatively low comorbidity brunt, with mean Quan-CCI values ranging from 0.33 to 0.36 after aligning with IPW (Table 1).

TABLE ane:

Weighted Baseline Demographic and Clinical Characteristics of All Patients in the Obesity and Reference Cohorts

Incremental Straight, Medical-Related Absenteeism, and Inability Costs Among the Overall Population and Employees With Work Loss Coverage

In the overall population (ie, all included employees, spouses, dependents, and retirees), directly healthcare costs were significantly college in each of the obesity cohorts compared with the reference cohort (Fig. 1A). The cost differences were $1775 (95% CI = 1166; 2537) PPPY betwixt the obesity class I and reference cohorts, $3468 (2704; 4336) PPPY between class II and reference, and $11,481 (ten,752; 12,213) PPPY between course III and reference (P < 0.05 for all comparisons).

Effigy ane:

Adjusted direct healthcare, medical-related absence, and inability cost differences for patients in the obesity and reference cohorts among the overall population and employees with work loss coverage. ^oneSample size for absenteeism and disability costs corresponds to the number of employees with piece of work loss coverage. ^* P < 0.05. CI, confidence interval; ED, emergency department; PPPY, per-patient-per-yr.

Hospitalization accounted for an increasing proportion of directly costs with increasing BMI (Fig. 1A). An evaluation of mutual diagnosis codes recorded during hospitalization revealed diagnoses for knee osteoarthritis (0.62% of class I, 1.10% of class II, and 6.24% of class III patients) and aftercare following joint replacement surgery (0.62% of class I, 1.06% of class II, and 4.68% of grade 3 patients) in the class I, Ii, and/or III cohorts merely not in the reference accomplice (Table 2).

TABLE 2:

Top Chief ICD-10-CM Diagnosis Codes During Hospitalization Amid All Patients in the Obesity and Reference Cohorts

Amidst employees with piece of work loss information, medical-related absenteeism and disability costs were also significantly higher in the obesity cohorts compared with the reference cohort (Fig. 1B). The cost differences were $617 (95% CI = 382; 847) PPPY betwixt the obesity class I and reference cohorts, $541 (261; 861) PPPY between class Two and reference, and $1707 (1321; 2161) PPPY betwixt class III and reference (P < 0.05 for all comparisons).

Direct and Indirect Costs With Cost Extrapolations Amid the Overall Population and Employees With Work Loss Coverage

The full adjusted direct and indirect healthcare costs, including extrapolated presenteeism and workers' bounty costs, were $xi,125 PPPY for the reference cohort, $14,341 PPPY for the obesity class I cohort, $eighteen,055 PPPY for the obesity class Ii cohort, and $28,321 PPPY for the obesity class 3 accomplice (Fig. 2).

FIGURE two:

Adjusted direct and indirect healthcare costs (including extrapolated presenteeism and workers' compensation costs) for the obesity and reference cohorts among the overall population and employees with work loss coverage. Extrapolated costs are presented equally a descriptive assay only. Statistical comparisons between cohorts were non made. ^†Total sample size for direct costs (medical and pharmacy). ^‡Sample size for indirect costs (medical-related absenteeism, disability, presenteeism, and workers' compensation), representing the number of employees with work loss coverage. PPPY, per-patient-per-twelvemonth.

Directly and Indirect Costs by Industry Amidst Employees

Direct and indirect healthcare costs (including extrapolated presenteeism and workers' compensation) varied across each of the viii industries studied, but a full general trend of increasing costs with increasing BMI was observed (Fig. 3). Among employees with obesity, the numerically highest total costs were observed in the GERS industry ($xiv,578 PPPY for class I, $25,382 PPPY for class Two, and $34,089 PPPY for class III obesity), other industries (ie, food services, amusement, and other services; $14,129 PPPY for course I, $24,737 PPPY for grade II, and $35,220 for class Three obesity), and technology industry ($13,382 PPPY for class I, $21,642 PPPY for class II, and $31,334 PPPY for course Iii obesity).

FIGURE 3:

Direct and indirect healthcare costs for the obesity and reference cohorts among all employees past manufacture. ^†Sample size for direct costs, representing employees of the eight industries studied. ^‡Sample size for indirect costs, representing the number of employees with work loss coverage. GERS, government, pedagogy, and religious services; PPPY, per-patient-per-year.

Predictors of Loftier Healthcare Costs Among Employees

Across all employees, obesity (BMI more than than or equal to xxx.0) significantly increased the odds of having high direct healthcare (Fig. iv) and medical-related absenteeism and disability costs (Fig. 5) at the 80th percentile or more than (P < 0.05 for all comparisons). The odds ratios (ORs) for loftier direct costs compared with reference were 1.40 (95% CI = one.27; i.55) for the class I cohort, 1.72 (1.54; 1.92) for the form II cohort, and 5.26 (4.78; five.80) for the class III cohort. The ORs for loftier medical-related absenteeism and disability costs compared with reference were 2.10 (ane.86; 2.37) for the class I cohort, 1.98 (one.73; 2.28) for the class 2 accomplice, and three.67 (3.23; four.16) for the class 3 accomplice.

FIGURE 4:

Obesity classes as predictors of high direct healthcare costs compared with the reference cohort among all employees by industry. ^* P < 0.05. CI, conviction interval; GERS, government, educational activity, and religious services; OR, odds ratio; P80, 80th percentile.

Figure v:

Obesity classes as predictors of loftier medical-related absenteeism and disability costs compared with the reference cohort among employees with work loss coverage by industry. ^* P < 0.05. CI, confidence interval; GERS, government, education, and religious services; OR, odds ratio; P80, 80th percentile.

When stratified past industry type, class I, II, and III obesity increased the odds of having high direct healthcare (Fig. four) and medical-related absence and disability costs (Fig. five) at the 80th percentile or more within each of the eight industries studied. In the class I cohort, employees of the finance and insurance manufacture had the highest odds of incurring loftier directly costs (OR [95% CI] = 1.72 [1.26; 2.35]), while employees of the retail stores and consumer goods manufacture had the highest odds of incurring loftier medical-related absence and disability costs (5.17 [2.04; 13.fourteen]; both P < 0.05). In the grade II cohort, employees of the GERS industry had the highest odds of incurring high directly costs (OR [95% CI] = 2.81 [1.98; iv.00]), while employees of the manufacturing and free energy industry had the highest odds of incurring high medical-related absenteeism and inability costs (ii.90 [1.90; 4.43]; both P < 0.05). In the course III cohort, employees of the GERS industry had the highest odds of incurring high direct costs (OR [95% CI] = viii.23 [6.07; eleven.17]) and medical-related absenteeism and disability costs (eleven.62 [2.63; 51.32]; both P < 0.05).

Discussion

In this retrospective longitudinal accomplice study, obesity classes I, II, and Iii were associated with substantial economic burden within each of the eight industries studied. Additionally, obesity (especially course III) was significantly associated with higher odds of incurring the highest straight healthcare, medical-related absenteeism, and disability costs across all industries and within well-nigh industry types.

Consistent with the literature,^{half dozen–10,12–15,17,19} increasing BMI was found to be associated with increasing direct and indirect healthcare costs in the nowadays study. Indirect costs typically embrace components such as medical-related absenteeism, presenteeism, short- and long-term disability, and workers' compensation.^xv Since the Employer database does not include information to mensurate the costs of presenteeism and workers' compensation, these costs were extrapolated from the literature^11,12 to provide a comprehensive guess of the magnitude of obesity-related indirect costs. While extrapolated workers' bounty costs were relatively minimal compared with other cost components, as similarly observed in previous reports,^12,13 extrapolated presenteeism costs accounted for 20% to 30% of the full direct and indirect costs in the overall population with obesity. Indeed, the association between obesity and presenteeism, every bit well every bit its subsequent impact on piece of work loss, is condign increasingly apparent.^{half-dozen,15} Presenteeism has been reported to have a similar or larger impact on indirect costs as absence.^6,15 While the substantial impact of obesity-related presenteeism is undeniable, quantifying the fiscal burden of presenteeism poses a particularly hard research challenge. Presenteeism is typically not measured by employers, nor is it captured as piece of work loss fourth dimension in health insurance claims. More than importantly, in that location is currently no standard method to measure presenteeism, and common methods like self-report surveys typically present a broad range of variability because of their reliance on memory call up and the assumption of zero productivity in afflicted individuals.²⁸ While price extrapolation provided an testify-based estimation of presenteeism costs in the present report, there is a clear unmet need to develop more reliable measures of presenteeism and to more accurately estimate the true indirect costs associated with obesity.

Despite the inclusion of extrapolated presenteeism and workers' compensation costs, indirect costs accounted for less than one-half of total costs in the overall population with obesity classes I, II, and III. This is a more conservative finding than that reported by the Milken Institute report, which found that indirect costs were more than 2.5-times greater than direct healthcare costs.²⁰ However, it is important to note that the Milken Institute written report calculated costs based on all comorbidities associated with obesity and overweight. Included patients not only were required to have an obesity-related condition, but they also had to have received treatment for it,^twenty which heavily biased the study population towards unhealthier patients with astringent comorbidities. This important departure in study methodology may explain the college proportion of indirect costs observed when compared with the present study.

Evaluation of the straight and indirect costs of obesity past employment industry revealed peculiarly high costs among employees of the GERS, other, and applied science industries. As evidenced by the high obesity-related costs observed, employees of these industries may take sure occupational take a chance factors that contribute to the development of obesity and its associated economic burden. For instance, a national cantankerous-exclusive survey-based study washed by Luckhaupt et al²⁹ found that workers in the public administration industry (ie, government and public service) had the highest prevalence of obesity (36.3%) among all 20 industries studied. Of note, a utilization bias may likewise exist within this subpopulation of workers, in that authorities employees may accept admission to relatively generous health insurance coverage,^thirty which may promote the use of more than healthcare resources that subsequently leads to college healthcare costs. It is difficult to speculate why the economic burden of obesity may be college in i industry compared with another, since each direct and indirect cost component is likely affected past multiple differing occupation-specific gamble factors. In a survey-based cantankerous-exclusive study of employees with obesity conducted by Kudel et al,¹⁷ occupations involving more physically demanding piece of work, similar construction, were associated with the highest piece of work productivity impairment and obesity-related indirect costs. Meanwhile, in a divide large employer-based survey written report, Wang et al³¹ found that direct healthcare costs associated with obesity were highest among employees with less work- or exercise-related concrete activity, seemingly opposing the results reported by Kudel et al.¹⁷ Taken together, these studies highlight the likely existence of multiple, different, occupation-specific factors influencing the prevalence of obesity and its associated straight and indirect costs. Additional research in this area is warranted to gain a improve understanding of the relationship betwixt employment and obesity.

Regardless of occupation-specific factors, the high direct and indirect costs associated with obesity observed in employees of the current study emphasize the severity of the obesity epidemic and the unmet need for more effective employer-led intervention approaches. Workplace-based obesity interventions have thus far included measures to encourage increased concrete activity, decreased sedentary time, and improved nutrition, but a consensus on the effectiveness of these measures has non been reached.³² While modest, clinically pregnant improvements have been reported in the very brusk term, sustained date in weight loss behaviors leading to successful long-term weight management is far less mutual.¹⁸ More comprehensive approaches that fully contain pharmacotherapy, surgical procedures, caloric reduction combined with increased physical activity, and more intensive lifestyle changes and behavior modification techniques to farther enable dietary modification, are needed to fairly treat obesity and reduce its associated economic brunt.

This study establishes the significant association between obesity and high total healthcare and indirect costs in employees of US industries. Notably, employees with obesity had 1.40 to 5.26-times college odds of being amidst the xx% paying the highest amount in healthcare costs and 1.98 to 3.67-times higher odds of existence amid the 20% paying the highest amount in medical-related absenteeism and disability costs, compared with employees in the reference cohort. Despite the variability in job demands, mobility, and piece of work conditions of each of the industries studied, form Three obesity significantly increased the odds of having loftier direct and indirect costs in employees across all industries. The increased risk of high healthcare costs is understandable when considering the many chronic comorbidities associated with obesity, including hypertension, dyslipidemia, and osteoarthritis, each of which can toll more than $18 million per 100,000 annually.³³ Accordingly, osteoarthritis and the related aftercare post-obit joint replacement surgery were common diagnoses during hospitalization for patients in the obesity cohorts compared with the reference cohort, highlighting the substantial result of obesity-related comorbidities on HRU, healthcare costs, and the economic burden of obesity as a whole.

Limitations

The present study is subject field to some important limitations. Showtime, the lack of presenteeism and workers' compensation data resulted in an important underestimation of the incremental indirect costs associated with obesity; therefore, presenteeism and workers' compensation costs were extrapolated from the literature. Second, the toll difference analyses were adjusted for baseline comorbidities, which may have been over-adjusting and just capturing a partial effect of obesity, since obesity-related comorbidities may have already developed past the alphabetize date. Despite this, the observed associations between obesity and costs remained robust. Third, since patients in the obesity cohorts were selected based on insurance claims with BMI codes, there is a possibility of a pick bias towards unhealthier patients who used more healthcare services, thus leading to the obesity diagnosis. However, this consequence may be offset by the unknown BMIs of patients in the reference cohort, which were included in the accomplice based on a lack of abnormal BMI codes. While patients in the reference cohort were chosen because they had no claims for BMI in obesity or overweight categories, this does non guarantee that they did not have undiagnosed obesity, which could take potentially led to an overestimation of cost in the reference cohort and an underestimation of the burden of obesity.

CONCLUSIONS

This retrospective study provides farther evidence of the stiff association betwixt obesity and loftier costs amidst Usa employees, and underscores the unmet need for employers to address this issue and work to alleviate its brunt on employees using comprehensive methods. Identification of employee subpopulations with particularly large obesity burdens may be a style to mitigate obesity-related costs through the introduction of intensive interventions targeted to these groups. The results of our study demonstrated that obesity (BMI more than than or equal to 30 kg/m²) was associated with higher straight healthcare and indirect work loss-related costs. Like trends were seen for employees inside selected industries, with incremental costs varying depending on the type of industry. Across all industries, employees with obesity were more likely to be among the 20% with the highest healthcare costs compared with employees without obesity. Given the link betwixt obesity and employee health and directly and indirect costs, it would be valuable for employers to address obesity among employees with the highest burden to alleviate the hazard of severe chronic illnesses, which result in prolonged absences and related demand for healthcare services. While behavioral and lifestyle wellness programs are a foundational component of employer-based weight management approaches, effective strategies may also incorporate the full range of bear witness-based interventions, including full and timely access to anti-obesity medications and weight loss surgery and procedures, alongside low-calorie diets and exercise. Future studies will focus on toll comparisons between dissimilar industries to proceeds insight on occupation-specific factors contributing to obesity and the associated fiscal burden.

Acknowledgments

Medical writing aid was provided past Christine Tam, an employee of Groupe d'analyse, Ltée, which received research grants from Novo Nordisk Inc. to comport the present written report.

REFERENCES

1. Hales CM, Fryar CD, Carroll MD, Freedman DS, Ogden CL. Trends in obesity and severe obesity prevalence in u.s. youth and adults by sex and historic period, 2007-2008 to 2015-2016. JAMA 2018; 319:1723–1725.

ii. World Health System (WHO). Trunk mass alphabetize - BMI; 2017. Available at: http://world wide web.euro.who.int/en/wellness-topics/disease-prevention/nutrition/a-healthy-lifestyle/body-mass-alphabetize-bmi. Accessed November 27, 2018.

• Cited Here

3. Mechanick J, Garber A, Handelsman Y, Garvey W. American Clan of Clinical Endocrinologists' position statement on obesity and obesity medicine. Endocr Pract 2012; 18:642–648.

iv. Kopelman P. Health risks associated with overweight and obesity. Obes Rev 2007; viii:thirteen–17.

5. Nortoft E, Chubb B, Borglykke A. Obesity and healthcare resource utilization: comparative results from the UK and the United states. Obes Sci Pract 2018; 4:41–45.

• Cited Here

6. Goetzel RZ, Gibson TB, Short ME, et al. A multi-worksite analysis of the relationships amid body mass index, medical utilization, and worker productivity. J Occup Environ Med 2010; 52:S52–S58.

7. Kamble PS, Hayden J, Collins J, et al. Clan of obesity with healthcare resource utilization and costs in a commercial population. Curr Med Res Opin 2018; 34:1335–1343.

8. Musich S, MacLeod S, Bhattarai GR, et al. The touch on of obesity on health care utilization and expenditures in a medicare supplement population. Gerontol Geriatr Med 2016; two:2333721415622004.

• Cited Here

9. Suehs BT, Kamble P, Huang J, et al. Association of obesity with healthcare utilization and costs in a Medicare population. Curr Med Res Opin 2017; 33:2173–2180.

10. Andreyeva T, Sturm R, Ringel JS. Moderate and astringent obesity have large differences in health care costs. Obes Res 2004; 12:1936–1943.

11. Finkelstein EA, DiBonaventura M, Burgess SM, Hale BC. The costs of obesity in the workplace. J Occup Environ Med 2010; 52:971–976.

12. Kleinman North, Abouzaid S, Andersen Fifty, Wang Z, Powers A. Cohort analysis assessing medical and nonmedical cost associated with obesity in the workplace. J Occup Environ Med 2014; 56:161–170.

13. Van Nuys K, Earth D, Ng-Mak D, Cheung H, Sullivan J, Goldman D. The association between employee obesity and employer costs: prove from a console of U.S. employers. Am J Wellness Promot 2014; 28:277–285.

14. Cawley J, Rizzo JA, Haas K. Occupation-specific absenteeism costs associated with obesity and morbid obesity. J Occup Environ Med 2007; 49:1317–1324.

15. Goettler A, Grosse A, Sonntag D. Productivity loss due to overweight and obesity: a systematic review of indirect costs. BMJ Open 2017; 7:e014632.

• Cited Here

16. Howard JT, Potter LB. An assessment of the relationships between overweight, obesity, related chronic wellness weather condition and worker absenteeism. Obes Res Clin Pract 2014; 8:e1–e15.

• Cited Here

17. Kudel I, Huang JC, Ganguly R. Impact of obesity on work productivity in different u.s. occupations: analysis of the National Wellness and Wellness Survey 2014 to 2015. J Occup Environ Med 2018; lx:6–11.

18. Yarborough CM tertiary, Brethauer Due south, Burton WN, et al. Obesity in the workplace: impact, outcomes, and recommendations. J Occup Environ Med 2018; threescore:97–107.

xix. Andreyeva T, Luedicke J, Wang YC. State-level estimates of obesity-owing costs of absenteeism. J Occup Environ Med 2014; 56:1120–1127.

20. Waters H, Graf M. America's Obesity Crisis. The Health and Economical Costs of Excess Weight. Santa Monica, California: Milken Institute; 2018.

• Cited Hither

21. Caban AJ, Lee DJ, Fleming LE, Gomez-Marin O, LeBlanc W, Pitman T. Obesity in US workers: the National Health Interview Survey, 1986 to 2002. Am J Public Health 2005; 95:1614–1622.

22. Gu JK, Charles LE, Bang KM, et al. Prevalence of obesity past occupation amid US workers: the National Health Interview Survey 2004-2011. J Occup Environ Med 2014; 56:516–528.

23. Kim DD, Basu A. Estimating the medical care costs of obesity in the U.s.: systematic review, meta-analysis, and empirical assay. Value Health 2016; 19:602–613.

24. Austin PC. An Introduction to propensity score methods for reducing the effects of confounding in observational studies. Multivariate Behav Res 2011; 46:399–424.

25. Parise H, Laliberte F, Lefebvre P, et al. Direct and indirect cost burden associated with multiple sclerosis relapses: excess costs of persons with MS and their spouse caregivers. J Neurol Sci 2013; 330:71–77.

26. LaMori J, Tandon N, Laliberte F, et al. Predictors of high healthcare resource utilization and liver disease progression among patients with chronic hepatitis C. J Med Econ 2016; nineteen:364–373.

27. National Institute for Wellness Care Management (NIHCM). The concentration of U.S. health care spending; 2017. Bachelor at: https://world wide web.nihcm.org/categories/concentration-of-u.s.a.-health-care-spending. Accessed February 8, 2019.

• Cited Here

28. Rhodes SM, Collins SK. The organizational affect of presenteeism. Radiol Manage 2015; 37:27–32. quiz 33-24.

• Cited Here |
• PubMed

29. Luckhaupt SE, Cohen MA, Li J, Calvert GM. Prevalence of obesity among U.S. workers and associations with occupational factors. Am J Prev Med 2014; 46:237–248.

30. United Do good Advisors. 2017 United Do good Advisors Wellness Programme Survey; 2017.

• Cited Here

31. Wang F, McDonald T, Champagne LJ, Edington DW. Relationship of body mass index and physical action to health care costs among employees. J Occup Environ Med 2004; 46:428–436.

32. Shrestha N, Pedisic Z, Neil-Sztramko Southward, Kukkonen-Harjula KT, Hermans V. The bear upon of obesity in the workplace: a review of contributing factors, consequences and potential solutions. Curr Obes Rep 2016; 5:344–360.

• Cited Here

33. Li Q, Blume SW, Huang JC, Hammer Grand, Ganz ML. Prevalence and healthcare costs of obesity-related comorbidities: evidence from an electronic medical records system in the United states. J Med Econ 2015; 18:1020–1028.

Keywords:

body mass alphabetize; costs; economic brunt; employment manufacture; obesity

Copyright © 2019 by the American College of Occupational and Environmental Medicine

brunettitrummunded.blogspot.com

Source: https://journals.lww.com/joem/fulltext/2019/11000/direct_and_indirect_cost_of_obesity_among_the.3.aspx

Bagikan Artikel ini