The economic and social costs of body dissatisfaction and appearance-based discrimination in the United States.

This study estimated the social and economic costs of body dissatisfaction and appearance-based discrimination (specifically, weight and skin-shade discrimination) in the United States (USA) in the 2019 calendar year. We used a prevalence-based approach and a cost-of-illness method to estimate the annual cost of harmful appearance ideals for cases of body dissatisfaction and discrimination based on weight and skin shade. Impacts on conditions/illnesses such as eating disorders that are attributable to body dissatisfaction, weight discrimination and skin-shade discrimination were identified through a quasi-systematic literature review, which captured financial, economic, and non-financial costs. For each impact attributable to body dissatisfaction or appearance-based discrimination, annual health system and productivity costs (or labor market costs) were primarily estimated by using a population attributable fraction methodology. Only direct costs that resulted from body dissatisfaction and appearance-based discrimination were included (for example, costs associated with conditions such as depression attributable to body dissatisfaction or appearance-based discrimination). In contrast, indirect costs (e.g. costs associated with a health condition developed following skin bleaching, which was undertaken as a result of body dissatisfaction) were not included. In 2019 body dissatisfaction incurred $84 billion in financial and economic costs and $221 billion through reduced well-being. Financial costs of weight discrimination and skin-shade discrimination were estimated to be $200 billion and $63 billion, respectively, and reduced well-being was estimated to be $206.7 billion due to weight discrimination and $8.4 billion due to skin-shade discrimination. Sensitivity testing revealed the costs likely range between $226 billion and $507 billion for body dissatisfaction, between $175 billion and $537 billion for skin-shade discrimination, and between $126 billion and $265 billion for weight discrimination. This study demonstrates that the prevalence and economic costs of body dissatisfaction and weight and skin-shade discrimination are substantial, which underscores the urgency of identifying policy actions designed to promote prevention.

Appearance ideals in the USA have been widely critiqued for placing unfair burden on people of color and women of all race/ethnicity groups, but little is known about the economic consequences of biased appearance standards. To attain a comprehensive understanding of the economic impact of these harmful appearance ideals on the US economy, we estimated the one-year financial, economic and non-financial costs to the economy caused by body dissatisfaction, weight discrimination, and skin-shade discrimination. We considered a wide range of costs, including costs to the healthcare system, workplace, and other costs for individuals, households, employers, and government. We found that the impact of harmful appearance ideals on the USA economy is substantial. In 2019 body dissatisfaction incurred $84 billion in financial and economic costs and $221 billion through reduced well-being. Financial costs of weight discrimination and skin-shade discrimination were estimated to be $200 billion and $63 billion, respectively, and reduced well-being was estimated to be $207 billion due to weight discrimination and $8 billion due to skin-shade discrimination. Women of all race/ethnicity groups bore the bulk of the burden, shouldering 58% of the costs for body dissatisfaction and 66% for weight discrimination. Women bore 50% of the costs for skin-shade discrimination. These costs are substantial and underscore the urgency of identifying effective policy actions to reduce the damaging effects of harmful appearance ideals.

Social and Economic Costs of Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder Across the Lifespan.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the financial and non-financial costs of Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) across the lifespan. METHOD: The population costs of ADHD in Australia were estimated for the financial year 2018 to 2019 using a prevalence approach to cost estimation across all ages. Financial (healthcare, productivity, education and justice systems, and deadweight losses) and non-financial costs were measured (Disability Adjusted Life Years (DALYs)). RESULTS: The total social and economic cost of ADHD in 2018 to 2019 were US$12.76 billion (range US$8.40 billion to US$17.44 billion, with per person costs of US$15,664 per year). Productivity costs made up 81% of the total financial costs, followed by deadweight losses (11%), and health system costs (4%). Loss in terms of wellbeing was significant (US$5.31 billion). CONCLUSION: There is a need to raise public awareness of the considerable socioeconomic impact and burden of ADHD in order to drive investment and policy decisions that improve identification and treatment of ADHD.

The social and economic cost of sleep disorders.

STUDY OBJECTIVES: To estimate economic cost of common sleep disorders in Australia for 2019-2020. METHODS: Costs were estimated for obstructive sleep apnea (OSA), insomnia, and restless legs syndrome (RLS) using prevalence, financial, and nonfinancial data from national databases. These included: (1) financial costs associated with health care, informal care, productivity losses, non-medical accident costs, deadweight loss from taxation/welfare inefficiencies; and (2) nonfinancial costs associated with loss of well-being. They were expressed in U.S. dollars ($). RESULTS: Estimated overall cost of sleep disorders in Australia in 2019-2020 (population: 25.5 million) was $35.4 billion (OSA $13.1 billion; insomnia $13.3 billion, RLS $9.0 billion). Of this, the financial cost component was $10.0 billion, comprised of: health system costs $0.7 billion; productivity losses $7.7 billion; informal care $0.2 billion; other, mainly non-medical accident costs, $0.4 billion; and deadweight losses $1.0 billion. For moderate to severe OSA syndrome, insomnia unrelated to other conditions and RLS, financial costs represented $16,717, $21,982, and $16,624 per adult with the condition for the year, respectively. The nonfinancial cost was $25.4 billion. CONCLUSIONS: The economic costs associated with sleep disorders are substantial. The financial component of $10.0 billion is equivalent to 0.73% of Australian gross domestic product. The nonfinancial cost of $25.4 billion represents 3.2% of total Australian burden of disease for the year. Health system costs of these disorders are low relative to those associated with their consequences, suggesting greater expenditure on detection, treatment and prevention is warranted.

Social and economic cost of eating disorders in the United States: Evidence to inform policy action.

OBJECTIVE: To estimate one-year costs of eating disorders in the United States (U.S.) from a societal perspective, including the costs to the U.S. health system, individual and family productivity costs, lost wellbeing, and other societal economic costs, by setting and payer. Findings will inform needed policy action to mitigate the impact of eating disorders in the U.S. METHOD: Costs of eating disorders were estimated using a bottom-up cost-of-illness methodology, based on the estimated one-year prevalence of eating disorders. Intangible costs of reduced wellbeing were also estimated using disability-adjusted life years. RESULTS: Total economic costs associated with eating disorders were estimated to be $64.7 billion (95% CI: $63.5-$66.0 billion) in fiscal year 2018-2019, equivalent to $11,808 per affected person (95% CI: $11,754-$11,863 per affected person). Otherwise Specified Feeding or Eating Disorder accounted for 35% of total economic costs, followed by Binge Eating Disorder (30%), Bulimia Nervosa (18%) and Anorexia Nervosa (17%). The substantial reduction in wellbeing associated with eating disorders was further valued at $326.5 billion (95% CI: $316.8-$336.2 billion). DISCUSSION: The impact of eating disorders in the U.S. is substantial when considering both economic costs and reduced wellbeing (nearly $400 billion in fiscal year 2018-2019). Study findings underscore the urgency of identifying effective policy actions to reduce the impact of eating disorders, such as through primary prevention and screening to identify people with emerging or early eating disorders in primary care, schools, and workplaces and ensuring access to early evidence-based treatment.

The financial and social costs of delirium.

PURPOSE: Delirium is common with serious short- and long-term sequelae. However, there are no licensed treatments internationally and relatively little biomedical discovery with the target of finding a cure, with the invisibility or underestimation of the economic implications as a potential driver for this inertia. METHODS: We conducted a narrative review of published literature in English quantitatively evaluating the financial and social costs of delirium to the health and care systems, patients and their carers. RESULTS: Delirium increases the cost of the index hospitalisation as well as increasing the need for post-acute care and the demands on unpaid, often older, carers. Delirium may cause as much as 10% of all cases of dementia and the ongoing need for care of these people with dementia doubles the cost of delirium. Prevention of delirium not only reduces the cost of delirium but also may decrease subsequent rate of dementia. CONCLUSION: The high cost of delirium itself as well as the resultant dementia warrants greater efforts to prevent delirium and discover effective treatment.

Economic impact of delirium in Australia: a cost of illness study.

OBJECTIVES: To estimate the economic impact of delirium in the Australian population in 2016-2017, including financial costs, and its burden on health. DESIGN, SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: A cost of illness study was conducted for the Australian population in the 2016-2017 financial year. The prevalence of delirium in 2016-2017 was calculated to inform cost estimations. The costs estimated in this study also include dementia attributable to delirium. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The total and per capita costs were analysed for three categories: health systems costs, other financial costs including productivity losses and informal care and cost associated with loss of well-being (burden of disease). Costs were expressed in 2016-2017 pound sterling (£) and Australian dollars ($A). RESULTS: There were an estimated 132 595 occurrences of delirium in 2016-2017, and more than 900 deaths were attributed to delirium in 2016-2017. Delirium causes an estimated 10.6% of dementia in Australia. The total costs of delirium in Australia were estimated to be £4.3 billion ($A8.8 billion) in 2016-2017, ranging between £2.6 billion ($A5.3 billion) and £5.9 billion ($A12.1 billion). The total estimated costs comprised financial costs of £1.7 billion and the value of healthy life lost of £2.5 billion. Dementia attributable to delirium accounted for £2.2 billion of the total cost of delirium. CONCLUSIONS: These findings highlight the substantial burden that delirium imposes on Australian society-both in terms of financial costs associated with health system expenditure and the increased need for residential aged care due to the functional and cognitive decline associated with delirium and dementia. To reduce the substantial well-being costs of delirium, further research should seek to better understand the potential pathways from an episode of delirium to subsequent mortality and reduced cognitive functioning outcomes.

Cost-effectiveness of continuous positive airway pressure therapy for obstructive sleep apnea: health care system and societal perspectives.

STUDY OBJECTIVES: To determine cost-effectiveness of continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) treatment of obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) in Australia for 2017-2018 to facilitate public health decision-making. METHODS: Analysis was undertaken of direct per-person costs of CPAP therapy (according to 5-year care pathways), health system and other costs of OSA and its comorbidities averted by CPAP treatment (5-year adherence rate 56.7%) and incremental benefit of therapy (in terms of disability-adjusted life years [DALYs] averted) to determine cost-effectiveness of CPAP. This was expressed as the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (= dollars per DALY averted). Direct costs of CPAP were estimated from government reimbursements for services and advertised equipment costs. Costs averted were calculated from both the health care system perspective (health system costs only) and societal perspective (health system plus other financial costs including informal care, productivity losses, nonmedical accident costs, deadweight taxation and welfare losses). These estimates of costs (expressed in US dollars) and DALYs averted were based on our recent analyses of costs of untreated OSA. RESULTS: From the health care system perspective, estimated cost of CPAP therapy to treat OSA was $12 495 per DALY averted while from a societal perspective the effect was dominant (-$10 688 per DALY averted) meaning it costs more not to treat the problem than to treat it. CONCLUSIONS: These estimates suggest substantial community investment in measures to more systematically identify and treat OSA is justified. Apart from potential health and well-being benefits, it is financially prudent to do so.

The economic cost of inadequate sleep.

Study Objectives: To estimate the economic cost (financial and nonfinancial) of inadequate sleep in Australia for the 2016-2017 financial year and relate this to likely costs in similar economies. Methods: Analysis was undertaken using prevalence, financial, and nonfinancial cost data derived from national surveys and databases. Costs considered included the following: (1) financial costs associated with health care, informal care provided outside healthcare sector, productivity losses, nonmedical work and vehicle accident costs, deadweight loss through inefficiencies relating to lost taxation revenue and welfare payments; and (2) nonfinancial costs of loss of well-being. They were expressed in US dollars ($). Results: The estimated overall cost of inadequate sleep in Australia in 2016-2017 (population: 24.8 million) was $45.21 billion. The financial cost component was $17.88 billion, comprised of as follows: direct health costs of $160 million for sleep disorders and $1.08 billion for associated conditions; productivity losses of $12.19 billion ($5.22 billion reduced employment, $0.61 billion premature death, $1.73 billion absenteeism, and $4.63 billion presenteeism); nonmedical accident costs of $2.48 billion; informal care costs of $0.41 billion; and deadweight loss of $1.56 billion. The nonfinancial cost of reduced well-being was $27.33 billion. Conclusions: The financial and nonfinancial costs associated with inadequate sleep are substantial. The estimated total financial cost of $17.88 billion represents 1.55 per cent of Australian gross domestic product. The estimated nonfinancial cost of $27.33 billion represents 4.6 per cent of the total Australian burden of disease for the year. These costs warrant substantial investment in preventive health measures to address the issue through education and regulation.

The economic impact of sight loss and blindness in the UK adult population.

BACKGROUND: To quantify the economic impact of sight loss and blindness in the United Kingdom (UK) population, including direct and indirect costs, and its burden on health. METHODS: Prevalence data on sight loss and blindness by condition, Census demographic data, data on indirect costs, and healthcare cost databases were used. Blindness was defined as best corrected visual acuity (BCVA) of < 6/60, and sight loss as BCVA < 6/12 to 6/60, in the better-seeing eye. RESULTS: Sight loss and blindness from age-related macular degeneration (AMD), cataract, diabetic retinopathy, glaucoma and under-corrected refractive error are estimated to affect 1.93 (1.58 to 2.31) million people in the UK. Direct health care system costs were £3.0 billion, with inpatient and day care costs comprising £735 million (24.6%) and outpatient costs comprising £771 million (25.8%). Indirect costs amounted to £5.65 (5.12 to 6.22) billion. The value of the loss of healthy life associated with sight loss and blindness was estimated to be £19.5 (15.9 to 23.3) billion or £7.2 (5.9 to 8.6) billion, depending on the set of disability weights used. For comparison with other published results using 2004 disability weights and the 2008 estimates, the total economic cost of sight loss and blindness was estimated to be £28.1 (24.0 to 32.5) billion in 2013. Using 2010 disability weights, the estimated economic cost of sight loss and blindness was estimated to be £15.8 (13.5 to 18.3) billion in 2013. CONCLUSIONS: The large prevalence of sight loss and blindness in the UK population imposes significant costs on public funds, private expenditure, and health. Prevalence estimates relied on dated epidemiological studies and may not capture recent advances in treatment, highlighting the need for population-based studies that track the prevalence of sight-impairing eye conditions and treatment effects over time.