Now
Fair
58°
High
70°
Low
49°
Full Forecast

Jobs

Cars

Homes

Rentals

Alerts

Subscribe
Home > News > Local
Bookmark Us   •   Make Us Your Homepage

Report: Prevention programs could save state funds

Comments 16 comment(s)  
E-mail Story E-mail Story
Print Story Print Story
Share  Share
Text Size: 
Tools Sponsor

By TIMBERLY ROSS / The Associated Press

Thursday, Jul 17, 2008 - 09:54:50 am CDT

Nebraska could save more than $102 million a year on health care within five years if more money were invested in disease prevention programs, according to a new, nationwide report.

The report released Thursday by the nonprofit Trust for America’s Health says the state would need to invest an additional $10 per resident — an estimated $17.5 million — each year in community-based programs to prevent smoking and increase physical activity and nutrition to see the net savings. Nebraska could see an estimated return of $5.80 for each dollar that’s spent.

The report says disease prevention programs reduce the rates of Type 2 diabetes, heart disease, some forms of cancers and other ailments, eliminating or reducing treatment costs down the road.

Story Photo
(photos.com)

Related Link(s):


Trust for America's Health
Read the group's report (.pdf format)

“Health care costs are crippling the U.S. economy,” said Jeff Levi, the nonprofit’s executive director. “Keeping Americans healthier is one of the most important, but overlooked ways we could reduce these costs.”

The investment cited in the report would be on top of what the state already spends on prevention programs.

The Nebraska Department of Health and Human Services already supports such programs, but spokeswoman Marla Augustine said the agency didn’t know exactly how much it spends annually because that money comes from various divisions.

She also couldn’t estimate the savings because of those programs, saying, “It’s difficult to gauge what you prevent.”

Dr. Joann Schaefer, the state’s chief medical officer, said that while the state’s prevention programs reduce future health costs, it’s hard to quantify that savings. The state theoretically pays less in the future than if health conditions go unchecked, but it doesn’t get money back.

She said one thing is certain: “We would have healthier people.”

The report also says the federal government could benefit from a greater investment in prevention programs. A funding increase of $10 per citizen could save the U.S. more than $16 billion annually within five years, the report says.


$1 Sunday Delivery - Subscribe Today!
Local > Back to Top of Story

Post Your Comment

Standards and Rules
All posts to JournalStar.com are subject to our Terms and Standards.
Your posted comment will appear after it has been approved.
Frequently asked questions about story commenting.
(optional)
   
Hide Comments Hide Comments   Newest First Newest First  
Fat Nebraska wrote on July 17, 2008 10:02 am:
" Maybe with gas being so expensive we will get off our keisters and have to move around a bit more now. "

 Dee wrote on July 17, 2008 10:13 am:
" This makes <<way>>> too much sense for our government to ever implement. It's been said for years that drug treatment and mental health treatment would reduce the prison population as well, but little has changed on that front, either. Sadly, this country is rarely PROactive on anything. "

 Not in Nebraska wrote on July 17, 2008 10:18 am:
" Just wondering how much money the State of Nebraska does spend in health care prevention. Working in public health the last 20+ years, I've seen little state money if any. If it wasn't for the Federal grants that come in to this state there would be '0" prevention programs. But as you can see by comments in the article, Nebraska officials see $0 in return for prevention so prevention is not a primary concern for Nebraska health officials. "

 Idea wrote on July 17, 2008 10:26 am:
" I read a story elsewhere about how New York instituted a law where restaraunts had to post the Calorie contend of thier meals on the menu right next to the price. It seems to me that due to the health issues brought on by poor diet and obesity, that this simple change may help a lot of people.

I plan to ask city and county officials to consider the idea. It is cheap, easy, and would help people make more informed decisions. And, people who dont care, can ignore the figures, just as you would on a package of cookies you buy yourself as a treat :)

I think prevention is always the best medicine. And I think information is the most valuable tool. This would be an easy way to give people another tool to live better. "

 SB wrote on July 17, 2008 10:50 am:
" Or don’t cover medical bills and treatment for personal choice health risks such as smoking, obesity, alcohol, and stupidity. Let the individual decide if they want to partake in risky behavior and die an early life. That would save uberillions. "

 Think it will work wrote on July 17, 2008 10:56 am:
" Do people really think that this will work? You can pay for all the prevention programs that you want, but you can't make people do anything that they don't want to do - and most people are lazy and don't want to do anything to improve their health. "

 Case Manager wrote on July 17, 2008 10:59 am:
" DHHS supports such programs???? Hmmm anytime I have tried to get a patient into a program for health improvment/prevention they always denied to pay for it...even a patient with stage 4 COPD they refused to pay for smoking cessation. I doubt the state pays for much of anything by way of preventative medicine. Just keep paying for the cancer treatments, oxygen machines at home, etc. etc. "

 g.o. wrote on July 17, 2008 11:24 am:
" Sometimes the first duty of intelligent men is the restatement of the obvious. "

 badidea wrote on July 17, 2008 11:28 am:
" idea of NY is just another way big brother wants to run my life. we less government not more. our constitution doesnt call for the government to micromanage our lives. every time government comes up with a great idea it cost us tax payers and more free loaders jump on board. frankly i'm sick of paying for someone else to have a child, feed and cloth that child and provide practically everything they want while my family just gets by. i'm mad has H E double toothpicks with you people wanting to pay for everyone elses stuff with MY MONEY. "

 lilredhd wrote on July 17, 2008 11:47 am:
" When are we going to admit that DENTAL health is just as important in prevention of disease? We need to stop treating them as two seperate entities. They do share the same blood supply after all.

It's not always bad habits that lead to dental problems. An incorrect bite, bad alignment, and even previous dental work can lead to incredibly high bills.

We know that early care can lead to a cheaper outcome in our regular health, ie: going to the doctor when you first get sick, versus going to the ER. It's the same with dental health, but good luck. Even WITH insurance your bills can skyrocket.
--- Insurance often only covers 50% of any work other than the old metal filling. Crack two teeth and have an old filling go bad, you're looking at 3 root canals ($900 a piece) and then caps or crowns (a couple hundred for cheap metal, silver, that your going to replace in a couple years to porcelin at $1000+ each, for front teeth) $900 x 3= $2700 $800 x 3 = $2400 = $5100 before insurance. That's $2550 after insurance. WITHOUT any complications and with a high yearly cap. A $2000 yearly limit for the family would use ALL your family benefits, and add $550 to your bill. Your bill is now $3100.

Now add in the kiddos. Johnny gets hit playing baseball at school, and it cracks a tooth. He's 10 and it's a permanent tooth. You have NO benefits left for the year.
Hmmm, better hope your spouse doesn't get a cavity.

It's time to put the money where it makes sense, regular check-ups and proper treatment, BEFORE it becomes an expensive emergency. "

 New to Lincoln wrote on July 17, 2008 12:37 pm:
" If doctors and hospital charged less we could save alot of money. We have all seen the 20.00 bill for 2 excedrin's from the hospital and not all doctors need to drive BmW's "

 Calorie Info wrote on July 17, 2008 12:44 pm:
" I'm in favor of posting the calorie information by the prices as well. The articles on the New York law make clear that people are beginning to understand what they're putting into their bodies as a result of the calorie information being readily available. "

 Idea wrote on July 17, 2008 2:10 pm:
" It is tough. I agree with BadIdea, that the goverment shouldnt get involved, as much as is possible. They shouldnt be there to run our lives, but to help us live. But, I think the goverment should give us the tools to try and live well.

To me, just about everthing comes down to Personal Responsibility.

If I smoke, I shouldnt get the goverment to pay for the problems I brought on myself for smoking.
If I use drugs, I wouldnt expect someone else to pay to clean me up.
If I have a kid, I should be prepared to feed, clothe, shelter, and educate that child.

But, I should be given the tools to make good decisions.
Calorie figures on menus
Education to keep kids from smoking
General awareness of things to improve health
Dental awareness (I agree, dental health is just as important at body health)

If the government spent money to make people aware of thier choices, and the consiquences, but stopped paying to 'fix' people who knowingly brought those consiquences on themselves, it would cost a durn sight less.
I am annoyed that 43% (I think) of my property taxes go to educating other people's kids. People should pay to educate thier kids, just like they pay to feed them. I chose not to have children, and I shouldnt be penalized for that choice.
I am annoyed that government pays to clean up junkies. Government pays to fix a lot of things people bring on themselves. That shouldnt be the role of government. It seems like the idea of what government is has mutated over the eons. Instead of being a force to help people live, people are the backbone that supports the government. The problem is that government is a business where everyone wants more money more money more money.

Give us info, not rules. Give us choices, but dont support us. "

 Jane wrote on July 17, 2008 7:12 pm:
" Prevention is cost effective without a doubt. Hopefully studies like this will lead to more funding for prevention. "

 smush wrote on July 17, 2008 10:10 pm:
" lilredhd, it's not "silver" nor cheap; it's dangerous mercury. If they'd take the mercury out of our fillings and stop chemical bleaching of flour in bread, we'd save lot's of money on preventable diseases. Prevention as proposed in the article probably includes more mercury-laced vaccines, and just ends up enriching the pharmaceutical companies. Americans, making up less than 10 percent of the world's population, uses over 70% of the world's pharmaceuticals, yet we are the unhealthiest industrialized nation on earth. Futhermore, each pharmaceutical has side effects leading to even more doctor visits and prescribing.

We have been SET UP to be unhealthy so the pharmaceutical companies can sell us their ineffective formulations.

Be healthy and minimize the costs by minimizing participation in the health care system. "

 good idea wrote on July 18, 2008 12:38 pm:
" Lets try to prevent bad health and reduce health costs. I'm sure the healthy people and tax payers are tired of subsidizing insurance premiums for the un-healthy people. "

Ads by Yahoo!