1 / 23

RTI International is a trade name of Research Triangle Institute

Panel Presentation Presented by: Eric Finkelstein, Ph.D. 3040 Cornwallis Road ■ P.O. Box 12194 ■ Research Triangle Park, NC 27709. Phone 919-541-8074. Fax 919-541-6683. e-mail finkelse@rti.org ■ www.rti.org.

vance
Download Presentation

RTI International is a trade name of Research Triangle Institute

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. Panel Presentation Presented by: Eric Finkelstein, Ph.D. 3040 Cornwallis Road ■ P.O. Box 12194 ■ Research Triangle Park, NC 27709 Phone 919-541-8074 Fax 919-541-6683 e-mail finkelse@rti.org ■ www.rti.org RTI International is a trade name of Research Triangle Institute

  2. Outline • How individuals (might) make decisions • Role of Government • How To Evaluate Potential Interventions • Examples

  3. Individual Choice? • Classical Economic Theory: Utility Maximization • Given all the choices we could be making, we choose the options that make us best off (i.e., the ones that give us the most utility) • Subject to constraints: time, money, biology • Increasing weight over time can be explained by changes in the constraints (i.e., it’s harder to be thin in today’s environment) • Preferences for thinness (or fatness) have not changed • For many, weight gain is the utility maximizing outcome given the changing environment • So, then what is the role of government?

  4. Role of Gov. as Seen by Economists • Government should intervene only in the case of market failures (or undo past government failures) • Market Failure occurs when resources are not being allocated efficiently by the private sector • Externalities • Market Power • Public Goods • Imperfect (Asymmetric) Information • Consumer Irrationality Where are the market (or government) failures?

  5. Is government intervention warranted to save money? • Overweight and obesity increase the annual medical bill by $90 billion per year • In the absence of overweight and obesity, health insurance expenditures would be 9% lower • Medicare expenditures would be 11% lower • The government finances half of the total annual medical costs attributable to obesity, or more than $45 billion per year • The average taxpayer spends $175 per year to finance obesity-related medical expenditures among Medicare and Medicaid recipients But is this a reasonable justification for gov. intervention?

  6. So Is There a Role for Government? • Government imposes laws and regulations that influence food consumption and physical activity decisions • This ultimately influences rates of obesity • An appropriate role of gov. may not be to solve existing market failures, but to revisit past policies to determine whether they may be doing more harm than good • Farm bill, zoning,… • Provision of public goods is also a classic role of government, but little evidence of cost savings

  7. So Is There a Role for Government? • Clearest case for government intervention concerns youth • Addressing childhood obesity should be a top priority for government • The utility maximization argument clearly fails for them • Bad decisions as youth are especially hard to undo • That is why we mandate schooling and ban alcohol and cigarettes for youth • But be warned, don’t try to sell the benefits of these programs in terms of dollars savings

  8. Annual Medical Expenditure for Normal Weight and Obese Adults Source: Finkelstein, E.A. and D.S. Brown. 2006. “Why Does the Private Sector Underinvest in Obesity Prevention and Treatment?” North Carolina Medical Journal 67(4):310-312

  9. My View of Obesity Interventions • Interventions that do not change marginal (incremental) costs and/or benefits are least likely to be successful • Explains why most diets fail • Information provision may have an impact, but likely to be limited • Interventions that change marginal costs and benefits are likely to be followed by changes in behavior

  10. Evaluating Interventions • Prior to implementation, need to consider: • Is there a justification for the intervention (what’s the market failure)? • What are the intended consequences (will it resolve the market failure)? • What might be the unintended consequences? • How do we know if the intervention is successful? • Are there better alternatives? • May require cost-effectiveness analysis • Is it economically feasible • Is it politically feasible (of secondary importance for this class)

  11. Potential Gov. Interventions • Targeted taxes and subsidies (fat tax) • Mandatory food labeling for restaurant food • Are these justified on economic grounds?

  12. Targeted Taxes and/or Subsidies (Motivation) • Consumption of added sugars and added fats exceeds recommendations • Consumption of fruits and vegetables falls short of recommendations • Decrease in the price of less healthy energy dense foods is consistent with the relative increase in quantity demanded

  13. Targeted Taxes and/or Subsidies • Is there an economic justification for the tax? • Reducing the ‘external’ costs of obesity is probably the best argument but not great • If external costs are truly the problem than what is the most efficient solution?

  14. Targeted Taxes and/or Subsidies(cont.) • What are the intended consequences? • Reduce consumption of the taxed food and increase consumption of the subsidized food • Other intended consequences? • Improve health and/or reduce obesity • Raise revenue – Equal to the ‘external’ costs of obesity?

  15. Targeted Taxes and/or Subsidies • What foods get taxed, subsidized? • For specific products lots of potential for substitution • People can even substitute for fat • Q: What are the own and cross-price elasticities? • How big should the tax be? • How will demand change due to an X% price change? • For whom will demand change?

  16. Targeted Taxes and/or Subsidies(cont.) • Unintended Consequences • Poor people may be disproportionately affected • May increase food insecurity • Businesses will be adversely affected • Might change product attributes to minimize the impact of the tax • May still be worth doing but… • Are there better alternatives?

  17. Targeted Taxes and/or Subsidies (cont.) • Are there better alternatives? • Largely depends on the objective • If the goal is to reduce obesity then this may be a very costly method: • Both monetarily and in decreased utility • Especially costly for those who are not currently obese • Note that nearly all foods are ‘healthy’ if consumed in moderation

  18. Mandatory Food Labeling for Restaurant Food (Motivation) • The percentage of food spending on away-from home foods rose 60% between 1970 and 1995 • In 1995, away-from-home foods accounted for • 27% of eating occasions • 34% of total daily energy intakes • Away-from home foods are higher in fat, sugar, and salt than are at-home foods

  19. Mandatory Food Labeling for Restaurant Food • Require restaurants to provide information to consumers concerning the health content of meals • Is there a justification? • Forces restaurants to provide information that they might not readily supply on their own • Perhaps but some firms (e.g., Subway) provide this information without government intervention • Remember Atkins?

  20. Mandatory Food Labeling for Restaurant Food (cont.) • What are the intended consequences? • Consumers make more informed choices • Other intended consequences? • Alter dietary behavior to decrease consumption of unhealthy food • Improve health and/or reduce obesity • Change the health content of restaurant food

  21. Mandatory Food Labeling for Restaurant Food (cont.) • What might be the unintended consequences? • Suppliers • Economic burden • Less likely to introduce products, change menus • Other supply responses? • Consumers • May not know how to use the information • Government • Burden of implementation, monitoring

  22. Mandatory Food Labeling for Restaurant Food (cont.) • Are there better alternatives? • Depends on the objective • What if demand does not change? • What if obesity rates do not change?

  23. Obesity and Health Care Reform (in my opinion) • HHS policies more likely to influence treatment rather than prevention • Other government agencies (e.g., USDA, DOT) could have a larger impact on prevention • Questions surround coverage for bariatric procedures and (eventually) other new drugs/technologies • Unlikely that broad coverage for diet/exercise programs will have much of an effect • Real change will require abandoning the current model of health care financing in the U.S. • And replacing it with one that provides incentives for prevention over treatment

More Related