http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6028-5712
Reader Comments
Post a new comment on this article
Post Your Discussion Comment
Please follow our guidelines for comments and review our competing interests policy. Comments that do not conform to our guidelines will be promptly removed and the user account disabled. The following must be avoided:
- Remarks that could be interpreted as allegations of misconduct
- Unsupported assertions or statements
- Inflammatory or insulting language
Thank You!
Thank you for taking the time to flag this posting; we review flagged postings on a regular basis.
closeFails to account for costs associated with increased longevity
Posted by mhamlyn on 14 Dec 2018 at 12:07 GMT
The methods used in this paper estimate the cost savings from reduced incidence of diseases associated with red and processed meat and therefore avoided treatment cost. However increased longevity is associated with an increase in other treatment costs. This paper fails to account for these increased costs.
To put it crudely people die of something eventually, and if that something is more expensive than cancer or CVD there has been a cost increase not a decrease. Even discounting costs deferred to a future time may not realise cost savings(1). That cost increase may be justifiable in cost per QALY terms, but the paper does not estimate this. Please see the following two papers suggesting that healthy people have increased lifetime care costs as compared to smoker and obese(1,2)
1. van Baal PHM, Polder JJ, de Wit GA, Hoogenveen RT, Feenstra TL, et al. (2008) Lifetime Medical Costs of Obesity: Prevention No Cure for Increasing Health Expenditure. PLOS Medicine 5(2): e29. https://doi.org/10.1371/j...
2. Tiihonen J, Ronkainen K, Kangasharju A, et al The net effect of smoking on healthcare and welfare costs. A cohort study BMJ Open 2012;2:e001678. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2012-001678