The Cost of Being Overweight

Here's an interesting set of facts I found in the June 11 issue of Business Week. It lists the annual costs to businesses of providing health care to people at different weights. The results:

• Normal weight - $3,254
• Overweight - $3,202
• Moderately Obese - $3,924
• Severely Obese - $5,695

First of all, I'm surprised that it's cheaper to be overweight than normal. Good news to a lot of people. ;-)

Seriously, I'd say those two numbers are probably statistically the same, so we'll call "normal" and "overweight" the same.

But once a person starts packing on the pounds, the costs go up -- and pretty dramatically.

So what does this mean to all of us? A few thoughts:

1. When businesses see costs, they take action. This may mean they hire fewer heavy people or that they set up some set of incentives to get people close to normal weight. Or maybe they charge heavy people (smokers too for that matter) more for their healthcare coverage. If this impacts people's employment potential in any way then it means that keeping your weight down is a very important financial move. Why? Because it helps to maximize your career -- which is your most valuable financial asset.

2. Personally, you're spending more money on yourself if you're heavy too. And that can add up throughout the years. So do yourself a favor and save a ton of money by losing weight.

For more thoughts on this issue, see these posts:

• The Most Cost Effective Ways to Stay in Shape

• Quit Smoking and Save Almost $6,000 a Year

• Lose Weight and Save a Half-Million Dollars

Comments

[Zach]

One thing that bothers me is that often companies who provide health plans end up footing the bill. Yet companies are not allowed to make an employment decision based on whether the applicant smokes or not, exercises regularly or not, or whether they are severely obese.

This is a point where I think being politically correct and our laws against profiling go too far. A company should be able to know whether or not an applicant smokes as this would cut down on productivity and increase benefits costs... just my 2 cents

[cory]

3 mostly unrelated points on the issue

1) Interestingly enough, the article doesn't catalog healthcare costs for underweight people.

2) Judging by the terminology they used for the categories, I'm going to guess that the people and costs are broken down by BMI, which is a wholly useless metric for determining health. Anyone who works out regularly and had a moderate amount of muscle mass will be categorically "overweight."

My theory that they're looking at BMI is enforced by the fact that "overweight" has a similar health care cost average than "normal" since "overweight" would include people who are more fit than "normal" and less fit than "normal."

(Aside: By BMI, I am classified as Overweight, even though I have a 28 inch waistline and 12.2% body fat)

3) We can't ask people if they smoke on a job application. But why would we? People could just lie about smoking. It wouldn't be rocket science to figure out what the correct answer is if you see "Do you smoke?" on a job application.

If the smokers are less productive members of the staff, you absolutely can fire them (Unless you're in a union, then you're stuck with them until they die. And then you're stuck with their spouses and kids until they die. And then you're stuck with their cats). But you'll be firing them for being less productive, not for being smokers.

On the flip side, some employers do offer "health benefits." A yearly (or periodic) cash incentive for people that elect to live a healthier lifestyle--be it by not smoking, joining a gym, joining their corporate running team, etc.

[Kurt]

"Yet companies are not allowed to make an employment decision based on whether the applicant smokes or not, exercises regularly or not, or whether they are severely obese." I think they can, so long as they are not selecting against a protected class. They would appear heartless and probably suffer a public relations nightmare, but they *could* if they wanted to.

I'm not a lawyer, though.

[Nick]

Didn't a company in Michigan choose to become completely non-smoking and eventually fired people who didn't quit?

BMI has its flaws, but by not grouping "overweight" with the "obese" categories you get rid of most of the flaws. In extreme cases a physically fit person (say, a professional athlete) will get categorized as obese but typically they get categorized as overweight.

Either way, from a BMI perspective, typically doesn't carry any increased health risks when looked at seperately from the obese categories. That may be due to miscategorization, but since BMI is based on an average persons % of body fat, it is more likely that being slightly "overweight" isn't really bad thing. If they just gave the BMI categories numbers (ie underweight=1, normal=1, etc.) then the negative conotation of being in "overweight" (or category 3) would largely go away and so would alot of the complaints about BMI, IMO.

[Tj]

Obese also "spend" more on food. LoL

[hejustlaughs]

Heavier people cause more wear and tear on office chairs too.

[Cheufong]

You talk about how much it costs companies to provide health care to severely overweight people. That's really a lot. Imagine if we have to bear the costs as individuals! Really, all the signs are there for us to keep fit and loss some weight. Along the way, we not only save cost for our employers, more importantly, we save money for ourselves! Less money spent on food, healthcare, getting new furniture, adding new clothes. Yes, it's time I start on my long awaited weight loss plan. Thanks!