nture publishing group rticles Will All s Become Overweight or Obese? Estimting the Progression nd Cost of the US Obesity Epidemic Youf Wng 1, My A. Beydoun 1, Ln Ling 2, Benjmin Cbllero 1 nd Shiriki K. Kumnyik 3 We projected future prevlence nd BMI distribution bsed on ntionl survey dt (Ntionl Helth nd Nutrition Exmintion Study) collected between 197s nd 24. Future obesity-relted helth-cre costs for dults were estimted using projected prevlence, Census popultion projections, nd published ntionl estimtes of per cpit excess helth-cre costs of obesity/overweight. The objective ws to illustrte potentil burden of obesity prevlence nd helth-cre costs of obesity nd overweight in the United Sttes tht would occur if current trends continue. Overweight nd obesity prevlence hve incresed stedily mong ll US popultion groups, but with notble differences between groups in nnul increse rtes. The increse (percentge points) in obesity nd overweight in dults ws fster thn in children (.77 vs..46.49), nd in women thn in men (.91 vs..65). If these trends continue, by 23, 86.3% dults will be overweight or obese; nd 51.1%, obese. Blck women (96.9%) nd - men (91.1%) would be the most ffected. By 248, ll dults would become overweight or obese, while women will rech tht stte by 234. In children, the prevlence of overweight (BMI 95th percentile, 3%) will nerly double by 23. Totl helth-cre costs ttributble to obesity/overweight would double every decde to 86.7 956.9 billion US dollrs by 23, ccounting for 16 18% of totl US helth-cre costs. We continue to move wy from the Helthy People 21 objectives. Timely, drmtic, nd effective development nd implementtion of corrective progrms/policies re needed to void the otherwise inevitble helth nd societl consequences implied by our projections. Obesity (28) 16, 2323 233. doi:1.138/oby.28.351 Introduction Obesity hs become public helth crisis in the United Sttes. Ntionlly representtive survey dt show tht the prevlence hs stedily incresed over the pst three decdes lthough there re lrge disprities between popultion groups nd continuing chnges in the ssocited ptterns (1 3). Current evidence suggests tht the prevlence is likely to remin on the rise (1,4,5), nd it will not be possible to meet the objectives set for Helthy People 21 of reducing obesity prevlence in dults to 15% nd in children to 5% (6). Obesity hs mny helth, socil, psychologicl, nd economic consequences for the individuls being ffected nd for the society (7). The current US genertion my hve shorter life expectncy thn their prents if this obesity epidemic cnnot be controlled (8). The economic impct is especilly evident in helth-cre costs (9 13). A recent study estimted tht medicl expenditures ttributed to overweight nd obesity ccounted for 9.1% of totl US medicl expenditures in 1998 nd might hve reched 78.5 billion US dollrs (1). Expenditures will continue to rise prticulrly due to the increses in obesity prevlence nd in the cost of relted helth cre (11). This study ims to provide thorough nlysis to illustrte potentil future trends in obesity nd the relted helth-cre costs were current trends to continue, bsed on ntionlly representtive survey dt collected over the pst three decdes, to chrcterize the need for ntionl polices nd progrms. Such informtion will help the United Sttes nd perhps other policy mkers, helth professionls, nd the generl public to be better prepred to fce the relted chllenges, nd motivte the development of public helth nd clinicl progrms to ddress the obesity epidemic in order to void the mny dverse helth nd socil consequences tht will otherwise ensue. METHODS nd procedures Overview Our projection nlyses were bsed on prevlence dt from the Ntionl Helth nd Nutrition Exmintion Study (NHANES) 1 Center for Humn Nutrition, Deprtment of Interntionl Helth, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Helth, Bltimore, Mrylnd, USA; 2 Center for Finncing, Access nd Cost Trends, Agency for Helthcre Reserch nd Qulity, Rockville, Mrylnd, USA; 3 Deprtment of Biosttistics nd Epidemiology, University of Pennsylvni School of Medicine, Phildelphi, Pennsylvni, USA. Correspondence: Youf Wng (ywng@jhsph.edu) Received 8 Jnury 28; ccepted 15 Mrch 28; published online 24 July 28. doi:1.138/oby.28.351 obesity VOLUME 16 NUMBER 1 OCTOBER 28 2323
collected between the 197s nd 24 (ref. 14). Compred with other vilble dt sources, the NHANES provides high qulity, directly mesured height nd weight dt from ntionlly representtive smples, nd the dt re comprble over time (1). Our projections of obesity-relted helth-cre costs re minly bsed on recently published studies using ntionl helth-cre expenditure dt. Key outcome vribles Overweight nd obesity. For prcticl purposes nd mong both children nd dults, BMI (weight (kg)/height (m) 2 ) is widely used nowdys to ssess obesity (15 18). In dults, the BMI (kg/m 2 ) cutoff points for overweight nd obese re set t 25 nd 3, respectively (17,19). In children nd dolescents, Overweight is defined s BMI (kg/m 2 ) the sex ge-specific 95th BMI percentile, nd t risk for overweight s 85th BMI <95th percentile (2 22). In children nd dolescents, we focused on overweight becuse ntionl estimtes of the prevlence of t risk for overweight hve not been mde vilble for ll wves of NHANES. Helth-cre costs ttributble to obesity nd overweight. Medicl costs ssocited with overweight nd obesity my involve direct nd indirect costs (13). Direct medicl costs my include preventive, dignostic, nd tretment services relted to obesity. Indirect costs relte to morbidity nd mortlity. Morbidity costs re defined s the vlue of income lost from decresed productivity, restricted ctivity, bsenteeism, nd bed dys. Mortlity costs re the vlue of future income lost by premture deth. Note tht our projections only provide estimtes of the overll direct medicl costs. We chose not to estimte the indirect costs becuse of the lrger uncertinty nd the need for more dt. In ddition, we focused on dults in our cost projections becuse of the bsence of published estimtes on helth-cre costs ttributble to obesity for children or dolescents. Min originl dtbses used for projections NHANES. The NHANES comprises series of cross-sectionl, ntionlly representtive exmintion surveys conducted since the 197s including NHANES I (1971 1974), II (1976 198), nd III (1988 1994). Beginning in 1999, NHANES becme continuous survey. Dt on weight nd height re collected through direct physicl exmintion in mobile exmintion center (14). Most recently, the NHANES dt collected in 23 24 were mde vilble. Previous nlyses show little increse in the prevlence of obesity nd overweight between NHANES I nd II, but prevlence hs been stedily incresing since NHANES II (1,3,23). Medicl Expenditure Pnel Survey nd Ntionl Helth Expenditure Accounts. Recently published studies tht estimte obesityrelted helth-cre costs using the Medicl Expenditure Pnel Survey (MEPS) dt (1,11) provide bse for our projections of future helth-cre costs ttributble to overweight nd obesity. The MEPS is set of lrge-scle ntionwide surveys of fmilies nd individuls, their medicl providers (primrily doctors, hospitls, nd phrmcies), nd employers cross the United Sttes, which is designed to support studies of helth-cre use nd expenditures (24,25). The survey begn in 1996 nd collects dt on the specific helth services tht s use, how frequently they use them, the cost of these services, nd how they re pid for, s well s dt on the cost, scope, nd helth insurnce coverge. Ntionl Helth Expenditure Account (NHEA) provides ggregte mesures of helth-cre expenditures in the United Sttes by type of service delivered (hospitl cre, physicin services, nursing home cre, etc.) nd source of funding for those services (privte helth insurnce, Medicre, Medicid, out-of-pocket spending, etc.). The Office of the Actury in the Centers for Medicre nd Medicid Services nnully produces projections of helth-cre spending for ctegories within the NHEA for the next decde (26). Sttisticl nlysis Projection of future overweight nd obesity trends. We estimted the verge nnul increse in the prevlence of overweight nd obesity nd predicted the future prevlence mong US dults nd children ssuming the trends would be similr to those of the pst three decdes. Most of the pst prevlence estimtes bsed on NHANES dt used in our nlysis were bsed on previously published estimtes, ll of which were bsed on nlyses done with considertion of survey design effects nd smpling weights (1,3,23). Additionl estimtes were obtined only when necessry (e.g., prevlence nd shift in BMI distributions) nd were lso clculted tking design effects nd smple weights into ccount. For exmple, such nlyses were conducted using the survey-relted commends in STATA Relese 9. (Stt, College Sttion, TX), nd the relevnt strt, primry smpling units, nd smpling weight vribles were used. We fit liner regression models with the prevlence s the dependent vrible nd the survey time s the predictors for different sociodemogrphic groups. The β coefficients indicte the verge nnul increses in the prevlence. The models fit the dt well in ech sociodemogrphic strtum, nd explined 6 1% (i.e., R 2 ) of the vrince in the prevlence. The mjority (~9%) of the models hd n R 2 >.9. Bsed on the findings, we then projected the future sitution for the yers of 21, 22, nd 23 s well s when the prevlence would rech the lndmrk levels (e.g., 8 nd 1%). In ddition, we clculted prediction intervls bsed on the s.e. of the predicted prevlence (27). Further, bsed on previously observed BMI distribution shifts between 1976 nd 24 we predicted future BMI distributions mong dults ged 2 nd then projected the men BMI nd prevlence bsed on these projected BMI distributions. We creted weighted percentiles for ech wve nd estimted men BMI within ech percentile. Subsequently, the cumultive reltive frequency (proportion) ws compred between wves nd the yerly shift in men BMI for ech percentile ws estimted using ordinry lest squres liner regression models with survey midperiod s the predictor for men BMI in ech percentile. This yerly shift ws then pplied to the NHANES 1999 24 popultion to project future BMI distributions. Projection of obesity-relted helth-cre costs. We mke two sets of projections bsed on our projected prevlence nd two recently published estimtes of per cpit excess helth-cre costs ttributble to obesity nd overweight mong US dults (1,11). Thorpe et l. used the MEPS nd found tht in 21 the verge helth-cre costs for the obese group ws $1,69 higher thn for the norml weight group, nd for the overweight (25 BMI < 3) group, ws higher by $34 (refs. 1,11). Finkelstein et l. estimted tht the nnul excess helth-cre costs ttributble to obesity were $732 per person in 1998, nd $247 for overweight (1). We estimted per cpit excess helth-cre costs due to obesity nd overweight for ech yer from 2 to 23, ssuming tht the excess costs grow t the sme rte s per cpit personl helth-cre costs in the NHEA, which hve been projected to 216 (ref. 28). We pplied the verge nnul growth rte of per cpit personl helth costs between 25 nd 216, 6.%, to the rest of the study period. To clculte totl helth-cre costs ttributble to obesity nd overweight for ll US dults, we pplied our projected prevlence to the popultion projection provided by the Census Bureu. We lso expressed these costs s percentge of the totl personl helth-cre costs in the NHEA, nd s percentge of totl helth-cre costs estimte from MEPS. Totl personl helth-cre costs in the NHEA re projected to grow t 6.9% from 216 to 23, the sme s the nnulized growth rte from 25 to 216 projected. Totl helth-cre expenditures from MEPS re vilble for 1996 24. We ssume tht these estimtes grow t the sme rte s the NHEA personl helth-cre costs. Note tht primrily becuse of coverge differences (e.g., smple popultion included) tht MEPS estimtes of totl helth-cre expenditures re lower thn those of the NHEA (29). The projected costs were lso converted to 2, dollrs ssuming 3% nnulized increse in the gross domestic product defltor. 2324 VOLUME 16 NUMBER 1 OCTOBER 28 www.obesityjournl.org
Tble 1 Averge nnul increse in prevlence of obesity nd overweight mong US dults nd children nd future projections bsed on NHANES 1976 198 to 23 24 Age Gender Ethnicity Adults, 2 yers Overweight nd obesity (BMI 25 kg/m 2 ) Obesity (BMI 3 kg/m 2 ) Children, 6 11 yers Overweight (BMI 95th percentile) Men nd women Current (1999 24) Averge nnul increse (percentge points) (OLS) Prevlence projections: prevlence (%) nd projection intervl Rte (β) s.e. R 2 21 22 23 All 66.3.772.44.99 7.8 (68.4 73.1) 78.5 (75.6 81.4) 86.3 (82.9 89.8) Men All 67..653.22.99 73.5 (72.3 74.7) 8.1 (78.5 81.7) 86.6 (84.6 98.6) Women All 62..911*.153.97 69. (6.9 77.) 78.1 (67.5 88.7) 87.2 (73.9 1.) Men Non-Hispnic 67.5.654.17.99 74.7 (73.7 75.7) 81.3 (8.1 82.5) 87.8 (86.2 89.4) Non-Hispnic 6.1.419*.83.96 64.3 (73.7 75.7) 68.5 (8.1 82.5) 72.7 (86.2 89.4) 74.4.595.3 1 79.3 (79.1 79.5) 85.2 (85. 85.4) 91.1 (9.9 91.3) Women Non-Hispnic 57.5.856*.152.97 65.2 (57.2 73.2) 73.7 (63.3 84.1) 82.3 (69.2 95.4) Non-Hispnic 78..694*.18.94 83. (73.4 92.6) 9. (77.5 1) 96.9 (81.2 1) 71.8.481*.94.96 77.1 (72. 82.2) 81.9 (75.4 88.4) 86.7 (78.5 94.9) Men nd All 32.2.682.31.99 37.4 (35.6 39.2) 44.2 (42.2 46.2) 51.1 (48.5 53.6) women Men All 27.7.685*.64.98 33.9 (3.6 37.2) 4.7 (36.4 45.) 47.6 (42.1 53.1) Women All 34..778*.7.98 42.5 (38.8 46.2) 5.3 (45.4 55.) 58. (51.9 64.1) Men Women Boys nd girls Non-Hispnic Non-Hispnic 31.1.727.37.99 34.3 (32.3 36.3) 41.5 (38.9 44.) 48.8 (45.7 51.9) 34..636.141.87 36.4 (28.7 44.) 42.7 (33.1 52.3) 49.1 (37.3 6.9) 31.6.575.75.97 33.3 (29.2 37.4) 39. (33.9 43.3) 44.8 (38.5 51.1) Non-Hispnic 3.2.616.55.98 35.6 (32.7 38.5) 41.7 (38. 45.4) 47.9 (43.4 52.4) Non-Hispnic 53.9.878.17.97 58.1 (52.2 64.) 66.9 (59.6 74.1) 75.6 (66.6 84.6) 42.3.569.84.96 44.4 (39.9 48.9) 5.1 (44.4 57.8) 55.8 (48.7 62.8) All 18.8.462.51.97 2.4 (17.6 23.1) 25. (21.5 28.5) 29.7 (25.4 34.) Boys All 19.9.492.52.97 2.8 (12. 29.6) 25.7 (22.2 29.2) 3.7 (26.4 35.) Girls All 17.6.46.41.97 19.8 (17.4 22.1) 23.8 (21. 26.5) 27.9 (24.6 31.2) Boys Non-Hispnic 18.5.4.1.84 19.7 (14.2 25.2) 23.7 (17. 3.4) 27.7 (19.5 35.9) Non-Hispnic 17.5.441.29.99 21.4 (19.8 23.) 25.8 (23.8 27.8) 3.2 (27.8 32.5) 25.3.548.98.91 3.2 (24.7 35.7) 35.7 (29.2 42.2) 41.1 (33. 49.1) Girls Non-Hispnic 16.9.43.73.91 17. (12.9 21.1) 21.1 (16.2 26.) 25.1 (19. 31.2) Non-Hispnic 26.5.564.56.97 28.2 (25.1 31.3) 33.9 (3.2 37.6) 39.5 (34.8 44.2) 19.4.314*.142.62 2.2 (12.4 28.) 23.4 (14. 32.8) 26.5 (14.7 38.3) Tble 1 Continued on next pge obesity VOLUME 16 NUMBER 1 OCTOBER 28 2325
Tble 1 Averge nnul increse in prevlence of obesity nd overweight mong US dults nd children nd future projections bsed on NHANES 1976 198 to 23 24 (Continued) Age Gender Ethnicity Adolescents, 12 19 yers Overweight (BMI 95th percentile) Current (1999 24) Averge nnul increse (percentge points) (OLS) Prevlence projections: prevlence (%) nd projection intervl Rte (β) s.e. R 2 21 22 23 Boys nd All 17.4.492.16.99 21.1 (19.7 22.5) 26. (24.4 27.6) 31. (29.2 32.8) girls Boys All 18.3.528.18.99 21.1 (19.3 22.8) 26.4 (24.4 28.4) 31.6 (29. 34.1) Girls All 16.4.449.22.98 18.8 (17.2 2.4) 23.3 (21.5 25.) 27.8 (25.4 3.1) Boys Non-Hispnic 19.1.526.18.88 2. (13.9 26.1) 25.2 (17.9 32.4) 3.5 (21.5 39.5) Non-Hispnic 18.5.537.129.85 22.1 (14.8 29.3) 27.4 (18.8 36.) 32.8 (22.2 43.4) 18.3.589.226.69 25.3 (12.7 37.8) 31.2 (16.1 46.3) 37.1 (18.5 55.7) Girls Non-Hispnic 15.4.391.58.94 16.9 (13.7 2.) 2.8 (16.9 24.7) 24.7 (2. 29.4) Non-Hispnic 25.4.581.96.92 29.5 (24.2 35.8) 35.3 (28.8 41.8) 41.1 (33.3 48.9) 14.1.36*.154.64 2.4 (11.8 29.) 24. (13.6 34.4) 27.6 (14.8 4.3) Ordinry lest squres (OLS) liner regression models included prevlence s function of time s the independent vrible. The β coefficients cn be interpreted s the nnul chnge in prevlence. Note tht time periods for ech Ntionl Helth nd Nutrition Exmintion Study (NHANES) survey (1976 24) were represented by the mid-point of the survey period. For, only NHANES dt collected between 1988 nd 24 were dequte nd used in our projection. The projections were conducted ssuming no popultion distribution chnges regrding ge, sex, nd ethnicity fter 24. Prediction intervls were estimted fter estimting the predicted projection s.e. for ech projection yer. 95% confidence intervls were estimted s predicted prevlence ± 1.96 s.e. Bsed on the 2 CDC Growth Chrts. *P >.5 for null hypothesis tht β = ; ll the others P <.5. All nlyses were conducted using STATA Relese 9.. We hve considered other projection methods, but felt the presented pproches re pproprite nd provide strightforwrd nd interpretble results. Our liner models hd excellent fit s shown by the high R 2 vlues. Our projected results bsed on yer-specific prevlence (liner models) nd those bsed on BMI distribution re consistent. Even though prediction intervls were estimted in our study, literl prediction of the future scenrio in the United Sttes would be ffected by mny possible uncertinties including policy-, environmentl-, nd behviorl chnges tht would require mny more ssumptions nd more complex models thn were pplied here. Rther we imed to show in reltively strightforwrd mnner wht the future would be if the trends observed in the pst continue. RESULTS Projected prevlence of overweight nd obesity from 21 to 23 On verge, the prevlence of overweight nd obesity hs incresed stedily mong ll US popultion groups over the pst two to three decdes (P <.5), but some noticeble differences exist in the verge nnul increse (percentge point) cross sex-, ge-, nd ethnic groups (Tble 1 nd Figure 1). In generl, US dults sw fster increse in obesity thn the increse in overweight in children nd dolescents (.68 vs..46 nd.49, respectively); women hd fster increse thn men (.91 vs..65 for combined prevlence of overweight nd obesity). Girls hd slower increse in overweight thn boys (.41 vs..49 in children nd.45 vs..53 in dolescents). White men nd women hd the highest increse rte in the combined prevlence, compred with Africn s nd s (MAs), within gender. Regrding obesity, Africn- women hd the highest prevlence nd rte % 1 95 9 85 8 75 7 65 6 55 5 45 4 Overweight nd obesity (BMI 25) Obesity (BMI 3) 1 Observed Projected Observed Projected 9 35 197 198 199 2 21 22 23 24 25 26 Yer All Men Women b % of increse overll; nd in men, the prevlence ws similr, but men hd the highest increse rte. The ptterns in children nd dolescents were complex. Our projection models show tht by the yer 23, ~9% (86.3%) of ll dults would become overweight or obese nd 51.1% of them would be obese. Blck women (combined prevlence 96.9%) nd MA men (91.1%) would be the groups most ffected. In children nd dolescents, prevlence of overweight would increse 1.6-fold (to ~3%) by 23. MA young boys nd dolescent girls would hve the highest prevlence (both 41.1%), level tht would be 1 percentge points higher thn the ntionl verge. Further, the prevlence 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 197 199 21 23 25 Yer 27 All Men Women Figure 1 Prevlence of obesity nd overweight mong US dults: Observed during 1976 24 nd projected. The projected prevlence presented here re those bsed on our liner regression models. 29 211 2326 VOLUME 16 NUMBER 1 OCTOBER 28 www.obesityjournl.org
Tble 2 Future projections: time when the prevlence of overweight or obesity mong US dults will rech 8, 85, 9, nd 1% nd prevlence of overweight (BMI 95th percentile b ) mong US children will rech 3, 4, nd 5% Gender Ethnicity Yer when the prevlence will rech 8% 9% 1% US dults Overweight nd obesity (BMI 25 kg/m 2 ) All All 222 235 248 Men All 22 235 251 Women All 222 233 244 Men Non-Hispnic 218 233 249 Non-Hispnic 247 271 295 211 228 245 Women Non-Hispnic 227 239 251 Non-Hispnic 26 22 234 216 237 258 Obesity (BMI 3 kg/m 2 ) All All 272 287 212 Men All 277 292 217 Women All 258 271 284 Men Non-Hispnic 273 287 21 Non-Hispnic 279 294 211 291 219 2126 Women Non-Hispnic 282 298 2115 Non-Hispnic 235 246 258 273 29 218 Yer when the prevlence will rech US children nd dolescents 3% 4% 5% Children, 6 11 yers All All 231 252 274 Overweight b Boys All 229 249 269 Girls All 235 26 284 Boys Non-Hispnic 236 261 286 Non-Hispnic 229 252 275 21 228 246 Girls Non-Hispnic 242 267 292 Non-Hispnic 213 231 249 241 273 215 Adolescents, 12 19 yers All All 228 248 269 Boys All 227 246 265 Overweight b Girls All 235 257 28 Boys Non-Hispnic 229 248 267 Non-Hispnic 225 243 262 218 235 252 Girls Non-Hispnic 243 269 295 Non-Hispnic 211 228 245 237 264 292 The projections were mde using liner regression models bsed on Ntionl Helth nd Nutrition Exmintion Study dt collected between 1974 nd 24, nd ssumed no popultion distribution chnges regrding ge, sex, nd ethnicity fter 24. b Bsed on the 95th BMI percentiles in the 2 CDC Growth Chrt. obesity VOLUME 16 NUMBER 1 OCTOBER 28 2327
.1.8.8.6.6.4.4.2.2 b Men BMI (kg/m 2 ) c BMI difference 6 5 4 3 2 1 2 25 3 4 6 8 BMI (kg/m 2 ) NHANES II NHANES III NHANES 1999 24 2 4 6 8 1 Cumultive proportion/percentile.35.3.25.2.15.1.5 NHANES II NHANES III NHANES 1999 24 2 4 6 8 1 Cumultive proportion/percentile Figure 2 Shifts in BMI distribution mong dults between 1976 nd 24: NHANES II (1976 198), III (1988 1994), nd 1999 24. () Kernel density plot of BMI. (b) Cumultive proportion distribution of BMI. (c) Men BMI difference within percentile, m d: ordinry lest squres (OLS) estimte of verge yerly shift. in MA dolescents will increse by twofold nd mong Africn- teens, by 1.8-fold, the lrgest increses. Furthermore, our findings from compring BMI distributions between NHANES II (1976 198) nd 1999 24 suggest gret BMI increse in the upper prt of the distribution. Note tht previous study hs exmined the shift up to NHANES III (1988 1994) (ref. 3). This is clerly shown in the incresing re under the upper til, the widening of the BMI men differences in the upper percentiles nd n upwrd sloping m d plot (Figure 2). Assuming these trends will persist, we projected the future BMI distributions. Bsed on these projections, men BMI b BMI or % 1 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Tble 3 Projected direct helth-cre costs, in billions of dollrs, ttributble to overweight nd obesity for US dults: 2 23 Overweight nd obesity (BMI 25 kg/m 2 ) Billions ($) Projection A Billions % % of $2, NHEA MEPS Billions ($) Obesity (BMI 3 kg/m 2 ) Billions of $2, % NHEA % MEPS 2 81.5 $81.5 7.1 13. 6.9 $6.9 5.3 9.7 21 194.3 $151.1 8.4 13.5 151.3 $117.7 6.5 1.5 22 437.6 $276. 9.7 15.6 351.1 $221.4 7.8 12.5 23 956.9 $57.5 1.9 17.6 784.8 $416.2 9. 14.4 Projection B b 2 25 3 4 6 8 BMI (kg/m 2 ) 65 3.6 28 NHANES 1999 24 21 22 23 7.2 37.3 29 2 72.2 $72.2 6.3 11.5 53.2 $53.2 4.7 8.5 21 175.2 $136.3 7.6 12.2 114.6 $14.7 5.8 9.4 22 394. $248.5 8.8 14.1 312.3 $197. 6.9 11.2 23 86.7 $456.4 9.8 15.8 698.3 $37.3 8. 12.8 MEPS, Medicl Expenditure Pnel Survey; NHEA, Ntionl Helth Expenditure Account. Projection bsed on per cpit excess helth-cre costs ttributble to obesity nd overweight estimted by Thorpe et l. (11). b Projection bsed on per cpit excess helth-cre costs ttributble to obesity nd overweight estimted by Finkelstein et l. (1). will increse linerly from 27.9 in 1999 24 to 31.2 in 23; nd by 23, 78.9% of dults will be overweight or obese, while 49.9% will be obese (Figure 3). In generl, these results re consistent with our liner regression model bsed projections. 75 44.1 3.2 78.9 49.9 31.4 1999 24 21 22 23 Obesity prevlence (%) Overweight prevlence (%) % Overweight % Obesity BMI Men BMI Figure 3 Current BMI distribution nd projected distributions for the yers of 21, 22, nd 23. () BMI Kernel density plots. (b) Men BMI, obesity, nd overweight prevlence. 2328 VOLUME 16 NUMBER 1 OCTOBER 28 www.obesityjournl.org
Time course to rrive t 1% prevlence In ~15 yers, by the yer 222, 8% of dults would be overweight or obese; nd the prevlence would rech 1% in ~4 yers (by the yer 248) (Tble 2 nd Figure 1). For women, the time course to rech 1% prevlence is <3 yers (by 234). Hlf of US children nd dolescents overll will become overweight round the yer 27, but this level will be reched mong girls nd MA boys by 25. The projected obesity-relted direct helth-cre costs Totl helth-cre costs ttributble to obesity nd overweight will be more thn doubled every decde (Tble 3). By 23, helth-cre costs ttributble to obesity nd overweight could rnge from $86 to $956 billion, which would ccount for 15.8 17.6% of totl helth-cre costs, or for 1 in every 6 dollrs spent on helth cre. Becuse of the ssumptions we mde nd the limittions of the vilble dt, these figures re likely n underestimtion of the true impct. DISCUSSION Our nlyses, bsed on ntionlly representtive dt collected over the pst three decdes nd the ssumptions of similr future increse rte nd helth costs s observed in the pst, clerly show n lrming picture of the future obesity epidemic nd relted chllenges. Our projections show tht if the trends continue, in only 15 yers 8% of ll dults will be overweight or obese. The potentil for ll dults to become overweight or obese is relity, especilly for subgroups such s women where the current prevlence is lredy 78%. At the current rte of increse it will tke <3 yers for ll women to become overweight or obese. Our projections lso indicte tht the direct helth-cre costs ttributble to obesity nd overweight will be more thn doubled every decde. By 23, costs could rnge from 86.7 to 956.9 billion US dollrs, ccounting for 1 in every 6 dollrs spent on helth cre. This is likely to be gross underestimte, s we ssumed tht the obesity-relted per cpit helth-cre costs grow t the sme rte s the per cpit totl helth-cre costs, when some evidence suggests tht the gp between per cpitl spending between obese nd norml weight individuls in fct is growing significntly lrger over time (11). For exmple, possible future chnges such s erlier onset of obesity nd complictions in younger dults nd vilbility of more costly helth-cre services my substntilly increse relted helth-cre costs. Although some my question the ssumption tht the observed trends in the pst 3 yers will continue nd some ongoing nd future policy nd progrm chnges my ffect the future trends, bsed on the current literture, there re few signs tht the increse will slow down. It is possible tht the increse my slow down when the future prevlence reches high level or due to emerging effective interventions. On the other hnd, there re continuing chnges in the society (e.g., contextul environmentl fctors) nd people s lifestyles tht my put growing proportion of the popultion t incresed risk for obesity. In fct, the increse observed mong women over the pst two decdes nd the recent ctch up of prevlence in women provide some evidence to support this concern. The potentil role of socil norms in promoting obesity development ws suggested by n nlysis of weight gin within socil networks (31). Incresing proportions of the popultion who re obese my result in chnges in ttitudes bout wht constitutes helthy body weight. The environmentl nd behviorl forces fueling the obesity epidemic re unlikely to be modified overnight, nd even effective prevention progrms my tke yers to show significnt impct. A cler impliction of our findings is tht the ntionl objectives specified in Helthy People 21 relted to obesity cnnot be met, except for the limittions of this study (e.g., the ssumptions mde). These objectives need be ressessed nd refrmed to be more relistic nd to provide the motivtion for pced but deliberte effort to stbilize nd then reverse the trends of obesity increse. A growing body of reserch iming t better understnding of the underlying cuses of the growing obesity epidemic suggests tht complex fctors operting interctively t multiple levels (e.g., individul, community/school, society, nd interntionl) re importnt contributors to this ntionl public helth crisis (7,32 34). For problem s pervsive nd serious s the obesity epidemic we hve observed t present nd projected for the future in the United Sttes, it is likely tht brod, comprehensive pproches re needed to ddress it. As rticulted by the World Helth Orgniztion for the globl sitution (35) nd by the Institute of Medicine with respect to childhood obesity in the United Sttes (36), drmtic nd effective popultion-bsed progrms nd relted policies need to be developed nd implemented to ddress the epidemic. But until recently, there were few truly multifctoril prevention inititives, the focus being insted on chnging individul behviors. More recently, there hs been incresing recognition of the mjor role tht the obesogenic environment plys in perpetuting the epidemic (37 39). Wht is needed now re cretive inititives to ctully effect environmentl chnges, nd this will require strong nd sustined collbortion mong the public nd privte sectors, eductors, food producers, urbn plnners, trnsporttion experts, prents, nd the generl public. The ntion s helth-cre system should be prepred to fce the rising burden of obesity-relted helth consequences, by providing more relevnt trining to medicl nd helth-cre professionls nd developing the needed infrstructures. Our study hs certin limittions. As noted previously, our projections re bsed on number of ssumptions, some of which re simplified scenrios. Future policy-, environmentlnd behviorl chnges my prove these ssumptions wrong. Future obesity rtes my not proceed linerly s the epidemic continues, while our projections essentilly ssume tht the environment will continue to worsen t pst rtes. Other potentilly relevnt fctors include segment of the popultion tht my be geneticlly protected from obesity or who my mintin lower risk of developing obesity through persistent helthy lifestyle behviors. The forces of the US obesity epidemic my not ffect such individuls. In ddition, our projected obesityrelted medicl costs were probbly underestimtes considering tht more obese people will be severely obese in the future; thus, helth-cre costs per obese person will be higher. Future obesity-relted helth costs will lso be higher due to the obesity VOLUME 16 NUMBER 1 OCTOBER 28 2329
vilbility of more expensive relted services. Creful explortion of these complex fctors ws beyond the scope of this study nd the informtion provided by currently vilble dt. It is our hope tht the predicted grim future of the obesity epidemic will not turn into the ctul scenrio in the United Sttes or ny other countries. Projections for popultion subgroups tht lredy hve prevlence of 8%, e.g., women, suggest tht it is indeed possible for the hypotheticl levels estimted here to become relity. Although some individuls my be less prone, geneticlly, to gin excess weight, we might indeed be pproching environmentl nd behviorl conditions such tht few re exempt. We hope tht the results presented here will provide evidence of the severity of the obesity epidemic, of its impcts on the society, the lessons tht other countries cn lern from the United Sttes, nd ultimtely, of the recognition tht we, collectively, re the only ones who cn prove these projections wrong. Hence, we offer these nlyses to pose the questions wht obesity prevlence will be cceptble going forwrd? Wht gols will we set, nd how will we ttin these gols? Acknowledgments The study ws supported in prt by the US Deprtment of Agriculture (244-5322) nd the Ntionl Institutes of Helth (NIDDK R1 DK63383 nd NICHD 1R3HD5673). We thnk Dr Zhng for his ssistnce by providing some of the dt used in our nlysis. Y.W. contributed to conceptuliztion, sttisticl nlysis, literture review, interprettion of results, nd write-up of the mnuscript. M.A.B. nd L.L. contributed to dt mngement nd sttisticl nlysis, interprettion of results, nd write-up prt of the mnuscript. B.C contributed to interprettion of results nd revision of the mnuscript. S.K.K ssisted in dt nlysis, interprettion of results, nd revision of the mnuscript. DISCLOSURE The uthors declred no conflict of interest. 28 The Obesity Society REFERENCES 1. Wng Y, Beydoun MA. The obesity epidemic in the United Sttes gender, ge, socioeconomic, rcil/ethnic, nd geogrphic chrcteristics: systemtic review nd met-regression nlysis. Epidemiol Rev 27;29:6 28. 2. Wng Y, Zhng Q. Are children nd dolescents of low socioeconomic sttus t incresed risk of obesity? Chnges in the ssocition between overweight nd fmily income between 1971 nd 22. Am J Clin Nutr 26;84:77 716. 3. Ogden CL, Crroll MD, Curtin LR et l. Prevlence of overweight nd obesity in the United Sttes, 1999 24. JAMA 26;295:1549 1555. 4. Gordon-Lrsen P, Adir LS, Popkin BM. The reltionship of ethnicity, socioeconomic fctors, nd overweight in US dolescents. Obes Res 23;11:121 129. 5. Zhng Q, Wng Y. Trends in the ssocition between obesity nd socioeconomic sttus in U.S. dults: 1971 to 2. Obes Res 24;12:1622 1632. 6. US Deprtment of Helth nd Humn Services (USDHHS). Helthy People 21 <http://www.helthypeople.gov/> (26). 7. Bry G, Bouchrd C, Jmes WPT. Hndbook of Obesity: Clinicl Applictions, 2nd edn. Mrcel Dekker: New York, 1998. 8. Olshnsky SJ, Pssro DJ, Hershow RC et l. A potentil decline in life expectncy in the United Sttes in the 21st century. N Engl J Med 25;352:1138 1145. 9. Colditz GA. Economic costs of obesity nd inctivity. Med Sci Sports Exerc 1999;31:S663 S667. 1. Finkelstein E, Fiebelkorn I, Wng G. Ntionl medicl expenditures ttributble to overweight nd obesity: how much nd who s pying? Helth Aff 23;Suppl Web Exclusives:W3-219-26. 11. Thorpe KE, Florence CS, Howrd DH, Joski P. The impct of obesity on rising medicl spending. Helth Aff (Millwood) 24;Suppl Web Exclusives:W4-48-6. 12. Wng G, Dietz WH. Economic burden of obesity in youths ged 6 to 17 yers: 1979 1999. Peditrics 22;19:E81 E81. 13. Wolf AM, Colditz GA. Current estimtes of the economic cost of obesity in the United Sttes. Obes Res 1998;6:97 16. 14. Center for Disese Control nd Prevention (CDC). Ntionl Helth nd Nutrition Exmintion Survey <http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nhnes.htm> (26). 15. Guillume M. Defining obesity in childhood: current prctice. Am J Clin Nutr 1999;7:126S 13S. 16. Kuczmrski RJ, Ogden CL, Grummer-Strwn LM et l. CDC growth chrts: United Sttes. Adv Dt 2;314:1 27. 17. World Helth Orgniztion (WHO). Obesity: preventing nd mnging the globl epidemic. Report of WHO consulttion. Technicl report series 894. WHO: Genev, 2. 18. Wng Y. Epidemiology of childhood obesity methodologicl spects nd guidelines: wht is new? Int J Obes Relt Metb Disord 24;28(Suppl 3):S21 S28. 19. WHO Expert Committee. Physicl sttus, the use nd interprettion of nthropometry. Technicl Report Series 54. WHO: Genev, 1995. 2. Must A, Dlll GE, Dietz WH. Reference dt for obesity: 85th nd 95th percentiles of body mss index (wt/ht2) nd triceps skinfold thickness. Am J Clin Nutr 1991;53:839 846. 21. Himes JH, Dietz WH. Guidelines for overweight in dolescent preventive services: recommendtions from n expert committee. The Expert Committee on Clinicl Guidelines for Overweight in Adolescent Preventive Services. Am J Clin Nutr 1994;59:37 316. 22. Brlow SE, Dietz WH. Obesity evlution nd tretment: Expert Committee recommendtions. The Mternl nd Child Helth Bureu, Helth Resources nd Services Administrtion nd the Deprtment of Helth nd Humn Services. Peditrics 1998;12:E29. 23. Centers for Disese Control nd Prevention (CDC). Tbles 7 nd 71. CDC: Atlnt, GA, 22. 24. Cohen J. Design nd methods of the Medicl Expenditure Pnel Survey household component. AHCPR: Rockville, MD, 1997. 25. US Deprtment of Helth nd Humn Services (USDHHS). Medicl Expenditure Pnel Survey <http://www.meps.hrq.gov/mepsweb/bout_ meps/survey_bck.jsp> (27). Accessed 18 July 27. 26. Office of the Actury (OA). Center for Medicre nd Medicid Services. Ntionl Helth Expenditure Accounts <http://www.cms.hhs.gov/ NtionlHelthExpendDt/> (27). 27. Neter J, Kutner MH, Wssermn W, Nchtsheim CJ (eds). Applied Liner Sttisticl Models, 4th edn. McGrw-Hill/Irwin: Chicgo, IL, 1996. 28. Poisl JA, Truffer C, Smith S et l. Helth spending projections through 216: modest chnges obscure prt D s impct. Helth Aff (Millwood) 27;26:242 253. 29. Sing M, Bnthin JS, Selden TM, Cown CA, Keehn SP. Reconciling medicl expenditure estimtes from the MEPS nd NHEA, 22. Helth Cre Finnc Rev 26;28:25 4. 3. Flegl KM, Troino RP. Chnges in the distribution of body mss index of dults nd children in the US popultion. Int J Obes Relt Metb Disord 2;24:87 818. 31. Christkis NA, Fowler JH. The spred of obesity in lrge socil network over 32 yers. N Engl J Med 27;357:37 379. 32. Kumnyik SK, Obrznek E. Pthwys to obesity prevention: report of Ntionl Institutes of Helth workshop. Obes Res 23;11:1263 1274. 33. Swinburn B, Gill T, Kumnyik S. Obesity prevention: proposed frmework for trnslting evidence into ction. Obes Rev 25;6:23 33. 34. US Deprtment of Helth nd Humn Services PHS. The Surgeon Generl s cll to ction to prevent nd decrese overweight nd obesity. Office of the Surgeon Generl: Rockville, MD, 21. 35. World Helth Orgniztion (WHO). Obesity: preventing nd mnging the globl epidemic. Report of WHO Consulttion Genev. WHO: Genev, 24. 36. Institute of Medicine. Preventing Childhood Obesity: Helth in the Blnce. Ntionl Acdemies Press: Wshington, DC, 25. 37. Hill JO, Wytt HR, Reed GW, Peters JC. Obesity nd the environment: where do we go from here? Science 23;299:853 855. 38. Popkin BM, Duffey K, Gordon-Lrsen P. Environmentl influences on food choice, physicl ctivity nd energy blnce. Physiol Behv 25;86:63 613. 39. Swinburn B, Egger G. Preventive strtegies ginst weight gin nd obesity. Obes Rev 22;3:289 31. 233 VOLUME 16 NUMBER 1 OCTOBER 28 www.obesityjournl.org