Costs of illness sicken S.C.

But reasonable lifestyle, treatment improvements could save state $19.3 billion a year

The economic impact of treating chronic disease in South Carolina is a staggering $20.8 billion annually — including $16.8 billion in lost workdays and lower productivity.

Nationally, the most-common chronic diseases are costing our economy more than $1 trillion annually, a figure that could reach $6 trillion by 2050, according to a recently released study by the Milken Institute.

Health care and the costs associated with treating chronic disease are a huge issue in South Carolina, where more than 2.5 million cases of the diseases were reported in 2003. The rate of obesity, a major risk factor for chronic disease, is skyrocketing. The percent of obese South Carolinians has gone to 29 percent in 2005 from 14 percent in 1990.

The study estimates current and future treatment costs and lost productivity for seven common chronic diseases: cancer, diabetes, hypertension, stroke, heart disease, pulmonary conditions and mental disorders.

But the study found that just reasonable improvements in health-related behavior and treatment, such as reducing smoking and obesity, could save $1.1 trillion a year nationally by 2023 and $19.3 billion in South Carolina.

By 2050, those efforts could add $66 billion to the state’s economic output, an increase of about 18 percent, according to the study.

“An Unhealthy America: The Economic Burden of Chronic Disease” was conducted by the California-based independent economic think tank and paid for by a grant from the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America.

The study used data from the federal Medical Expenditure Panel Survey for 2003, the most recent year for which data were available.

The report was produced for the Partnership to Fight Chronic Disease, a coalition of patient groups, medical providers, business and labor. The partnership is working to make efforts to curb chronic disease a key health-care issue in the 2008 presidential election.

Toward that end, the nonpartisan organization is holding events around the country in key primary states. On Monday, a news conference in Columbia focused on the S.C. findings in the report along with the national numbers.

The study is beginning to have an impact on the election, said John Corea, senior director of research for the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America. Nearly every candidate has something that touches on the fight against chronic disease. Corea said.

“We hope the presidential candidates will embrace it,” Corea said. “We want chronic disease to be a central point of the next president’s health-care policy.”

The Milken study suggests that while the current health-care debate focuses on extending coverage to the uninsured and the financing mechanism for health care, it needs to be broadened to include investment in prevention and early intervention with regard to chronic disease.

The study suggests more incentives to promote prevention, early intervention and “to renew our commitment to achieving a healthy body weight.” Chronic obesity is a major problem that leads to other chronic diseases.

“The results of this latest study demonstrate the critical need for cooperation, consensus and action to win the fight against chronic disease,” said Donna Richter, executive director of the S.C. Public Health Institute.

“We must work together to transform our ‘sick-care system’ into a true health-care system,” said Richter, a former dean of the Arnold School of Public Health at USC.

Nationwide, the study found that one in three Americans report having one of the seven diseases, with a total of 162.2 million cases in 2003, the most recent year for which comprehensive data are available.

The economic losses come not just from worker absenteeism, the study notes, but from “presenteeism,” workers showing up for work just to prevent lost wages but unable to perform.

The study’s principal author Ross DeVol, a former South Carolinian, said the loss of productivity also extends to caregivers often overlooked.

“The good news is that with moderate improvements in prevention and early intervention such as reducing the rate of obesity, the savings to the economy would be enormous,” DeVol said.