Charis Fischer
On Monday, the St. Louis Post-Dispatch ran this opinion piece discussing the amount of public health spending by state. The article points out that Missouri spent just $9.26 for each resident, which is the second-lowest amount of all the states, higher only than Nevada. The author is concerned because “public health is one of the most cost-effective investments any state can make.” To support this assertion, the piece cites a 2008 study which, “found that investing in public health and disease prevention can reduce rates of chronic illnesses such as cancer, [heart] disease and diabetes.” This study also estimated “that every $1 invested in those programs would return $5.60 in benefits over five years.”

What the article doesn't mention is that the study it cites also concluded that an investment of $10 per person per year in "proven community-based programs" would give us the aforementioned rate of return. Furthermore, according to this study, "evidence shows that implementing these programs in communities reduces rates of type 2 diabetes and high blood pressure by 5 percent within 2 years; reduces heart disease, kidney disease, and stroke by 5 percent within 5 years; and reduces some forms of cancer, arthritis, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease by 2.5 percent within 10 to 20 years." Missouri spends almost $10 per person per year, the figure observed in the study, but still has poor health outcomes. This tells me that we are probably not spending our money in the most effective way.

There is further evidence of that in a comparison of four measures of public health in Missouri and Nevada, the one state that spends even less than we do in this area:



























Missouri Nevada
Overweight/Obese (2008) 65.4% 62.6%
Diabetes (2008) 9.1% 8.5%
High blood pressure (2003) 27.5% 23.6%
Smokers (2004) 24.9% 22.1%

* Information on high blood pressure from CDC; all other information from statehealthfacts.org

So, even though we spend more than Nevada on public health, we still have higher numbers in all four of these categories. This is admittedly an overly simplistic analysis, but the point is that amount of state public health spending is obviously not the only factor that matters for health outcomes in Missouri. The programs themselves should be evaluated for effectiveness, to determine whether investment of additional resources in them is worthwhile.

The larger point here is that using state taxpayer funds to address public health problems might not be the best strategy, given the frequent ineffectiveness of state-run programs. Instead, we should end the tax benefit for employer-provided health insurance, which would allow individuals to have control over their health insurance. People would then have a direct financial incentive to become more sensitive to the effect that their lifestyle choices have on their premiums. As a result, a greater number of people would make healthier choices, in addition to the obvious incentive of health in and of itself.

About the Author

Charis Fischer