Heart disease treatment costs set to triple to $818 billion annually by 2030

[one...two...tree 2,762]

More than one in three people in the U.S. currently have some form of heart disease, and it remains the leading cause of death in the country. Treating all of our coronary heart disease, heart failure, high blood pressure, stroke and other conditions last year cost about $272.5 billion. In 20 years, that price tag is likely to triple to $818.1 billion a year—even if costly new treatments don't arise—according to an analysis published online January 24 in the Circulation: Journal of the American Heart Association.

This "remarkable increase in costs" is expected "just through demographic changes in the population," Paul Heidenreich, who chaired the expert panel responsible for the report, said in a prepared statement.

With an aging population, by 2030 some 116 million people in the U.S. (almost 40 percent of the population) are expected to have at least one form of heart disease. "Despite the success in reducing and treating heart disease over the last half century, even if we just maintain our current rates, we will have an enormous financial burden," Heidenreich said. Since 2000, heart disease alone has led to about 15 percent of the increase in total U.S. medical spending, which now tops $2.5 trillion annually. And, according to the new analysis, the cost just of treating hypertension is expected to grow $258.3 billion between 2010 and 2030.

The key to slowing the trend, reported the experts, is improving prevention—both on the individual and policy levels. "Unhealthy behaviors and unhealthy environments have contributed to a tidal wave of risk factors among many Americans," Nancy Brown, CEO of the American Heart Association, said in a prepared statement. "Early intervention and evidenced-based public policies are absolute musts." The report also points out a need to prepare more healthcare workers—including primary care doctors, specialists, nurses and pharmacists—for the expected demand.

Beyond the medical expenses themselves, the experts advised, heart disease resulted in about $172 billion in lost productivity due to missed work, premature death and other factors. That figure is expected to rise to $276 billion by 2030, tipping the scale of heart disease's annual cost in the U.S. beyond $1 trillion.

Heart disease is not the only common chronic disease that is likely to bring a steep price increase in the coming decades (it currently is responsible for some 17 percent of national health care costs). A study published earlier this month reported that the cost of cancer care is likely to climb some 40 to 66 percent in the next 10 years (bringing an annual total of $173 billion or $207 billion, respectively).

http://www.scientifi...et-t-2011-01-24

[^_^ 5,021]

The report also points out a need to prepare more healthcare workers—including primary care doctors, specialists, nurses and pharmacists—for the expected demand.

That won't reduce cost. The only way to reduce cost is to allow those who develop heart disease to die.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

That won't reduce cost. The only way to reduce cost is to allow those who develop heart disease to die.

You can't be a true, red-blooded American if you don't have your daily dose of red meat.

[^_^ 5,021]

You can't be a true, red-blooded American if you don't have your daily dose of red meat.

Right. So let people die. We'll have a balanced budget, so what if we also have life expectancy metrics that mirror a third world nation? Only ivory tower libruls who don't know nothing about the real world look at metrics. The rest of us have budgets to balance.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

That won't reduce cost. The only way to reduce cost is to allow those who develop heart disease to die.

Damn straight! Raise the retirement age to 80, and let them work their way to an early grave.

[The_Dude 1,142]

Damn straight! Raise the retirement age to 80, and let them work their way to an early grave.

Retirement age? You retire when you have enough kids to take care of you. What do you think this is? The 20th century? Aparently, according to some, there is nothing today that we couldn't handle 100-200 years ago.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Retirement age? You retire when you have enough kids to take care of you. What do you think this is? The 20th century? Aparently, according to some, there is nothing today that we couldn't handle 100-200 years ago.

Fine. Give all your wealth to your kids when they become adults, then shut the hell up, and live in the back room. Old people stealing from their kids to live out their lives in solitary comfort is just plain wrong.