Should governments pay people to lose weight?
Posted by kathryn in Uncategorized
Concern over levels of obesity has led the Australian General Practice Network to propose a $170 subsidy be given to overweight people, to encourage them to take part in an accredited weight loss programme.
Individuals would be required to take part in a 12 week programme, with specific goals set for weight loss over that time. As reported on the ABC Dr Tony Hobbs from the AGPN says:
the proposal would help address Australia’s obesity problem by making it easier for people in lower-income brackets to get help. “We believe that this will go a long way to helping people get access to accredited weight loss programs where the people will be supported”
While the AMA have rejected the idea as a “flash in the pan initiative”, the plan is part of a pre-election wish-list the AGPN has presented to the government.
This reminds me of a story from a month ago, where people in the town of Varallo, in northern Italy would be paid to lose weight. This community-wide project was supported by Mayor Gianluca Buonanno.
“Lots of people are saying, ‘I really need to lose some weight but it’s really tough.’ So I thought, why don’t we go on a group diet?” said Buonanno, who said he was about 6 kg (13 pounds) overweight.
You know, I can’t make up my mind about this idea. Part of me is uncomfortable about people being paid to lose weight and wants to know why do we need financial incentives to live a heathier life? Is the idea of living a longer, healthier, happier life really not enough?
However, I’m also aware current initiatives are not working and it might be time to try something new?
But, is it really that easy to get people to lose weight? Get someone to follow a 12-week programme, pay them $170 and then they’ll be fine? There are already supportive programmes to assist with losing weight, however, their stats on participants keeping the weight off long-term are still not great. As one reader on the ABC’s site says:
My problem is being thought of as a burden to society. I actually work in the health industry and I weigh 130kg. Not something I am happy about. I don’t want money to lose weight. I want TIME. Working 50+ hours a week and being a full-time sole parent . . . I would much prefer assistance with childcare which is non-existant for high school children unless I pay a private company and I can’t afford that.
I’m really interested to know what you think of this idea? Would a financial incentive make it more likely you’d lose weight? Are you happy for your government to be spending money in this way? And what about all those people who are already maintaining a healthy weight? Let me know by leaving a comment below.
24 September, 2007
Comments
Come on – a $170 incentive? That’s crap.
Why? Well, like that reader above from the ABC site comments, she needs time not money. Time and lifestyle is a big thing. How many can work 50+ hours a week as a single parent and still maintain the pinnacle of health? In fact, who can do that single young adult working full-time, no kids? It’s more difficult and complicated than $170.
You might argue that it gets people started on the right track. True. But what happens when the $170 and 12 weeks expires? On their own? Oh, but that’s ok, because now they’re $170 the better a few kilos lighter and if they’re lucky their blood pressure and blood cholesterol has slightly dropped. If they’re lucky.
Do we subsidise smokers or drinkers? Well, sort of smokers, in a way. I mean some smoking cessation medicines are subsidised by the government aren’t they? But the government/Quit also runs huge advertising campaigns on the effects of smoking. Scare tactics, if you like. Are they prepared to take the same actions for overweight and obese Australians? And medicine subsidies run for as long as they qualify for them. Not for a 12 week stint…
I appreciate that this scheme may encourage some Australians to take advantage of this opportunity to save $170 and take 12 weeks towards better health. To those people, good luck for the 12 weeks and beyond.
However, I see this as less than adequate action to what is commonly referred to as an obesity ‘epidemic’. Why not regulate junk food advertising? Manufacturing? Preservatives, fats, artificial flavours, colours, sugars, high calorie foods with little nutritional value. Why not make healthy foods more affordable? Nutritional advice free and easily accessible? Give time to those who need it.
There are over 21 million people living in Australia. In 2004-05, some 41% of males and 25% of females were classified as overweight and 18% of males and 17% of females were classified as obese (Department of Health and Ageing, http://www.health.gov.au/internet/wcms/publishing.nsf/Content/health-pubhlth-strateg-hlthwt-obesity.htm). That’s a hell of a lot of $170… I say, keep your $170 per overweight or obese person over each 12 week period and create some health initiatives which are really going to make a change.
I agree with Paul. It is proven that diets (goal based weight loss programs?) don’t work. What would a crappy 12 week program do other than line some pockets in industry?
There has to be more effective ways to encourage health with a $170 cover. How about;
1. Participation events where people learn positive habits as a additional factor.
2. More focus on childhood habits through schools etc.
3. Spend the $170 on consultants who can work out how to tax crappy foods. Consultants love this sort of stuff.
We have a bit of related discussion going over here at the Helfgott blog. In this case, the author brought up the idea of creating economic incentives to help folks on lower incomes afford healthier foods. I think it’s an interesting idea, but I think it might only be a smaller part of a long-term solution. Time, education, and the economics of mass-produced foods are all a piece of this mess.
I agree the $170 is not a big incentive in itself, but I’m interested in the central idea of do we need to pay people to be healthy. And if so, why is that?
Thanks for the link to the Helfgott blog Jeremy. I agree the more processed foods can be cheaper and if your income is really tight, then yes it can be hard to eat well. For these people food subsidies and education may be part of the solution. However, while there is a correlation between income and obesity, a poor diet isn’t purely the domain of poor people.
This question has also been discussed over at Diet-Blog.
Then again, I’ve just been reading this study, which suggests people will lose weight for even a modest amount of money. One possibly crucial difference: in this study the amount of money “earnt” was tied to the amount of weight lost:
Leave a comment