State must try harder to reduce obesity-related taxpayer costs

Once again, Louisiana makes the news for unenviable reasons. But whether public policy can change this situation is uncertain.

The state ranked fourth in obesity in a recent, if somewhat controversial, study. More disturbingly, the report notes that the combined health cost to taxpayers to pay for those on government health care from conditions resulting from obesity was $39 billion. Given that the state has nearly 1.5 percent of the country’s population, we can estimate the state paid $585 million to deal with the problems created by obesity (and it’s probably higher, because of the higher proportion of obese people in Louisiana comparatively and indicated by related diseases – for example, the state ranked tied for fifth in the proportion of adult diabetes sufferers, at 8.4 percent).

Louisiana has taken some steps that can improve the situation, mainly in the area of education. Health and physical education are required in schools and limitations are placed upon provision of “competitive” (non-school-provided) foods (which likely are “junk” foods in nature) by schools. In addition, producers of these products have a liability shield, ensuring that the proper incentives and disincentives for reduction of obesity rest where appropriate – with the consumer himself, who chooses to overeat relative to his level of activity.

Still, more can be done, according to the report. In schools, the state could require nutritional standards of both school-provided and competitive foods, or at least enforce such standards in regards to Title I (free or reduced-cost meal) recipients. Most controversially, as nearly a third of states have done in various forms, a “snack” tax could be imposed on foods of dubious nutritional value provided that the money raised be dedicated to state health care needs, raising money to offset health care costs and discouraging, even if just incrementally, these foods’ consumption.

(Unfortunately, of all the states that do this, only one – believe it or not, neighbor to the north Arkansas – does this. Almost all of the others dump the extra revenue into their general funds. This is precisely what got Gov. Kathleen Blanco’s cigarette tax into trouble this past legislative session, as the money raised would have gone to something totally unrelated to health, teacher pay raises.)

To do this favor to taxpayers, what the state should not do is permit behavior such as obese patients complaining about physicians advising them of their condition or passing laws that would encourage overeating. Whether state government can pursue policy that does not threaten citizens’ liberties which can encourage the reduction of obesity is an open question, but with budgetary constraints crying out for use of some portion of the $585 million that could be saved from this reduction, it needs to try.