$13 billion in savings if more women breastfed - what does that number mean?

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-16-2010
$13 billion in savings if more women breastfed - what does that number mean?
9
Sun, 02-20-2011 - 10:42am

Community Leader
Registered: 10-01-2010

I found this - if I added it up right, it actually came to $16 billion:

Low Breastfeeding Rates Incur Billions in Medical Costs

Community Leader
Registered: 10-01-2010

I think I found the whole article online:

http://www.thebostonchannel.com/download/2010/0405/23054545.pdf

I am not as good as some others in understanding studies and breaking them apart - but I am not seeing where they said anything about lost wages? I will keep reading.

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-16-2010
witch_power wrote:

I found this - if I added it up right, it actually came to $16 billion:

My

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-16-2010

Thanks so much for posting the article!

I'm still reading, but I see this:

We used the same cost for premature death used by Weimer, adjusted to 2007 dollars, or $10.56 million per death. Weimer used the labor-market approach (revealed-preference model), which reflects higher wages people demand for accepting risky jobs. Cost-of-death estimates vary widely, but our numbers are roughly in the middle of the range surveyed by Hirth et al, adjusted for age and inflation.

Community Leader
Registered: 10-01-2010

OK, this is what I found in regards to wages:

"When calculating the cost of years of treatment for chronic disease, we discounted costs to present value by using an inflation-free discount rate of 3%, because costs are expected to grow at least as fast as general inflation.

"We used the same cost for premature death used by Weimer, adjusted to 2007 dollars, or $10.56 million per death. Weimer used the labor-market approach (revealed-preference model), which reflects higher wages people demand for accepting risky jobs. Cost-of-death estimates vary widely, but our numbers are roughly in the middle of the range surveyed by Hirth et al,15 adjusted for age and inflation."

Does that mean they estimated $10.56 million per death in lost wages - or the health costs were that much trying to save the baby's life. I am not clear on that?

The rest seem to be the parents' wages...

"Outpatient indirect costs are $273, which includes time missed from work and personal expenses"

"For indirect costs, we assumed that 1 parent would miss a half-day of work for the duration of the stay, at a cost of $38.3 per
day (using average young adult wages of $28 000 per year29)."... etc.

Community Leader
Registered: 10-01-2010

Sorry, I yelled at my calculator for adding it up wrong! LOL

To be honest, I really don't understand it all - and will leave it to greater minds to pull it apart. My forte is finding these things! :D

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-16-2010
witch_power wrote:

OK, this is what I found in regards to wages:

"When calculating the cost of years of treatment for chronic disease, we discounted costs to present value by using an inflation-free discount rate of 3%, because costs are expected to grow at least as fast as general inflation.

"We used the same cost for premature death used by Weimer, adjusted to 2007 dollars, or $10.56 million per death. Weimer used the labor-market approach (revealed-preference model), which reflects higher wages people demand for accepting risky jobs. Cost-of-death estimates vary widely, but our numbers are roughly in the middle of the range surveyed by Hirth et al,15 adjusted for age and inflation."

Does that mean they estimated $10.56 million per death in lost wages - or the health costs were that much trying to save the baby's life. I am not clear on that?

They don't explain it well, but I'm

iVillage Member
Registered: 05-02-2006

I don't pretend to understand the studies or the economics behind the numbers, but in regards to the $9.6 bil in lost wages - could it be looked at as a loss to the govt in income taxes?

2010 Siggy
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-16-2010
adamsmumma wrote:

I don't pretend to understand the studies or the economics behind the numbers, but in regards to the $9.6 bil in lost wages - could it be looked at as a loss to the govt in income taxes?