A Nationwide Community-Based Lifestyle Program Could Delay Or Prevent Type 2 Diabetes Cases And Save $5.7 Billion In 25 Years
Abstract
The increasing health and economic burden of diabetes has made preventing the disease a public health priority. But investing in such chronic disease prevention programs requires a long-term horizon because many years may be required for the downstream savings to fully offset the up-front intervention cost. Using a simulation model, we projected the costs and benefits of a nationwide community-based lifestyle intervention program for preventing type 2 diabetes. Accounting for all costs to the US health care system, our results indicate that the program would break even in fourteen years. Within twenty-five years, the program would prevent or delay about 885,000 cases of type 2 diabetes in the United States and produce savings of $5.7 billion nationwide. If restricted to people ages 65-84, the program would save $2.4 billion. Thus, implementing such a program nationwide would be an efficient use of health care resources, although it might be necessary for all health insurers to participate to share prevention costs. Our results also indicate that although a prevention program would lead to cost savings in both younger and older people, it would achieve greater health and economic gains if it were directed at people under age sixty-five.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Early projections suggested that providing the NDPP could yield 5.7 billion USD in savings over 25 years.
“Early projections suggested that providing the NDPP could yield 5.7 billion USD in savings over 25 years.63”
From <p>Current Perspectives on the Impact of the National Diabetes Prevention Program: Building on Successes and Overcoming Challenges</p> (2020) · cites this paper as [63]
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 28 · Cited by 82
- Authors
- Zhuo, X., Zhang, P., Gregg, E. W., Barker, L., Hoerger, T. J., Pearson-Clarke, T., & Albright, A.
- Affiliations
- Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (US)
- Ping Zhang is a senior health economist at the CDC.
- Lawrence Barker is a senior scientist at the CDC.
- RTI International (US)
- Tony Pearson-Clarke is a health writer and editor at the CDC.
- Ann Albright is director of the Division of Diabetes Translation, CDC.
- Venue
- Health Affairs
- Publisher
- Health Affairs Publishing, LLC
- Published
- 2012-01
- Volume
- 31
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 50-60
- ISSN
- 0278-2715 (ISSN-L)
- 1544-5208
- OpenAlex
- W2067825523
- Cited by
- 82
- References
- 28
- Citations by year
- 2026: 2 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 9 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 6 · 2017: 9 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 7 · 2014: 6 · 2013: 6 · 2012: 4
- FWCI
- 17.54
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Health Affairs (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Health Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Health Promotion and Cardiovascular Prevention
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Diabetes, Cardiovascular Risks, and Lipoproteins
- Keywords
- type 2 diabetes prevention, community-based lifestyle intervention, cost-benefit analysis, health care costs, cost-effectiveness, diabetes incidence, older adults, chronic disease prevention
- MeSH terms
- Adolescent, Adult, Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2, Female, Forecasting, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Models, Theoretical, United States, Cohort Studies, Cost Savings, Cost of Illness, Community Networks, Risk Reduction Behavior, Young Adult
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review