The economic and social costs of body dissatisfaction and appearance-based discrimination in the United States.

This study estimated the social and economic costs of body dissatisfaction and appearance-based discrimination (specifically, weight and skin-shade discrimination) in the United States (USA) in the 2019 calendar year. We used a prevalence-based approach and a cost-of-illness method to estimate the annual cost of harmful appearance ideals for cases of body dissatisfaction and discrimination based on weight and skin shade. Impacts on conditions/illnesses such as eating disorders that are attributable to body dissatisfaction, weight discrimination and skin-shade discrimination were identified through a quasi-systematic literature review, which captured financial, economic, and non-financial costs. For each impact attributable to body dissatisfaction or appearance-based discrimination, annual health system and productivity costs (or labor market costs) were primarily estimated by using a population attributable fraction methodology. Only direct costs that resulted from body dissatisfaction and appearance-based discrimination were included (for example, costs associated with conditions such as depression attributable to body dissatisfaction or appearance-based discrimination). In contrast, indirect costs (e.g. costs associated with a health condition developed following skin bleaching, which was undertaken as a result of body dissatisfaction) were not included. In 2019 body dissatisfaction incurred $84 billion in financial and economic costs and $221 billion through reduced well-being. Financial costs of weight discrimination and skin-shade discrimination were estimated to be $200 billion and $63 billion, respectively, and reduced well-being was estimated to be $206.7 billion due to weight discrimination and $8.4 billion due to skin-shade discrimination. Sensitivity testing revealed the costs likely range between $226 billion and $507 billion for body dissatisfaction, between $175 billion and $537 billion for skin-shade discrimination, and between $126 billion and $265 billion for weight discrimination. This study demonstrates that the prevalence and economic costs of body dissatisfaction and weight and skin-shade discrimination are substantial, which underscores the urgency of identifying policy actions designed to promote prevention.

Appearance ideals in the USA have been widely critiqued for placing unfair burden on people of color and women of all race/ethnicity groups, but little is known about the economic consequences of biased appearance standards. To attain a comprehensive understanding of the economic impact of these harmful appearance ideals on the US economy, we estimated the one-year financial, economic and non-financial costs to the economy caused by body dissatisfaction, weight discrimination, and skin-shade discrimination. We considered a wide range of costs, including costs to the healthcare system, workplace, and other costs for individuals, households, employers, and government. We found that the impact of harmful appearance ideals on the USA economy is substantial. In 2019 body dissatisfaction incurred $84 billion in financial and economic costs and $221 billion through reduced well-being. Financial costs of weight discrimination and skin-shade discrimination were estimated to be $200 billion and $63 billion, respectively, and reduced well-being was estimated to be $207 billion due to weight discrimination and $8 billion due to skin-shade discrimination. Women of all race/ethnicity groups bore the bulk of the burden, shouldering 58% of the costs for body dissatisfaction and 66% for weight discrimination. Women bore 50% of the costs for skin-shade discrimination. These costs are substantial and underscore the urgency of identifying effective policy actions to reduce the damaging effects of harmful appearance ideals.

Dietary Supplements for Weight Loss: Legal Basis for Excise Tax and Other Government Action to Protect Consumers from a Public Health Menace.

PURPOSE: Dietary supplements sold for weight loss pose a risk to public health due to deceptive claims and unscrupulous manufacturing practices in the context of weak federal regulation. Efforts to strengthen U.S. federal oversight have not been successful, thus action at the state and local levels should be explored. This study investigates proposed action to impose excise taxes on weight-loss supplements. METHODS: We reviewed U.S. federal law on taxation at federal, state, and local levels and precedent for taxation of harmful consumer products to promote public health. We assessed the rationale, legal viability, and potential effectiveness of proposed excise taxes on weight loss supplements. RESULTS: Taxation of tobacco and sweetened beverages is effective in reducing consumer use. Imposition of excise taxes on weight-loss supplements is within the authority of federal, state, and local governments, though is least politically feasible at the federal level. State or local taxation of these products has clear rationale, legal viability, and likelihood of effectiveness in reducing the public health burden posed by these products. CONCLUSIONS: Excise taxation is an effective policy intervention to reduce consumer use, particularly among youth, and is a promising public health strategy to decrease consumer exposure to noxious weight-loss supplements.

Social and economic cost of eating disorders in the United States: Evidence to inform policy action.

OBJECTIVE: To estimate one-year costs of eating disorders in the United States (U.S.) from a societal perspective, including the costs to the U.S. health system, individual and family productivity costs, lost wellbeing, and other societal economic costs, by setting and payer. Findings will inform needed policy action to mitigate the impact of eating disorders in the U.S. METHOD: Costs of eating disorders were estimated using a bottom-up cost-of-illness methodology, based on the estimated one-year prevalence of eating disorders. Intangible costs of reduced wellbeing were also estimated using disability-adjusted life years. RESULTS: Total economic costs associated with eating disorders were estimated to be $64.7 billion (95% CI: $63.5-$66.0 billion) in fiscal year 2018-2019, equivalent to $11,808 per affected person (95% CI: $11,754-$11,863 per affected person). Otherwise Specified Feeding or Eating Disorder accounted for 35% of total economic costs, followed by Binge Eating Disorder (30%), Bulimia Nervosa (18%) and Anorexia Nervosa (17%). The substantial reduction in wellbeing associated with eating disorders was further valued at $326.5 billion (95% CI: $316.8-$336.2 billion). DISCUSSION: The impact of eating disorders in the U.S. is substantial when considering both economic costs and reduced wellbeing (nearly $400 billion in fiscal year 2018-2019). Study findings underscore the urgency of identifying effective policy actions to reduce the impact of eating disorders, such as through primary prevention and screening to identify people with emerging or early eating disorders in primary care, schools, and workplaces and ensuring access to early evidence-based treatment.

The Second Wave of Public Policy Advocacy for Eating Disorders: Charting the Course to Maximize Population Impact.

Over the past decade, a first wave of US public policy advocacy for eating disorders made substantial progress, with passage of the federal 21st Century Cures Act in 2016 as its crowning achievement. However, the US response to eating disorders continues to fall short in several ways. On the cusp of a second wave of policy advocacy, efforts must be broadened to target structural determinants of illness and inequities to maximize clinical impact and diminish suffering. Mental health clinicians, patients, and their families will be essential players in public policy advocacy efforts in this regard.