This article is from the source 'bbc' and was first published or seen on . It will not be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/rss/-/1/hi/health/7106219.stm

The article has changed 2 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
Cost of obesity 'over-estimated' Cost of obesity 'over-estimated'
(about 3 hours later)
A major government study has over-estimated the future cost of obesity to the UK by at least £10bn, according to a BBC investigation.A major government study has over-estimated the future cost of obesity to the UK by at least £10bn, according to a BBC investigation.
The Foresight report put the cost to the UK by 2050 at over £45bn a year, almost half the NHS budget.The Foresight report put the cost to the UK by 2050 at over £45bn a year, almost half the NHS budget.
But Radio 4's The Investigation found the estimate was based on a misreading of figures from a parliamentary report.But Radio 4's The Investigation found the estimate was based on a misreading of figures from a parliamentary report.
The report's author admitted to the programme that he had made an error but claimed that it made little difference.The report's author admitted to the programme that he had made an error but claimed that it made little difference.
The calculations were based on a Commons Health Select Committee Report which estimated that in 2001, obese people cost the NHS £1bn a year.The calculations were based on a Commons Health Select Committee Report which estimated that in 2001, obese people cost the NHS £1bn a year.
But the calculations for the Foresight report failed to notice that overweight people cost the NHS another £1bn a year making a total of £2bn. But the calculations for the Foresight report failed to notice that figure doubled to £2bn when allowing for the costs of both obese and overweight people.
By using the wrong figure, the Foresight report ended up by doubling their future cost estimates. COSTS OF OBESITY/OVERWEIGHT Parliamentary report: estimates for 2001: Cost to NHS: £2bnCost to UK economy: £7bn (3.5 times greater)
This was because the calculations were based on the ratio between NHS costs and the overall costs to the UK of £7bn. They multiplied by seven instead of 3.5. Foresight report: estimates for 2050: Cost to NHS: £6.5bnCost to UK economy: £45bn (7 times greater)
The Foresight researchers looked ahead to 2050 and estimated the NHS costs will have risen to £6.5bn for the NHS or £45bn to the UK overall. The figure should have been half that. The parliamentary report also said that the overall cost to the UK economy allowing for time off work and early deaths was £7bn or 3.5 times the £2bn cost to the NHS.
Foresight looked ahead to 2050 and estimated the NHS costs would have risen to £6.5bn.
Scaling that up to find the overall cost for the UK economy they should have used a ratio of 3.5 to give an overall cost of £22.5bn. Instead they multiplied by 7 to obtain a figure of £45bn.
Revised estimateRevised estimate
The man who led the team responsible for the Foresight figures was Professor Klim McPherson, an epidemiologist from Oxford University.The man who led the team responsible for the Foresight figures was Professor Klim McPherson, an epidemiologist from Oxford University.
It shows how important it is to scrutinise any report that comes out about health issues especially making long term projections Professor David SpeigelhalterIt shows how important it is to scrutinise any report that comes out about health issues especially making long term projections Professor David Speigelhalter
After being challenged over the figures, he gave a revised estimate where total costs in 2050 had shot up to £57bn.After being challenged over the figures, he gave a revised estimate where total costs in 2050 had shot up to £57bn.
Several days later he changed this figure, this time down to £49.9bn.Several days later he changed this figure, this time down to £49.9bn.
The programme sent the Foresight figures to several respected statisticians. One called them "fatuous".The programme sent the Foresight figures to several respected statisticians. One called them "fatuous".
Another said: "The general sloppiness of this section is evidence to me of poor quality work."Another said: "The general sloppiness of this section is evidence to me of poor quality work."
Professor David Speigelhalter, a statistician from Cambridge University, looked at the figures too.Professor David Speigelhalter, a statistician from Cambridge University, looked at the figures too.
He said the Foresight team had made "a basic logical error in their calculations".He said the Foresight team had made "a basic logical error in their calculations".
Asked if it was embarrassing for them, he replied: "You could say that".Asked if it was embarrassing for them, he replied: "You could say that".
SpeculativeSpeculative
Using the same figures as the Foresight team, Professor Speigelhalter produced his own estimate for future costs of obesity and overweight - £34bn, over £10bn less than the original Foresight estimate.Using the same figures as the Foresight team, Professor Speigelhalter produced his own estimate for future costs of obesity and overweight - £34bn, over £10bn less than the original Foresight estimate.
Professor McPherson stands by his figures: "You can contest any of these multiplication factors, they are all a bit speculative but in my judgement the safest assumption was to take the most reliable costs and that is where you get the factor of seven."Professor McPherson stands by his figures: "You can contest any of these multiplication factors, they are all a bit speculative but in my judgement the safest assumption was to take the most reliable costs and that is where you get the factor of seven."
His response to critics of the quality of his report was that they were wrong.His response to critics of the quality of his report was that they were wrong.
"This has been through the Department of Health, Economics Department, and has been read by experts from various of fields. Nobody has said such a thing.""This has been through the Department of Health, Economics Department, and has been read by experts from various of fields. Nobody has said such a thing."
Does it matter when both figures are so big?Does it matter when both figures are so big?
Professor Speigelhalter says it is vital we get them right: "It shows how important it is to scrutinise any report that comes out about health issues especially making long term projections."Professor Speigelhalter says it is vital we get them right: "It shows how important it is to scrutinise any report that comes out about health issues especially making long term projections."
The Investigation - The Truth About Obesity:Radio 4, 2000GMT, Thu 22 November.Online from Radio 4's Listen again page.Podcast from the href="http://nolpreview11.newsonline.tc.nca.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/file_on_4/default.stm">File on 4 website. The Investigation - The Truth About Obesity:Radio 4, 2000GMT, Thu 22 November.Online from Radio 4's Listen again page.Podcast from the href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio/podcasts/fileon4/">File on 4 website.