Original:  In 2016, the Journal of the American Medical Association estimated that $ 101 billion was spent in 2013 on the preventable disease of diabetes, and another $88 billion was spent on heart disease. In an effort to encourage healthy lifestyle choices, as of 2010 workplace wellness programs were on the rise but the economics and effectiveness data were continuing to evolve and develop. Health insurance coverage impacts lifestyle choices, even intermittent loss of coverage had negative effects on healthy choices in the US. The repeal of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) could significantly impact coverage for many Americans, as well as “The Prevention and Public Health Fund” which is the US first and only mandatory funding stream dedicated to improving public health including counseling on lifestyle prevention issues, such as weight management, alcohol use, and treatment for depression. Because in the US chronic illnesses predominate as a cause of death and pathways for treating chronic illnesses are complex and multifaceted, prevention is a best practice approach to chronic disease when possible. In many cases, prevention requires mapping complex pathways to determine the ideal point for intervention. Cost-effectiveness of prevention is achievable, but impacted by the length of time it takes to see effects/outcomes of intervention. This makes prevention efforts difficult to fund—particularly in strained financial contexts. Prevention potentially creates other costs as well, due to extending the lifespan and thereby increasing opportunities for illness. In order to assess the cost-effectiveness of prevention, the cost of the preventive measure, savings from avoiding morbidity, and the cost from extending the lifespan need to be considered. Life extension costs become smaller when accounting for savings from postponing the last year of life, which makes up a large fraction of lifetime medical expenditures and becomes cheaper with age. Prevention leads to savings only if the cost of the preventive measure is less than the savings from avoiding morbidity net of the cost of extending the life span. In order to establish reliable economics of prevention for illnesses that are complicated in origin, knowing how best to assess prevention efforts, i.e. developing useful measures and appropriate scope, is required. Effectiveness Overview There is no general consensus as to whether or not preventive healthcare measures are cost-effective, but they increase the quality of life dramatically. There are varying views on what constitutes a "good investment." Some argue that preventive health measures should save more money than they cost, when factoring in treatment costs in the absence of such measures. Others have argued in favor of "good value" or conferring significant health benefits even if the measures do not save money. Furthermore, preventive health services are often described as one entity though they comprise a myriad of different services, each of which can individually lead to net costs, savings, or neither. Greater differentiation of these services is necessary to fully understand both the financial and health effects. A 2010 study reported that in the United States, vaccinating children, cessation of smoking, daily prophylactic use of aspirin, and screening of breast and colorectal cancers had the most potential to prevent premature death. Preventive health measures that resulted in savings included vaccinating children and adults, smoking cessation, daily use of aspirin, and screening for issues with alcoholism, obesity, and vision failure. These authors estimated that if usage of these services in the United States increased to 90\% of the population, there would be net savings of $ 3.7 billion, which comprised only about -0.2\% of the total 2006 United States healthcare expenditure.
Revised:  In 2016, the Journal of the American Medical Association estimated that $ 101 billion was spent in 2013 on the preventable disease of diabetes, and another $88 billion was spent on heart disease. In an effort to encourage healthy lifestyle choices, as of 2010 workplace wellness programs were on the rise but the economics and effectiveness data were continuing to evolve and develop. Health insurance coverage impacts lifestyle choices, even intermittent loss of coverage had negative effects on healthy choices in the U.S. The repeal of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) could significantly impact coverage for many Americans as well as "The Prevention and Public Health Fund" which is the U.S. first and only mandatory funding stream dedicated to improving public health including counseling on lifestyle prevention issues, such as weight management, alcohol use, and treatment for depression. Because in the U.S. chronic illnesses predominate as a cause of death and pathways for treating chronic illnesses are complex and multifaceted, prevention is a best practice approach to chronic disease when possible. In many cases, prevention requires mapping complex pathways to determine the ideal point for intervention. Cost-effectiveness of prevention is achievable, but impacted by the length of time it takes to see effects/outcomes of intervention. This makes prevention efforts difficult to fund—particularly in strained financial contexts. Prevention potentially creates other costs as well, due to extending the lifespan and thereby increasing opportunities for illness. In order to assess the cost-effectiveness of prevention, the cost of the preventive measure, savings from avoiding morbidity, and the cost from extending the lifespan need to be considered. Life extension costs become smaller when accounting for savings from postponing the last year of life, which makes up a large fraction of lifetime medical expenditures and becomes cheaper with age. Prevention leads to savings only if the cost of the preventive measure is less than the savings from avoiding morbidity net of the cost of extending the life span. In order to establish reliable economics of prevention for illnesses that are complicated in origin, knowing how best to assess prevention efforts, i.e. developing useful measures and appropriate scope, is required. Effectiveness There is no general consensus as to whether or not preventive healthcare measures are cost-effective, but they increase the quality of life dramatically. There are varying views on what constitutes a "good investment." Some argue that preventive health measures should save more money than they cost, when factoring in treatment costs in the absence of such measures. Others have argued in favor of "good value" or conferring significant health benefits even if the measures do not save money. Furthermore, preventive health services are often described as one entity though they comprise a myriad of different services, each of which can individually lead to net costs, savings, or neither. Greater differentiation of these services is necessary to fully understand both the financial and health effects. A 2010 study reported that in the United States, vaccinating children, cessation of smoking, daily prophylactic use of aspirin, and screening of breast and colorectal cancers had the most potential to prevent premature death. Preventive health measures that resulted in savings included vaccinating children and adults, smoking cessation, daily use of aspirin, and screening for issues with alcoholism, obesity, and vision failure. These authors estimated that if usage of these services in the United States increased to 90\% of the population, there would be net savings of $ 3.7 billion, which comprised only about -0.2\% of the total 2006 United States healthcare expenditure.
Edit intent: coherence