Yes but it doesn't then follow that HC decision makers or decision making should have control overall all these life corners.
When the research science officer at KP starts suggesting city planning should be done with lowering HC costs in mind I think we are going off the deep end - a HC uber alles model.
That's why I said there needs to be some sort of way through it -- he said the same thing. But the fact is there are a lot of people in this country making a whole lot of poor individual choices that build up to put HC costs where it is.
Every time somebody chooses to get food at Taco Bell instead of the grocery store, or chooses to drive somewhere instead of carpool, bus, bike, walk, etc. or chooses not to buy health insurance then end up needing treatment they can't pay for out of pocket, all that stuff adds up.
That's what's meant by environment. About half a mile north of where I am, there's a small neighborhood that's sort of one of Portland's hipster meccas, and there are no fast food places, no corner stores for quite a while, only a couple of small co-op groceries, the parking arrangement is set up to make it far easier to walk or bike than to drive anywhere (this was not a result of city planning, the people who live there just have it set up that way) and the health outcomes of the people who live there are extremely good. Life expectancy is probably better, and I know that obesity rates and consequentially medical expenditures are among the lowest in the PDX metro area.
I am opposed to a top-down, government mandate approach for most things, I am much more prone to buy into education and action on a small local level improving outcomes rather than saying the government must make it so.
just wait until they abolish UT football because it increases blood pressure and alcohol consumption
I don't think there's any doubt that watching UT football over the last decade has shaved a few years off the end of all our lives... :lol: