Menus Subscribe Search

Follow us


Health Care

pink-slip

(Photo: Eric Von Seggern/Shutterstock)

The Hidden Health Costs of the Great Recession

• May 09, 2014 • 8:00 AM

(Photo: Eric Von Seggern/Shutterstock)

We are almost certainly sharply underestimating the bill that is coming due.

This June will mark five years since the Great Recession officially came to an end, and amidst an uncertain recovery, the nation has started taking stock of what the disaster cost us.

A landmark report from three economists at the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas, published last July, has attempted to put a price tag on the crisis that extended from 2007 to 2009, often and rightly described as the nation’s worst economic disaster since the Great Depression of the 1930s. Their dizzying estimate: Somewhere between $6 and $14 trillion, or 40 to 90 percent of 2007 economic output. This is roughly one to two times all government spending in the United State this year—state, federal, and local—which is estimated at $6.3 trillion.

And yet, mind-boggling as these totals are, they omit at least one key metric: The impact of the downturn on already staggering U.S. health costs. As a result, we are almost certainly sharply underestimating the bill that is coming due.

There can be no full accounting of the costs of the Great Recession without recognizing that the crisis and its aftermath is not simply an economic story—it is also a public health story with economic implications. This insight is not new. Indeed, more than 80 years ago, the U.S. Public Health Service undertook research into the health impact of the Great Depression. We must do the same.

The Great Recession in effect kicked off a natural public health experiment—a clinical trial in which we were each enrolled simply by virtue of being alive, with no semblance of informed consent. The time has come to assess the results, including the final price tag.

While it is still early days for Great Recession-related research, there is already good reason to think that the resulting health costs will be both substantial and enduring. Researchers David Stuckler and Sanjay Basu, authors of The Body Economic: Why Austerity Kills, have written that the United States saw an estimated 4,750 “excess” suicides between 2007 and 2010, with suicide rates significantly greater in states with the greatest job losses. More broadly, a new article in Harvard Public Health offers a depressing portrayal of the many harmful health impacts linked to involuntary job loss, foreclosures, and widening wealth inequality, another hallmark of the post-Great Recession world—all important areas of ongoing research. For example, a 2009 report by University of Albany sociologist Kate W. Strully found that losing a job when a business closes increased the odds of developing health conditions such as stroke, hypertension, and heart disease, by a whopping 83 percent.

Given the magnitude of its impact, why is talk of the Great Recession as a health story all but absent from the public conversation? Amidst all the anecdotal plot points, why has a coherent and compelling narrative yet to emerge? Having spent my career delving into how we communicate about and spread the most important public health ideas, I have given this question a lot of thought and offer the following answers.

First, and most obviously, Great Recession-related health costs—unlike the GNP or employment figures—are not routinely tracked or easy to calculate. This is true for a number of reasons, including the fact that health impacts are often not apparent for many years, even generations. (On this point, research has found that a pregnant woman’s stress can be registered by her fetus, as evidenced by chromosomal changes in her baby.) Moreover, events affect different people very differently. For example, a job loss may be far less dangerous to an optimist with a healthy savings account and lots of supportive family and friends than it is to isolated pessimists living paycheck to paycheck, in danger of losing their homes.

Further complicating the picture is widely reported research making the counter-intuitive claim that downturns are good for health. When times are tough, people have more time to take care of themselves and spend less money on bad habits such as drinking and smoking—or so the argument goes. Let it be said that I am skeptical. For one thing, a focus on averages—on the total health impact across the population of well off and impoverished alike—necessarily obscures the impact on the most vulnerable groups. Further, even assuming short-term marginal improvements to general well-being, these may do little to offset long-term and catastrophic impacts on those most painfully affected, let alone long-term costs to the rest of us.

Finally, and beyond the complexities of disputed research, there is another far simpler reason we aren’t hearing more about the health costs of the Great Recession: The nation’s agenda setters have not focused on it. Simply put, we aren’t hearing about this issue, because we aren’t talking about it. Neither the institutional elites nor the social movement leaders who tend to shape our national discourse have placed the issue of health center stage. We are finally paying attention to the issue of inequalities, and rightly so. Yet this developing discourse largely ignores public health consequences.

This needs to change. The Great Recession in effect kicked off a natural public health experiment, as researchers Stuckler and Basu have noted—a clinical trial in which we were each enrolled simply by virtue of being alive, with no semblance of informed consent. The time has come to assess the results, including the final price tag.

In their July 2013 paper, the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas researchers made a compelling case for measuring the costs of the Great Recession. This is the obvious way to do a proper cost-benefit analysis—to “assess the relative expense of policy proposals designed to avoid future episodes.” But to do this we need complete and accurate inputs—including a statistically sound index designed to reflect the impact of economic policies on public health costs. Creating such a metric—and encouraging its widespread adoption—should be central to our public health agenda. We need to watch this metric as closely as we watch the unemployment rate and the GDP. Until we take this into account, the full cost of this recession—and those to come—will remain a mystery.

Kasisomayajula Viswanath
Kasisomayajula “Vish” Viswanath is professor of health communication at Harvard School of Public Health and serves as faculty director of the Health Communication Core of the Dana-Farber/Harvard Cancer Center.

A weekly roundup of the best of Pacific Standard and PSmag.com, delivered straight to your inbox.

Recent Posts

December 19 • 4:00 PM

How a Drug Policy Reform Organization Thinks of the Children

This valuable, newly updated resource for parents is based in the real world.


December 19 • 2:00 PM

Where Did the Ouija Board Come From?

It wasn’t just a toy.


December 19 • 12:00 PM

Social Scientists Can Do More to Eradicate Racial Oppression

Using our knowledge of social systems, all social scientists—black or white, race scholar or not—have an opportunity to challenge white privilege.


December 19 • 10:17 AM

How Scientists Contribute to Bad Science Reporting

By not taking university press officers and research press releases seriously, scientists are often complicit in the media falsehoods they so often deride.


December 19 • 10:00 AM

Pentecostalism in West Africa: A Boon or Barrier to Disease?

How has Ghana stayed Ebola-free despite being at high risk for infection? A look at their American-style Pentecostalism, a religion that threatens to do more harm than good.


December 19 • 8:00 AM

Don’t Text and Drive—Especially If You’re Old

A new study shows that texting while driving becomes even more dangerous with age.


December 19 • 6:12 AM

All That ‘Call of Duty’ With Your Friends Has Not Made You a More Violent Person

But all that solo Call of Duty has.


December 19 • 4:00 AM

Food for Thought: WIC Works

New research finds participation in the federal WIC program, which subsidizes healthy foods for young children, is linked with stronger cognitive development and higher test scores.


December 18 • 4:00 PM

How I Navigated Life as a Newly Sober Mom

Saying “no” to my kids was harder than saying “no” to alcohol. But for their sake and mine, I had to learn to put myself first sometimes.


December 18 • 2:00 PM

Women in Apocalyptic Fiction Shaving Their Armpits

Because our interest in realism apparently only goes so far.


December 18 • 12:00 PM

The Paradox of Choice, 10 Years Later

Paul Hiebert talks to psychologist Barry Schwartz about how modern trends—social media, FOMO, customer review sites—fit in with arguments he made a decade ago in his highly influential book, The Paradox of Choice: Why More Is Less.


December 18 • 10:00 AM

What It’s Like to Spend a Few Hours in the Church of Scientology

Wrestling with thetans, attempting to unlock a memory bank, and a personality test seemingly aimed at people with depression. This is Scientology’s “dissemination drill” for potential new members.


December 18 • 8:00 AM

Gendering #BlackLivesMatter: A Feminist Perspective

Black men are stereotyped as violent, while black women are rendered invisible. Here’s why the gendering of black lives matters.


December 18 • 7:06 AM

Apparently You Can Bring Your Religion to Work

New research says offices that encourage talk of religion actually make for happier workplaces.


December 18 • 6:00 AM

The Very Weak and Complicated Links Between Mental Illness and Gun Violence

Vanderbilt University’s Jonathan Metzl and Kenneth MacLeish address our anxieties and correct our assumptions.


December 18 • 4:00 AM

Should Movies Be Rated RD for Reckless Driving?

A new study finds a link between watching films featuring reckless driving and engaging in similar behavior years later.


December 17 • 4:00 PM

How to Run a Drug Dealing Network in Prison

People tend not to hear about the prison drug dealing operations that succeed. Substance.com asks a veteran of the game to explain his system.


December 17 • 2:00 PM

Gender Segregation of Toys Is on the Rise

Charting the use of “toys for boys” and “toys for girls” in American English.


December 17 • 12:41 PM

Why the College Football Playoff Is Terrible But Better Than Before

The sample size is still embarrassingly small, but at least there’s less room for the availability cascade.


December 17 • 11:06 AM

Canadian Kids Have a Serious Smoking Problem

Bootleg cigarette sales could be leading Canadian teens to more serious drugs, a recent study finds.


December 17 • 10:37 AM

A Public Lynching in Sproul Plaza

When photographs of lynching victims showed up on a hallowed site of democracy in action, a provocation was issued—but to whom, by whom, and why?


December 17 • 8:00 AM

What Was the Job?

This was the year the job broke, the year we accepted a re-interpretation of its fundamental bargain and bought in to the push to get us to all work for ourselves rather than each other.


December 17 • 6:00 AM

White Kids Will Be Kids

Even the “good” kids—bound for college, upwardly mobile—sometimes break the law. The difference? They don’t have much to fear. A professor of race and social movements reflects on her teenage years and faces some uncomfortable realities.



December 16 • 4:00 PM

How Fear of Occupy Wall Street Undermined the Red Cross’ Sandy Relief Effort

Red Cross responders say there was a ban on working with the widely praised Occupy Sandy relief group because it was seen as politically unpalatable.


Follow us


Don’t Text and Drive—Especially If You’re Old

A new study shows that texting while driving becomes even more dangerous with age.

Apparently You Can Bring Your Religion to Work

New research says offices that encourage talk of religion actually make for happier workplaces.

Canadian Kids Have a Serious Smoking Problem

Bootleg cigarette sales could be leading Canadian teens to more serious drugs, a recent study finds.

The Hidden Psychology of the Home Ref

That old myth of home field bias isn’t a myth at all; it’s a statistical fact.

The Big One

One in two United States senators and two in five House members who left office between 1998 and 2004 became lobbyists. November/December 2014

Copyright © 2014 by Pacific Standard and The Miller-McCune Center for Research, Media, and Public Policy. All Rights Reserved.