Much attention has been paid to the role of preventive medicine in lowering healthcare costs. Members of the public often ask why we are not placing greater emphasis on preventive medicine. The short answer is that while preventive medicine may provide long-term cost savings, it requires additional spending up front.
Preventive medicine comprises clinical and public health actions to prevent disease, detect it early, and reduce the risk of complications. These efforts, such as immunizations, screenings, tobacco cessation, and obesity counseling, aim to reduce the need for expensive emergency care and hospitalizations. The central argument is straightforward: investing in prevention is necessary to reduce healthcare costs driven by preventable illnesses. However, prevention should be understood as a long-term investment in health and economic value, not as a tool for immediate savings.
In the United States, where healthcare spending remains high, national health expenditures reached $5.3 trillion in 2024, or $15,474 per person, representing approximately 18% of the nation's gross domestic product.
The Economic Burden of Chronic Disease
The strongest economic case for prevention emerges when examining chronic disease.
Conditions such as heart disease, cancer, diabetes, obesity-related illness, and chronic kidney disease drive a significant portion of healthcare spending due to increased service utilization, morbidity, and mortality. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), approximately 90% of the nation's annual healthcare expenditures are associated with people living with chronic and mental health conditions.
Preventing or managing chronic disease reduces the need for expensive interventions and can generate both health and economic returns. Preventive medicine seeks to address these costs at the source by reducing risk factors and intervening before more costly treatments become necessary.
Why Prevention Creates Long-Term Value
Preventive medicine lowers long-term costs in several ways.
Primary Prevention
Primary prevention seeks to stop disease before it occurs. Vaccination is one of the clearest examples. For U.S. childhood immunizations administered between 1994 and 2023, researchers estimated that vaccines prevented 508 million illnesses, 32 million hospitalizations, and more than 1.1 million deaths. They also estimated $540 billion in direct net savings and $2.7 trillion in societal net savings.
These findings demonstrate how investments in vaccines, administration, and public health infrastructure can yield substantial future health and economic benefits.
Secondary Prevention
Secondary prevention reduces costs by detecting disease earlier, when treatment is often less intensive, and outcomes are more favorable.
Cancer screening, blood pressure screening, lipid management, and diabetes screening can shift care away from late-stage disease management and toward earlier intervention. The CDC notes that routine screening for colorectal cancer can reduce cases, deaths, and costs, while HPV vaccination and cervical cancer screening can reduce cervical cancer cases, deaths, and costs. Although screening programs do not eliminate all future treatment expenses, they may reduce the need for advanced therapies, hospital-based care, and disability-related spending.
Delaying Disease Progression
Prevention also creates value by delaying disease progression among high-risk populations. The Diabetes Prevention Program provides a strong example. A ten-year analysis found that lifestyle intervention and metformin delayed the onset of Type 2 diabetes among high-risk adults.
While costs were initially higher, long-term medical costs were lower in the intervention groups than in the placebo group. Lifestyle intervention proved cost-effective, while metformin was marginally cost-saving. This illustrates one of the central economic realities of prevention: programs may cost more initially while reducing future disease burden and healthcare expenditures.
Why Prevention Often Costs More in the Short Term
Though valuable in the long term, preventive medicine frequently costs more in the short term. Every preventive service has a delivery cost. Vaccinations, screenings, counseling, and other preventive interventions require funding before savings occur. Screening programs can also generate additional costs because positive or uncertain findings often lead to further testing, monitoring, or early treatment.
Prevention also requires investment in infrastructure, including reminder systems, registries, care coordination, patient education, laboratory capacity, data systems, and trained personnel. Public health prevention depends on funding for immunization programs, disease surveillance, and community outreach. Another challenge is that preventive services are delivered broadly because clinicians cannot consistently predict who will eventually develop a particular disease. As a result, preventive services are often provided to many individuals who would never experience the condition being targeted. This creates what is often referred to as the prevention paradox: prevention benefits populations even though many individuals may never directly experience the illness that was prevented.
These realities help explain why preventive medicine often increases healthcare spending before savings are realized.
Cost-Saving and Cost-Effective Are Not the Same Thing
A rigorous discussion of preventive medicine requires an important distinction. Some interventions are cost-saving. They improve health outcomes while reducing overall expenditures. Many others are cost-effective. They improve health outcomes at a reasonable cost even if total spending does not decrease.
This distinction matters because prevention is often evaluated using the wrong standard.
Research reviewed by the Congressional Budget Office found that approximately 80% of preventive services increased healthcare spending, while about 20% both improved health and reduced costs. Importantly, many preventive services that increased spending still produced worthwhile health gains. The strongest scholarly conclusion is not that all prevention saves money immediately, but that well-targeted prevention is a high-value investment.
Some interventions, such as childhood immunization, are clearly cost-saving. Others, such as diabetes prevention and cancer screening, may be cost-effective even when they increase near-term spending. The purpose of prevention is not simply to reduce spending. It is also to improve health, prevent premature death, reduce disability, improve quality of life, and avoid future catastrophic costs.
Looking at Prevention Through a Long-Term Lens
The most effective economic strategy is to focus on evidence-based preventive services that produce a strong health impact.
Research evaluating effective preventive services identified childhood immunization, youth tobacco counseling, and adult tobacco-use screening with brief intervention among the highest-value preventive services. Other important targets include tobacco use, obesity, alcohol misuse, colorectal cancer screening, and influenza vaccination. Health systems can improve the return on prevention by focusing on high-risk populations, reducing barriers to follow-up care, integrating prevention into primary care, and aligning payment systems with long-term outcomes.
Prevention works best when it targets common, expensive, preventable, and early-detectable conditions and when appropriate follow-up care is readily accessible.
What Healthcare Leaders Should Consider
Healthcare leaders should be cautious about evaluating preventive medicine solely through the lens of immediate budget performance.
The evidence suggests that prevention is most appropriately evaluated through long-term outcomes, population health improvement, cost-effectiveness, and organizational sustainability. The strongest investments are often those that address common and costly chronic conditions before they require expensive interventions. The key question is not simply whether prevention reduces spending today, but whether it creates measurable health and economic value over time.
What This Means for Patients and Communities
Preventive services often provide their greatest benefit before a serious health event occurs.
Vaccinations, screenings, counseling, and chronic disease prevention programs may not always reduce healthcare spending immediately, but they can improve quality of life, reduce complications, prevent disability, and increase life expectancy. When prevention succeeds, the illness, hospitalization, or complication may never occur. Those outcomes are difficult to measure in the moment, but they represent some of the most meaningful benefits preventive medicine can provide.
— Dan Kelly, DHA, FACHE, FACHCA, HSE, Director of the Master of Healthcare Administration Program
References
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2025, August 8). Fast facts: Health and economic costs of chronic conditions.https://www.cdc.gov/chronic-disease/data-research/facts-stats/index.html
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2026, April 14). Health and economic benefits of chronic disease interventions.https://www.cdc.gov/nccdphp/priorities/index.html
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. (2026a). National health expenditure data: Historical.https://www.cms.gov/data-research/statistics-trends-and-reports/national-health-expenditure-data/historical
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. (2026b). NHE fact sheet.https://www.cms.gov/data-research/statistics-trends-and-reports/national-health-expenditure-data/nhe-fact-sheet
Cohen, J. T., Neumann, P. J., & Weinstein, M. C. (2008). Does preventive care save money? Health economics and the presidential candidates. New England Journal of Medicine, 358(7), 661–663.https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMp0708558
Congressional Budget Office. (2020, June 15). How CBO analyzes approaches to improve health through disease prevention.https://www.cbo.gov/publication/56345
Diabetes Prevention Program Research Group. (2012). The 10-year cost-effectiveness of lifestyle intervention or metformin for diabetes prevention: An intent-to-treat analysis of the DPP/DPPOS. Diabetes Care, 35(4), 723–730.https://doi.org/10.2337/dc11-1468
Maciosek, M. V., LaFrance, A. B., Dehmer, S. P., McGree, D. A., Flottemesch, T. J., Xu, Z., & Solberg, L. I. (2017). Updated priorities among effective clinical preventive services. Annals of Family Medicine, 15(1), 14–22.https://doi.org/10.1370/afm.2017
Zhou, F., Jatlaoui, T. C., Leidner, A. J., Carter, R. J., Dong, X., Santoli, J. M., Stokley, S., Daskalakis, D. C., & Peacock, G. (2024). Health and economic benefits of routine childhood immunizations in the era of the Vaccines for Children Program—United States, 1994–2023. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, 73(31), 682–685.https://doi.org/10.15585/mmwr.mm7331a2