Reducing the burden of suffering from eating disorders: Unmet treatment needs, cost of illness, and the quest for cost-effectiveness

- Few epidemiological studies examine unmet treatment need in eating disorders.
- Few individuals receive treatment specifically for their eating disorder.
- Comprehensive cost-of-illness studies with appropriate comparison groups are needed.
- Major gaps exists in regards to the cost-effectiveness of eating disorder treatment.

Eating disorders are serious mental disorders as reflected in significant impairments in health and psychosocial functioning and excess mortality. Despite the clear evidence of clinical significance and despite availability of evidence-based, effective treatments, research has shown a paradox of elevated health services use and, yet, infrequent treatment specifically targeting the eating disorder (i.e., high unmet treatment need). This review paper summarizes key studies conducted in collaboration with G. Terence Wilson and offers an update of the research literature published since 2011 in three research areas that undergirded our collaborative research project: unmet treatment needs, cost of illness, and cost-effectiveness of treatments. In regards to unmet treatment needs, epidemiological studies find that the number of individuals with an eating disorder who do not receive disorder-specific treatment continues to remain high. Cost-of-illness show that eating disorders are associated with substantial financial burdens for individuals, their family, and society, yet comprehensive examination of costs across public sectors is lacking. Cost measures vary widely, making it difficult to draw firm conclusions. Hospitalization is a major driver of medical costs incurred by individuals with an eating disorder. Only a handful of cost-effectiveness studies have been conducted, leaving policy makers with little information on which to base decisions about allocation of resources to help reduce the burden of suffering attributable to eating disorders.