People have done so, see the "Cost Effectiveness" section here:
http://www.cdc.gov/fluoridation/benefits.htm
External Quote:
An Economic Evaluation of Community Water Fluoridation. (PDF 1.0Mb) Griffin SO, Jones K, Tomar SL. J Publ Health Dent 2001;61(2):78–86. An analysis of the most current data available on the effectiveness and costs of water fluoridation. The study compares average per person cost of community water fluoridation with the cost of prevented disease. This study:
- Demonstrates that fluoridation not only is cost-effective, but also is cost saving, which is rare for public health interventions.
- Shows that the reduction in costs of fillings (dental restorations) greatly exceeds the cost of water fluoridation in communities of any size.
- Illustrates the annual per person water fluoridation costs for communities of various sizes.
- Determines an average cost savings, which ranges from $15.95 per person per year in a small community to $18.62 per person per year in a larger community.
Cost Savings of Community Water Fluoridation
Studies continue to show that widespread community water fluoridation prevents cavities and saves money, both for families and the health care system.
Water Fluoridation and Costs of Medicaid Treatment for Dental Decay—Louisiana, 1995–1996
MMWR, September 3, 1999;48(34):753–757.
Findings suggest that Medicaid-eligible children in communities without community water fluoridation had an increased cost for dental treatment per child that was twice as high as those children living in fluoridated communities.
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
Fluoridation cannot be cost-effective since it does not prevent tooth decay. (See Benefits section).[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]" ... several recent studies, here and abroad, show that fluoridation is correlated with higher caries, rather than lower ones. ... There has been no study that shows any cost-saving by fluoridation. This claim has been researched by a Rand corporation study and found to be 'simply not warranted by available evidence'." (See 41-1: "The Truth About Mandatory Fluoridation" by John R. Lee, M.D. Apr. 15, 1995).[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]A study was done to determine "The Amount of MediCal Money Spent in 1995 & 1994 for Dentistry in Relation to Fluoridation in the 15 largest Counties in California, which comprise 83% of the Eligible Recipients." (Tables are shown). "As is obvious from the above tables, fluoridation does not reduce MediCal dental treatment costs." The tables show that the cost is slightly higher in the fluoridated areas. "The statement made by Elizabeth G. Hill and Craig L. Brown, that fluoridated water systems ... reduce costs associated with dental treatment (including) ' ... higher Media-Cal dental costs' is so obviously false that the question of how such a statement could be made is worth examining." (See 41-2: Superior Court of the State of California statement, p.5, by Dr. John Yiamouyiannis, 1997).[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Dentists make 17% more profit in fluoridated areas as opposed to non-fluoridated areas. There are no savings. (See 41-3: "Impact of Water Fluoridation on Dental Practice and Dental Manpower" from The Journal of the American Dental Association, Vol. 84, Feb. 1972, pp. 355-367).[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]The Natick Fluoridation Committee Report, dated September 27, 1999, included this statement on the cost-effectiveness of fluoridation:[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]"One has to consider the savings due to (possibly) fewer cavities in some children and the cost to treat those children. However, it is also true that there will be increased treatment costs due to dental fluorosis (between 10-30% of children in communities that fluoridate develop some form of dental fluorosis). Although these costs are not borne by the community at large, they should be considered in any assessment of cost-effectiveness. ... it seems clear that there will be a greater increase in fluorosis than there will be a reduction in cavities.[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]"The committee has also identified indirect costs that should be included in the cost effectiveness calculations. These include the costs borne by individual Natick residents who choose not to drink fluoridated water and individual Natick residents who may incur medical or dental costs due to drinking fluoridated water. Finally, there are other costs to the town such as amortization, repair, etc., of equipment necessary to the program. These cost include (but are not limited to) the following identifiable items:[/FONT]
-
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] Increased dental costs (not covered by insurance) to treat fluorosis. [/FONT]
-
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Purchase of unfluoridated water from other sources ($3-4 per week) [/FONT]
-
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Increased medical costs [/FONT]
-
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Legal costs to the town to defend against lawsuits (see below) [/FONT]
-
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Increased plumbing costs resulting from corrosion (See 41-5)[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]"When a claimed 20% decrease in tooth decay is compared to a 600% increase in bone cancer or a 41% increase in hip fractures, when the cost of a tooth filling is compared to the cost of a hip fracture or cancer treatment, it is obvious that the human and economic costs of fluoridation are staggering." (Fluoridation-Why the Controversy?, by Janet Nagel, Ed.D., from National Health Federation.)[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Fluoridation is also a financial hazard to the electronics industry who rely on pure water. Lucent Microelectronics states it will probably cost them $5,000,000 to remove fluoride from the water they buy from the city.[/FONT]
