The Economic Impact of Smoking and of Reducing Smoking Prevalence: Review of Evidence

BACKGROUND: Tobacco smoking is the cause of many preventable diseases and premature deaths in the UK and around the world. It poses enormous health- and non-health-related costs to the affected individuals, employers, and the society at large. The World Health Organization (WHO) estimates that, globally, smoking causes over US$500 billion in economic damage each year. OBJECTIVES: This paper examines global and UK evidence on the economic impact of smoking prevalence and evaluates the effectiveness and cost effectiveness of smoking cessation measures. STUDY SELECTION Search methods : We used two major health care/economic research databases, namely PubMed and the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) database that contains the British National Health Service (NHS) Economic Evaluation Database; Cochrane Library of systematic reviews in health care and health policy; and other health-care-related bibliographic sources. We also performed hand searching of relevant articles, health reports, and white papers issued by government bodies, international health organizations, and health intervention campaign agencies. Selection criteria : The paper includes cost-effectiveness studies from medical journals, health reports, and white papers published between 1992 and July 2014, but included only eight relevant studies before 1992. Most of the papers reviewed reported outcomes on smoking prevalence, as well as the direct and indirect costs of smoking and the costs and benefits of smoking cessation interventions. We excluded papers that merely described the effectiveness of an intervention without including economic or cost considerations. We also excluded papers that combine smoking cessation with the reduction in the risk of other diseases. Data collection and analysis : The included studies were assessed against criteria indicated in the Cochrane Reviewers Handbook version 5.0.0. Outcomes assessed in the review : Primary outcomes of the selected studies are smoking prevalence, direct and indirect costs of smoking, and the costs and benefits of smoking cessation interventions (e.g., “cost per quitter”, “cost per life year saved”, “cost per quality-adjusted life year gained,” “present value” or “net benefits” from smoking cessation, and “cost savings” from personal health care expenditure). MAIN RESULTS: The main findings of this study are as follows: 1. The costs of smoking can be classified into direct, indirect, and intangible costs. About 15$151 billion. 2. The costs of smoking notwithstanding, it produces some potential economic benefits. The economic activities generated from the production and consumption of tobacco provides economic stimulus. It also produces huge tax revenues for most governments, especially in high-income countries, as well as employment in the tobacco industry. Income from the tobacco industry accounts for up to 7.4% of centrally collected government revenue in China. Smoking also yields cost savings in pension payments from the premature death of smokers. 3. Smoking cessation measures could range from pharmacological treatment interventions to policy-based measures, community-based interventions, telecoms, media, and technology (TMT)-based interventions, school-based interventions, and workplace interventions. 4. The cost per life year saved from the use of pharmacological treatment interventions ranged between US$128 and US$1,450 and up to US$4,400 per quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) saved. The use of pharmacotherapies such as varenicline, NRT, and Bupropion, when combined with GP counseling or other behavioral treatment interventions (such as proactive telephone counseling and Web-based delivery), is both clinically effective and cost effective to primary health care providers. 5. Price-based policy measures such as increase in tobacco taxes are unarguably the most effective means of reducing the consumption of tobacco. A 10$2 to US$112 per life year gained (LYG) while reducing smoking prevalence by up to 30$500 and US$614 per LYG. 7. Advertising media, telecommunications, and other technology-based interventions (such as TV, radio, print, telephone, the Internet, PC, and other electronic media) usually have positive synergistic effects in reducing smoking prevalence especially when combined to deliver smoking cessation messages and counseling support. However, the outcomes on the cost effectiveness of TMT-based measures have been inconsistent, and this made it difficult to attribute results to specific media. The differences in reported cost effectiveness may be partly attributed to varying methodological approaches including varying parametric inputs, differences in national contexts, differences in advertising campaigns tested on different media, and disparate levels of resourcing between campaigns. Due to its universal reach and low implementation costs, online campaign appears to be substantially more cost effective than other media, though it may not be as effective in reducing smoking prevalence. 8. School-based smoking prevalence programs tend to reduce short-term smoking prevalence by between 30$16,400 to US$580,000 depending on the scale and scope of intervention. The cost effectiveness of school-based programs show that one could expect a saving of approximately between US$2,000 and US$20,000 per QALY saved due to averted smoking after 2–4 years of follow-up. 9. Workplace-based interventions could represent a sound economic investment to both employers and the society at large, achieving a benefit-cost ratio of up to 8.75 and generating 12-month employer cost savings of between$150 and $540 per nonsmoking employee. Implementing smoke-free workplaces would also produce myriads of new quitters and reduce the amount of cigarette consumption, leading to cost savings in direct medical costs to primary health care providers. Workplace interventions are, however, likely to yield far greater economic benefits over the long term, as reduced prevalence will lead to a healthier and more productive workforce. CONCLUSIONS: We conclude that the direct costs and externalities to society of smoking far outweigh any benefits that might be accruable at least when considered from the perspective of socially desirable outcomes (i.e., in terms of a healthy population and a productive workforce). There are enormous differences in the application and economic measurement of smoking cessation measures across various types of interventions, methodologies, countries, economic settings, and health care systems, and these may have affected the comparability of the results of the studies reviewed. However, on the balance of probabilities, most of the cessation measures reviewed have not only proved effective but also cost effective in delivering the much desired cost savings and net gains to individuals and primary health care providers

Application of Discrete-Choice Experiment Methods in Tobacco Control: A Systematic Review

BackgroundEconomic evidence relating to tobacco control is generally derived from the cost effectiveness of smoking-cessation programs or the economic impact of tobacco-induced disease, based on revealed-preference data. However, empirical estimates from stated-preference data on tobacco users’ preferences, smoking behaviour and smoking cessation aids using analytical techniques such as discrete-choice experiments (DCEs) could be important for policy decision making in tobacco control.ObjectivesOur objective was to review the practice and utility of DCE methodology across nicotine- and tobacco-related issues, particularly smoking and smoking-cessation behaviour, anti-smoking policies and preferences for smoking-cessation aids.MethodsWe searched the PubMed, MEDLINE and ECONLIT databases for full-text original research articles on tobacco-related issues published between January 2000 and April 2016 that used a DCE method. We summarised the evidence and methodological characteristics of DCEs according to Lancsar and Louviere, 2008.ResultsOur review of the 12 eligible studies showed that DCE methodology was used to elicit smoker preferences and to evaluate tobacco-control policies. The majority of the studies were published in the last 5 years. The areas of application were smoking cessation, smoking behaviour, electronic cigarette use, water-pipe smoking and tobacco packaging. Monetary attributes were the most influential attributes in all studies. The design of the DCEs varied.ConclusionDCE studies of tobacco-related issues were methodologically consistent with guidelines proposed for conducting health-related DCEs

Lifestyle: Substance Use—Nicotine, Alcohol and Drugs

Use of substances including alcohol, tobacco and drugs is common in people of reproductive age, can lead to dependence and is a major global health concern. Despite targeted public health policies and campaigns, population surveys (National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIH) 2020; European Drug Report 2019) continue to highlight widespread use of substances, often in combination, which have substantial negative implications for health in general and the potential to harm future generations (Stephenson et al. 2018). Healthcare professionals need to be aware of the complex psychological, physiological and social factors that may be linked to substance use and be prepared to offer counselling and referral for specialist services. Pregnancy, however, can be a ‘window of opportunity’ and a motivating factor for women and their partners to change their behaviour and minimise risk with help to quit or cut down on substance use (Solomon and Quinn 2004). Preconception care offers the opportunity to further reduce risk by helping to modify consumption prior to pregnancy