Wendy Max1, Hai-Yen Sung, James Lightwood. 1. Institute for Health & Aging, School of Nursing, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, CA 94118, USA. wendy.max@ucsf.edu
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: This study presents estimates of the impact of changes in California tobacco control funding on healthcare expenditures for 2012-2016 under four funding scenarios. METHODS: Smoking prevalence is projected using a cointegrated time series regression model. Smoking-attributable healthcare expenditures are estimated with econometric models that use a prevalence-based annual cost approach and an excess cost methodology. RESULTS: If tobacco control spending in California remains at the current level of 5 cents per pack (base case), smoking prevalence will increase from 12.2% in 2011 to 12.7% in 2016. If funding is cut in half, smoking prevalence will increase to 12.9% in 2016 and smoking-attributable healthcare expenditures will be $307 million higher over this time period than in the base case. If the tobacco tax is increased by $1.00 per pack with 20 cents per pack allocated to tobacco control, smoking prevalence will fall to 10.4% in 2016 and healthcare expenditures between 2012 and 2016 will be $3.3 billion less than in the base case. If funding is increased to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommended level, smoking prevalence will fall to 10.6% in 2016 and there will be savings in healthcare expenditures of $4.7 billion compared to the base case due to the large reduction in heavy smoking prevalence. CONCLUSIONS: California's highly successful tobacco control program will become less effective over time because inflation is eroding the 5 cents per pack currently allocated to tobacco control activities. More aggressive action needs to be taken to reduce smoking prevalence and healthcare expenditures in the future.
OBJECTIVE: This study presents estimates of the impact of changes in California tobacco control funding on healthcare expenditures for 2012-2016 under four funding scenarios. METHODS: Smoking prevalence is projected using a cointegrated time series regression model. Smoking-attributable healthcare expenditures are estimated with econometric models that use a prevalence-based annual cost approach and an excess cost methodology. RESULTS: If tobacco control spending in California remains at the current level of 5 cents per pack (base case), smoking prevalence will increase from 12.2% in 2011 to 12.7% in 2016. If funding is cut in half, smoking prevalence will increase to 12.9% in 2016 and smoking-attributable healthcare expenditures will be $307 million higher over this time period than in the base case. If the tobacco tax is increased by $1.00 per pack with 20 cents per pack allocated to tobacco control, smoking prevalence will fall to 10.4% in 2016 and healthcare expenditures between 2012 and 2016 will be $3.3 billion less than in the base case. If funding is increased to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommended level, smoking prevalence will fall to 10.6% in 2016 and there will be savings in healthcare expenditures of $4.7 billion compared to the base case due to the large reduction in heavy smoking prevalence. CONCLUSIONS: California's highly successful tobacco control program will become less effective over time because inflation is eroding the 5 cents per pack currently allocated to tobacco control activities. More aggressive action needs to be taken to reduce smoking prevalence and healthcare expenditures in the future.
Entities:
Keywords:
Economics; cessation; environmental tobacco smoke; health services; prevalence; public policy; second-hand smoke; taxation; taxation and price
Authors: Kari-Lyn Kobayakawa Sakuma; Jamie Felicitas; Pebbles Fagan; Charles L Gruder; Lyzette Blanco; Christopher Cappelli; Dennis R Trinidad Journal: Nicotine Tob Res Date: 2015-02-08 Impact factor: 4.244
Authors: Robert Basaza; Mable M Kukunda; Emmanuel Otieno; Elizabeth Kyasiimire; Hafisa Lukwata; Christopher K Haddock Journal: Tob Prev Cessat Date: 2020-01-20
Authors: Michael V Maciosek; Amy B LaFrance; Ann W St Claire; Paula A Keller; Zack Xu; Barbara A Schillo Journal: PLoS One Date: 2020-03-18 Impact factor: 3.240