Anna J MacMonegle1, James Nonnemaker2, Jennifer C Duke2, Matthew C Farrelly2, Xiaoquan Zhao3, Janine C Delahanty4, Alexandria A Smith4, Pamela Rao5, Jane A Allen2. 1. RTI International, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina. Electronic address: amacmonegle@rti.org. 2. RTI International, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina. 3. Center for Tobacco Products, U.S. Food and Drug Administration, Silver Spring, Maryland; Department of Communication, George Mason University, Fairfax, Virginia. 4. Center for Tobacco Products, U.S. Food and Drug Administration, Silver Spring, Maryland. 5. Center for Tobacco Products, U.S. Food and Drug Administration, Silver Spring, Maryland; Akira Technologies, Washington, District of Columbia.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: A previous study found that the Food and Drug Administration's The Real Cost national tobacco education campaign was associated with preventing approximately 350,000 U.S. youth from initiating smoking between 2014 and 2016. This study translates the reduction in smoking initiation into monetary terms by examining the cost effectiveness of the campaign. METHODS: The cost effectiveness of The Real Cost was assessed by measuring efficiency in two ways: (1) estimating the cost per quality-adjusted life year saved and (2) estimating the total monetary return on investment by comparing the cost savings associated with the campaign to campaign expenditures. Analyses were conducted in 2017. RESULTS: The Real Cost averted an estimated 175,941 youth from becoming established smokers between 2014 and 2016. Campaign expenditures totaled $246,915,233. The cost per quality-adjusted life year saved of the campaign was $1,337. When considering the costs of smoking, the averted established smokers represent >$31 billion in cost savings ($1.3 billion when only external costs considered). The overall return on investment of the campaign was $128 in cost savings for every $1 spent ($4 for every $1 spent when only external costs considered). These conclusions were robust to sensitivity analyses surrounding the parameters. CONCLUSIONS: Campaign expenditures were cost efficient. The cost savings resulting from The Real Cost represent a large reduction in the financial burden to individuals, their families, and society as a result of tobacco. Public health campaigns, like The Real Cost, that reduce tobacco-related morbidity and mortality for a generation of U.S. youth also provide substantial cost savings.
INTRODUCTION: A previous study found that the Food and Drug Administration's The Real Cost national tobacco education campaign was associated with preventing approximately 350,000 U.S. youth from initiating smoking between 2014 and 2016. This study translates the reduction in smoking initiation into monetary terms by examining the cost effectiveness of the campaign. METHODS: The cost effectiveness of The Real Cost was assessed by measuring efficiency in two ways: (1) estimating the cost per quality-adjusted life year saved and (2) estimating the total monetary return on investment by comparing the cost savings associated with the campaign to campaign expenditures. Analyses were conducted in 2017. RESULTS: The Real Cost averted an estimated 175,941 youth from becoming established smokers between 2014 and 2016. Campaign expenditures totaled $246,915,233. The cost per quality-adjusted life year saved of the campaign was $1,337. When considering the costs of smoking, the averted established smokers represent >$31 billion in cost savings ($1.3 billion when only external costs considered). The overall return on investment of the campaign was $128 in cost savings for every $1 spent ($4 for every $1 spent when only external costs considered). These conclusions were robust to sensitivity analyses surrounding the parameters. CONCLUSIONS: Campaign expenditures were cost efficient. The cost savings resulting from The Real Cost represent a large reduction in the financial burden to individuals, their families, and society as a result of tobacco. Public health campaigns, like The Real Cost, that reduce tobacco-related morbidity and mortality for a generation of U.S. youth also provide substantial cost savings.
Authors: Brian Chen; Gerard A Silvestri; Jennifer Dahne; Kyueun Lee; Matthew J Carpenter Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2022-01-28 Impact factor: 6.473
Authors: Elizabeth C Hair; David R Holtgrave; Alexa R Romberg; Morgane Bennett; Jessica M Rath; Megan C Diaz; Donna M Vallone Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2019-11-06 Impact factor: 3.390