Special Article
The Health Care Costs of Smoking
N Engl J Med 1997; 337:1052-1057October 9, 1997DOI: 10.1056/NEJM199710093371506
- Abstract
Background
Although smoking cessation is desirable from a public health perspective, its consequences with respect to health care costs are still debated. Smokers have more disease than nonsmokers, but nonsmokers live longer and can incur more health costs at advanced ages. We analyzed health care costs for smokers and nonsmokers and estimated the economic consequences of smoking cessation.
Methods
We used three life tables to examine the effect of smoking on health care costs — one for a mixed population of smokers and nonsmokers, one for a population of smokers, and one for a population of nonsmokers. We also used a dynamic method to estimate the effects of smoking cessation on health care costs over time.
Results
Health care costs for smokers at a given age are as much as 40 percent higher than those for nonsmokers, but in a population in which no one smoked the costs would be 7 percent higher among men and 4 percent higher among women than the costs in the current mixed population of smokers and nonsmokers. If all smokers quit, health care costs would be lower at first, but after 15 years they would become higher than at present. In the long term, complete smoking cessation would produce a net increase in health care costs, but it could still be seen as economically favorable under reasonable assumptions of discount rate and evaluation period.
Conclusions
If people stopped smoking, there would be a savings in health care costs, but only in the short term. Eventually, smoking cessation would lead to increased health care costs.
Media in This Article
Figure 2
Percent Changes in Total Health Care Costs for the Male Population after Smoking Cessation, as Determined in a Dynamic Analysis, According to the Number of Years since Cessation, with No Discounting and with Three Discount Rates.Figure 1
Estimated Annual per Capita Health Care Costs for Dutch Men in 1988 and for the Male Population in a Life Table, According to Age and Smoking Status.Article Activity
- Article
Smoking is a major health hazard, and since nonsmokers are healthier than smokers, it seems only natural that not smoking would save money spent on health care. Yet in economic studies of health care it has been difficult to determine who uses more dollars — smokers, who tend to suffer more from a large variety of diseases, or nonsmokers, who can accumulate more health care costs because they live longer. The Surgeon General reported in 1992 that “the estimated average lifetime medical costs for a smoker exceed those for a nonsmoker by more than $6,000.”1 On the other hand, Lippiatt estimated that a 1 percent decline in cigarette sales increases costs for medical care by $405 million among persons 25 to 79 years old.2 Manning et al. argued that although smokers incur higher medical costs, these are balanced by tobacco taxes and by smokers' shorter life spans (and hence their lower use of pensions and nursing homes).3 Leu and Schaub showed that even when only health care expenditures are considered, the longer life expectancy of nonsmokers more than offsets their lower annual expenditures.4
We have analyzed comprehensively the health care costs of smoking. In doing so we have distinguished between the assessment of differences between smokers and nonsmokers and the assessment of what would happen after interventions that changed smoking behavior. Would a nonsmoking population have lower health care costs than one in which some people smoke? Are antismoking interventions economically attractive? We sought to answer these questions and to determine the consequences for health policy.
Methods
Analysis of Smokers and Nonsmokers
We examined the effect of smoking in the general population (a mixture of smokers and nonsmokers). We studied the incidence, prevalence, and mortality associated with five major categories of disease — heart disease, stroke, lung cancer, a heterogeneous group of other cancers, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). We used data on these diseases, in addition to mortality from all other causes, in an extension of the standard life table, the multistate life table, that includes multiple health states, such as “alive, healthy” and “alive, with heart disease.” 5,6
Differences in the frequency of the smoking-related diseases between smokers and nonsmokers are commonly expressed as rate ratios. Using these rate ratios, the prevalence of smoking in the population, and the age- and sex-specific incidence of the smoking-related diseases in the mixed population of smokers and nonsmokers, we can estimate the incidence of the diseases separately among smokers and nonsmokers.6
Assuming that the relative survival of persons with these diseases is the same among both smokers and nonsmokers, two additional life tables can be calculated — one for smokers and one for nonsmokers. The three life tables differ with regard to the incidence of the smoking-related diseases and therefore in their associated prevalence, disease-specific mortality, and overall mortality. Because of the difference in mortality, more people remain alive in the life table for nonsmokers than in the table for smokers, particularly in the older age groups, and there are corresponding differences in life expectancies.
In constructing the life tables, we used epidemiologic data on the incidence and prevalence of the diseases,7-10 data on mortality from Statistics Netherlands,11 data on smoking (Table 1Table 1
Prevalence of Smoking.),12 and rate ratios from an overview of the literature.13 We tested the sensitivity of the analysis by recalculating the life tables with excess risks (the rate ratio - 1) that were 50 percent higher and 50 percent lower (Table 2Table 2
Rate Ratios and Sensitivity Ranges Associated with Five Categories of Disease.).The medical costs we used were based on a study that allocated the total costs for health care in the Netherlands in 1988 (39.8 billion guilders, or $19.9 billion, at the present exchange rate) to categories of age, sex, and disease.14 We used the Dutch population in 1988 and the prevalence rates of the smoking-related diseases from the life table for mixed smokers and nonsmokers to estimate the costs per case of disease according to age and sex. The remaining costs were assigned to “per capita costs for all other diseases” (in categories according to age and sex) by dividing the costs by the number of people in the category in question. Using the per capita costs for each disease and the “all other disease” costs, we calculated the health care costs for the populations included in the three life tables.
Assessment of the Effect of Complete Smoking Cessation
The estimated health care cost derived from the life table of nonsmokers can be seen as an estimate of the cost of health care if no one ever smoked. It does not provide an estimate of the health care cost if all smokers stopped smoking. In the latter case, the size of the elderly population would initially be the same as in the mixed population of smokers and nonsmokers. For it to become similar in size to the elderly population among nonsmokers, in which more elderly people are alive, would take several years, even if mortality declined rapidly.
To describe the epidemiologic changes and the changes in the population over time, a dynamic model is needed. For this purpose, we needed a series of linked life tables, one for each point in time, with the population at a given age (a) and time (t) depending on the population at age a-1 and time t-1, and on the incidence of disease and the associated mortality between t-1 and t. We used the Prevent Plus computer program, which is designed to evaluate interventions concerning risk factors dynamically.6,15
This dynamic analysis produces a projection of future health care costs. To assess the economic attractiveness of an intervention that would make smokers quit, these costs are compared with those expected when no intervention is made. One difficulty in such an evaluation is the fact that most people prefer to receive benefits as soon as possible and to postpone payments. Economists call this phenomenon “time preference,”16,17 and it is taken into account by discounting the future benefits and costs — that is, those further away in time are given lower weights in the overall evaluation.
The degree of time preference is expressed in the discount rate. Typical values range from 0 to 10 percent, with 0 percent meaning that there is no discounting and no time preference and 10 percent meaning that there is a strong time preference. Since there is no generally agreed-upon discount rate, we used various rates (0, 3, 5 and 10 percent) in evaluating the intervention.
A second difficulty in evaluating future costs and benefits is deciding how far into the future the analysis should go. There is no generally agreed-upon duration of follow-up in this type of analysis. For each projection of discounted costs and benefits, we therefore report the duration of follow-up at which the benefits and costs expected in the future exactly balance each other (the break-even year) — the point at which carrying out the intervention is neither more nor less economically attractive than not doing so.
Results
Figure 1Figure 1
Estimated Annual per Capita Health Care Costs for Dutch Men in 1988 and for the Male Population in a Life Table, According to Age and Smoking Status. shows the annual per capita health care costs for male smokers and nonsmokers 40 to 89 years old, in 5-year age groups (the costs for women in the same age groups are very similar). Per capita costs rise sharply with age, increasing almost 10 times from persons 40 to 44 years of age to those 85 to 89 years of age. In each age group, smokers incur higher costs than nonsmokers. The difference varies with the age group, but among 65-to-74-year-olds the costs for smokers are as much as 40 percent higher among men and as much as 25 percent higher among women.However, the annual cost per capita ignores the differences in longevity between smokers and nonsmokers. These differences are substantial: for smokers, the life expectancies at birth are 69.7 years in men and 75.6 years in women; for nonsmokers, the life expectancies are 77.0 and 81.6 years (these life-table estimates agree very well with the empirical findings of Doll et al.18). This means that many more nonsmokers than smokers live to old age. At age 70, 78 percent of male nonsmokers are still alive, as compared with only 57 percent of smokers (among women, the figures are 86 percent and 75 percent); at age 80, men's survival is 50 percent and 21 percent, respectively (among women, 67 percent and 43 percent).
These differences in the numbers of elderly people have a profound effect on the health care costs for the population, as Figure 1 shows. In the younger age groups, in which mortality even among smokers is quite low, a population of smokers has higher health care costs than a population of nonsmokers, but in the groups of men 70 to 74 and over (and those of women 75 to 79 and over), the lower per capita cost of the nonsmokers is outweighed by the greater number of people remaining alive.
As Figure 1 shows, the nonsmoking population as a whole is more expensive than the smoking population. The area between the curves in which the smokers have higher health care costs than the nonsmokers is smaller than the area between the curves in which the nonsmokers have higher health care costs than the smokers. This is shown in greater detail in Table 3Table 3
Health Care Costs for the Three Populations Studied with Life Tables, According to Sex and Disease Category, with the Ratios of the Costs for Smokers and Nonsmokers to Those for the Mixed Population Containing Both., where the total health care costs for the mixed, the smoking, and the nonsmoking populations are presented according to disease category.All the smoking-related diseases (with the notable exception of stroke among men) are associated with higher costs in a population of smokers and lower costs in a population of nonsmokers. This relation is particularly strong for the diseases with the highest excess risk: lung cancer and COPD. However, in the mixed population of smokers and nonsmokers, smoking-related diseases account for only 19 percent of total costs among men and 12 percent of total costs among women, and the costs of all the other diseases have precisely the opposite relation. In a population of smokers, the costs associated with all the other diseases are less than those in the mixed population: 14 percent less for men and 18 percent less for women. Among nonsmokers, the costs of all the other diseases are 15 percent higher for men and 7 percent higher for women.
The risk of the diseases not related to smoking is considered equal for smokers and nonsmokers, but the nonsmoking population lives longer and therefore incurs more costs due to those diseases, particularly in old age, when the costs are highest. On balance, the total costs for male and female nonsmokers are 7 percent and 4 percent higher, respectively, than for a mixed population, whereas for smokers the total costs are 7 percent and 11 percent lower.
Table 3 also shows that changing the assumptions about the excess risk associated with smoking-related diseases by as much as 50 percent in either direction does not change the conclusion, except in the case of stroke. The age-related increase in incidence is steepest for stroke, and there is also an age-related increase for stroke in the cost per case; therefore the health care costs associated with stroke are the most sensitive to changes in life expectancy.
Because of the costs of other diseases, the population of nonsmokers has higher health care costs, partly because these costs increase with age. To test the sensitivity of the analysis to this age-related increase, we recalculated the three life tables, keeping the health care costs associated with “all other disease” at the 65-to-69-year-old level for people over the age of 65. The costs for the mixed population and for the nonsmoking population became virtually the same, and those for the smoking population were still the smallest, albeit by a small margin.
Figure 2Figure 2
Percent Changes in Total Health Care Costs for the Male Population after Smoking Cessation, as Determined in a Dynamic Analysis, According to the Number of Years since Cessation, with No Discounting and with Three Discount Rates. shows what the economic consequences would be if all smokers stopped smoking. After this abrupt change, the total health care costs for men (the “no discounting” curve) would initially be lower than they would have been (by up to 2.5 percent), because the incidence of smoking-related diseases among the former smokers would decline to the level among nonsmokers. Prevalence rates start to decline, costs decline, and the intervention shows a benefit. With time, however, the benefit reverses itself to become a cost. The reason is that along with incidence and prevalence, smoking-related mortality declines and the population starts to age. Growing numbers of people in the older age groups mean higher costs for health care. By year 5, the benefit derived from the presence of the new nonsmokers starts to shrink, and by year 15 these former smokers are producing excess costs. Eventually a new steady state is reached in which costs are about 7 percent higher — the difference between the mixed and the nonsmoking populations.Figure 2 shows the consequences of discounting the projected costs and benefits by various percentages. It is apparent that discounting, even at a rate as low as 3 percent, has a huge impact, and this impact becomes greater as the costs become more distant in time.
Having all smokers quit becomes economically attractive when the future benefits are larger than the future costs or, in terms of Figure 2, when the area below the x axis is bigger than the area above it. From the figure it is clear that this depends heavily on the duration of follow-up considered and on the discount rate. With a shorter evaluation period and higher discount rates, stopping smoking looks economically more attractive. With a longer evaluation period and lower discount rates, quitting smoking loses its economic advantages. The break-even year, when the initial benefit is exactly balanced by the eventual cost, occurs after 26 years of follow-up when there is no discounting, after 31 years with 3 percent discounting, and after 37 years with 5 percent discounting. At 10 percent discounting, the break-even year occurs after more than 50 years and may not occur at all.
Discussion
This study shows that although per capita health care costs for smokers are higher than those of nonsmokers, a nonsmoking population would have higher health care costs than the current mixed population of smokers and nonsmokers. Yet given a short enough period of follow-up and a high enough discount rate, it would be economically attractive to eliminate smoking.
Some earlier studies have had differing results, partly because many have focused on costs attributable to smoking. From rate ratios and the prevalence of smoking in a population, the proportion of the total number of cases of a disease that can be attributed to smoking — the population attributable risk — can be calculated.19 Given the costs according to disease, one can calculate the costs attributable to smoking.20 For instance, in the life-table population of mixed smokers and nonsmokers about 8 percent of total health care costs among men and almost 3 percent of total costs among women can be attributed to smoking. Attributable costs, however, can be interpreted as potential savings only when the diseases do not affect mortality. In the case of most smoking-related diseases, reductions in smoking reduce mortality, creating new possibilities for morbidity from other diseases in the years of life gained.
Other studies of this subject estimate lifetime health care costs, taking the differences in life expectancy into account, and find that smokers have higher medical costs.3,21,22 In our study, lifetime costs for smokers can be calculated as $72,700 among men and $94,700 among women, and lifetime costs among nonsmokers can be calculated as $83,400 and $111,000, respectively. This amounts to lifetime costs for nonsmokers that are higher by 15 percent among men and 18 percent among women.
The studies cited above apply discounting to the lifetime cost estimate. Because costs incurred at older ages are discounted more, this approach reduces lifetime costs for nonsmokers more than those for smokers. For example, when one applies discounting to our life tables for smokers and nonsmokers, smokers have higher health care costs when the discount rate is at least 4.5 percent in men or at least 5.5 percent in women. We disagree with this approach, however. Discounting should be used for purposes of evaluation and should not be applied in a descriptive context, such as the estimation of lifetime costs.
Our analysis is not very sensitive to substantially different values in the rate ratio. Neither is it very sensitive to the age-related increase in the cost of “all other diseases”; that is, an increase that is less steep in the United States than in the Netherlands will not lead to different conclusions. Including additional smoking-related diseases could change the results only if those diseases generate morbidity and costs without raising the excess risk of mortality. There may be some of these conditions, such as cataracts, but they are unlikely to change outcome. For example, in our data all eye diseases, most of which are not related to smoking, account for about 1 percent of total health care costs.
This study relied on rate ratios from epidemiologic studies to express the differences between smokers and nonsmokers. To the extent that the rate ratios do not describe these differences sufficiently, the results will be affected. For example, the much lower cost for lung cancer among female smokers than among male smokers (Table 3) is hard to explain physiologically. But as long as the smokers have higher rates of lung cancer than the nonsmokers, such shortcomings of the data will not affect the overall conclusions.
The results of this study illustrate the ambiguities in any economic method of evaluation. Even a well-designed study of this type is marred by inevitable arbitrariness concerning what costs to include, which discount rate to apply, and what duration of follow-up to use. There are differences of opinion — on the discounting of lifetime costs, for example, and the evaluation of long-term effects.23,24 Recent efforts at standardization will remedy some of the arbitrariness,25-27 but fundamental problems with the method still remain.
Finally, with respect to public health policy, how important are the costs of smoking? Society clearly has an interest in this matter, now that several states are trying to recoup Medicaid expenditures from tobacco firms and the tobacco companies have agreed to a settlement. Yet we believe that in formulating public health policy, whether or not smokers impose a net financial burden ought to be of very limited importance. Public health policy is concerned with health. Smoking is a major health hazard, so the objective of a policy on smoking should be simple and clear: smoking should be discouraged.
Since we as a society are clearly willing to spend money on added years of life and on healthier years, the method of choice in evaluating medical interventions is cost-effectiveness analysis, which yields costs per year of life gained. Decision makers then implement the interventions that yield the highest return in health for the budget.28 We have no doubt that an effective antismoking policy fits the bill.
Supported by the Dutch Ministry of Health.
Source Information
From the Department of Public Health, Erasmus University, P.O. Box 1738, 3000 DR Rotterdam, the Netherlands, where reprint requests should be addressed to Mr. Barendregt.
- References
References
1
MacKenzie TD Bartecchi CE Schrier RW
Free Full Text | Web of Science | Medline2
Lippiatt BC
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline3
Manning WG Keeler EB Newhouse JP Sloss EM Wasserman J
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline4
Leu RE Schaub T
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline5
Schoen R. Modeling multigroup populations. New York: Plenum Press, 1988.
6
Barendregt JJ, van Oortmarssen GJ, van Hout BA, van den Bosch JM, Bonneux L. Coping with multiple morbidity in a life table. Math Popul Stud (in press).
7
Bonneux L Barendregt JJ Meeter K Bonsel GJ van der Maas PJ
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline8
Niessen LW Barendregt JJ Bonneux L Koudstaal PJ
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline9
Eindhoven Cancer Registry. Cancer incidence and survival 1975-1987 in southeastern Netherlands. Eindhoven, the Netherlands: Eindhoven Cancer Registry, 1991.
10
van Weel C van den Bosch WJHM van den Hoogen HJM Smits AJA
Medline11
Overledenen naar doodsoorzaak, leeftijd en geslacht in het jaar 1989: serie B1. Voorburg, the Netherlands: Centraal Bureau voor de Statistiek, 1989.
12
Jaarverslag 1992. The Hague, the Netherlands: Stichting Volksgezondheid en Roken, 1993.
13
van de Mheen PJ Gunning-Schepers LJ
Web of Science | Medline14
Koopmanschap M van Roijen L Bonneux L Bonsel G Rutten F van der Maas P
CrossRef15
Gunning-Schepers LJ Barendregt JJ Van Der Maas PJ
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline16
Drummond MF, Stoddart GL, Torrance GW. Methods for the economic evaluation of health care programmes. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press, 1990.
17
Murray CJL. Rethinking DALYs. In: Murray CJL, Lopez AD, eds. The global burden of disease: a comprehensive assessment of mortality and disability from diseases, injuries, and risk factors in 1990 and projected to 2010. Vol. 1 of Global burden of disease and injury series. Boston: Harvard School of Public Health, 1996:1-96.
18
Doll R Peto R Wheatley K Gray R Sutherland I
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline19
Kleinbaum DG, Kupper LL, Morgenstern H. Epidemiologic research: principles and quantitative methods. Belmont, Calif.: Lifetime Learning, 1982.
20
Shultz JM Novotny TE Rice DP
Web of Science | Medline21
Hodgson TA
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline22
Viscusi WK. Cigarette taxation and the social consequences of smoking: Working paper no. 4891. Cambridge, Mass.: National Bureau of Economic Research, 1994.
23
Krahn M Gafni A
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline24
West RR
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline25
Mason J Drummond M
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline26
Drummond MF Jefferson TO
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline27
Gold MR, Siegel JE, Russell LB, Weinstein MC, eds. Cost-effectiveness in health and medicine. New York: Oxford University Press, 1996.
28
Murray CJ Kreuser J Whang W
Web of Science | Medline
- Citing Articles (104)
Citing Articles
1
Pieter H.M. van Baal, Martine Hoogendoorn, Alastair Fischer. (2016) Preventing dementia by promoting physical activity and the long-term impact on health and social care expenditures. Preventive Medicine
CrossRef2
Stephen R. Latham. (2015) Political Theory, Values and Public Health. Public Health Ethics, phv033
CrossRef3
Andrew J. Leidner, W. Douglass Shaw, Steven T. Yen. (2015) An historical perspective on health-risk awareness and unhealthy behaviour: cigarette smoking in the United States 1949-1981. Health Expectations 18:10.1111/hex.2015.18.issue-6, 2720-2730
CrossRef4
Alex C. Liber, Jeffrey M. Drope, Ilana Graetz, Teresa M. Waters, Cameron M. Kaplan. (2015) Tobacco Surcharges on 2015 Health Insurance Plans Sold in Federally Facilitated Marketplaces: Variations by Age and Geography and Implications for Health Equity. American Journal of Public Health 105, S696-S698
CrossRef5
Karim Jebari. (2015) Disease prioritarianism: a flawed principle. Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy
CrossRef6
S. P. Feirman, E. Donaldson, A. M. Glasser, J. L. Pearson, R. Niaura, S. W. Rose, D. B. Abrams, A. C. Villanti. (2015) Mathematical Modeling in Tobacco Control Research: Initial Results From a Systematic Review. Nicotine & Tobacco Research
CrossRef7
Martin Marchman Andersen, Morten Ebbe Juul Nielsen. (2015) Luck Egalitarianism, Universal Health Care, and Non-Responsibility-Based Reasons for Responsibilization. Res Publica 21, 201-216
CrossRef8
Andrew M. Jones, Audrey Laporte, Nigel Rice, Eugenio Zucchelli. (2015) Do Public Smoking Bans have an Impact on Active Smoking? Evidence from the UK. Health Economics 24:10.1002/hec.v24.2, 175-192
CrossRef9
R. An. (2015) Health care expenses in relation to obesity and smoking among U.S. adults by gender, race/ethnicity, and age group: 1998–2011. Public Health 129, 29-36
CrossRef10
Claudia A. Granbichler, Willi Oberaigner, Giorgi Kuchukhidze, Gerhard Bauer, Jean-Pierre Ndayisaba, Klaus Seppi, Eugen Trinka. (2015) Cause-specific mortality in adult epilepsy patients from Tyrol, Austria: hospital-based study. Journal of Neurology 262, 126-133
CrossRef11
M. Berman, R. Crane, E. Seiber, M. Munur. (2014) Estimating the cost of a smoking employee. Tobacco Control 23, 428-433
CrossRef12
Xiaohui Zhuo, Ping Zhang, Lawrence Barker, Ann Albright, Theodore J. Thompson, Edward Gregg. (2014) The Lifetime Cost of Diabetes and Its Implications for Diabetes Prevention. Diabetes Care 37, 2557-2564
CrossRef13
Hannah Wunsch. (2014) Untangling the Healthcare Use Patterns of Severe Sepsis Survivors. American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine 190, 7-8
CrossRef14
Thomas S. Huddle, Stefan G. Kertesz, Ryan R. Nash. (2014) Health Care Institutions Should Not Exclude Smokers From Employment. Academic Medicine 89, 843-847
CrossRef15
E. A. B. Over, T. L. Feenstra, R. T. Hoogenveen, M. Droomers, E. Uiters, B. M. van Gelder. (2014) Tobacco Control Policies Specified According to Socioeconomic Status: Health Disparities and Cost-Effectiveness. Nicotine & Tobacco Research 16, 725-732
CrossRef16
András Inotai, Guenka Petrova, Dinko Vitezic, Zoltán Kaló. (2014) Benefits of investment into modern medicines in Central–Eastern European countries. Expert Review of Pharmacoeconomics & Outcomes Research 14, 71-79
CrossRef17
James Balmford, Jens A Leifert, Andreas Jaehne. (2014) “Tobacco dependence treatment makes no sense because”…: Rebuttal of commonly-heard arguments against providing tobacco dependence treatment in the hospital setting. BMC Public Health 14, 1182
CrossRef18
Ryu NIKI. (2014) Health Economics and Policy Perspectives for Rehabilitation Professionals : Towards Effective, Effi cient and Equitable Rehabilitation Services. The Japanese Journal of Rehabilitation Medicine 51, 738-743
CrossRef19
J. Flanigan. (2013) Public Bioethics. Public Health Ethics 6, 170-184
CrossRef20
G.A.K. van Voorn, B.W. Kooi. (2013) Smoking epidemic eradication in a eco-epidemiological dynamical model. Ecological Complexity 14, 180-189
CrossRef21
Shantanu Bagchi, James Feigenbaum. (2013) Is smoking a fiscal good?. Review of Economic Dynamics
CrossRef22
Daniel J. Moskovic, Andre B. Araujo, Larry I. Lipshultz, Mohit Khera. (2013) The 20‐Year Public Health Impact and Direct Cost of Testosterone Deficiency in U.S. Men. The Journal of Sexual Medicine 10, 562-569
CrossRef23
Toshitaka Morishima, Yuichi Imanaka, Tetsuya Otsubo, Kenshi Hayashida, Takashi Watanabe, Ichiro Tsuji. (2013) Burden of Household Environmental Tobacco Smoke on Medical Expenditure for Japanese Women: A Population-Based Cohort Study. Journal of Epidemiology 23, 55-62
CrossRef24
Marie Kruse, Jan Christensen. (2013) Is quality costly? Patient and hospital cost drivers in vascular surgery. Health Economics Review 3, 22
CrossRef25
Mark Pennington, Shelina Visram, Cam Donaldson, Martin White, Monique Lhussier, Katherine Deane, Natalie Forster, Susan M Carr. (2013) Cost-effectiveness of health-related lifestyle advice delivered by peer or lay advisors: synthesis of evidence from a systematic review. Cost Effectiveness and Resource Allocation 11, 30
CrossRef26
J. Anomaly. (2012) Is Obesity a Public Health Problem?. Public Health Ethics 5, 216-221
CrossRef27
Erik Buskens. (2012) Preventie: waar mankeert het aan?. Tijdschrift voor gezondheidswetenschappen 90, 391-392
CrossRef28
E. Castro J. Héctor. (2012) Smoking Bans and their Potential Implications for Mental Healthcare. A Review of the Evidence. Revista Colombiana de Psiquiatría 41, 384-394
CrossRef29
Pierre-Carl Michaud, Dana Goldman, Darius Lakdawalla, Yuhui Zheng, Adam H. Gailey. (2012) The value of medical and pharmaceutical interventions for reducing obesity. Journal of Health Economics
CrossRef30
Coral E. Gartner, Jan J. Barendregt, Angela Wallace, Wayne D. Hall. (2012) Would vaccination against nicotine be a cost-effective way to prevent smoking uptake in adolescents?. Addiction, no-no
CrossRef31
Kenshi HAYASHIDA, Genki MURAKAMI, Yuko TAKAHASHI, Ichiro TSUJI, Yuichi IMANAKA. (2012) Lifetime Medical Expenditures of Smokers and Nonsmokers. Nippon Eiseigaku Zasshi (Japanese Journal of Hygiene) 67, 50-55
CrossRef32
J. van de Kassteele, R.T. Hoogenveen, P.M. Engelfriet, P.H.M. van Baal, H.C. Boshuizen. (2011) Estimating net transition probabilities from cross-sectional data with application to risk factors in chronic disease modeling. Statistics in Medicine, n/a-n/a
CrossRef33
N. J. Temple. (2011) Why prevention can increase health-care spending. The European Journal of Public Health
CrossRef34
Benjamin Cowan, Benjamin Schwab. (2011) The incidence of the healthcare costs of smoking. Journal of Health Economics 30, 1094-1102
CrossRef35
Hideki Higashi, Khoa D. Truong, Jan J. Barendregt, Phuong K. Nguyen, Mai L. Vuong, Thuy T. Nguyen, Phuong T. Hoang, Angela L. Wallace, Tien V. Tran, Cuong Q. Le, Christopher M. Doran. (2011) Cost Effectiveness of Tobacco Control Policies in Vietnam. Applied Health Economics and Health Policy 9, 183-196
CrossRef36
C. Krauth, J. John, M. Suhrcke. (2011) Gesundheitsökonomische Methoden in der Prävention. Prävention und Gesundheitsförderung 6, 85-93
CrossRef37
Mieke Reuser, Frans J. Willekens, Luc Bonneux. (2011) Higher education delays and shortens cognitive impairment. A multistate life table analysis of the US Health and Retirement Study. European Journal of Epidemiology 26, 395-403
CrossRef38
Hideki Higashi, Tuan A Khuong, Anh D Ngo, Peter S Hill. (2011) The development of Tobacco Harm Prevention Law in Vietnam: stakeholder tensions over tobacco control legislation in a state owned industry. Substance Abuse Treatment, Prevention, and Policy 6, 24
CrossRef39
Pieter H van Baal, Peter M Engelfriet, Rudolf T Hoogenveen, Marinus J Poos, Catharina van den Dungen, Hendriek C Boshuizen. (2011) Estimating and comparing incidence and prevalence of chronic diseases by combining GP registry data: the role of uncertainty. BMC Public Health 11, 163
CrossRef40
Rachel Griffith, Martin O'Connell. (2010) Public Policy towards Food Consumption*. Fiscal Studies 31, 481-507
CrossRef41
Dominique Ashen. (2010) Cost-Effective Prevention of Coronary Heart Disease. The Journal for Nurse Practitioners 6, 754-764
CrossRef42
D. R. Rappange, W. B. F. Brouwer, F. F. H. Rutten, P. H. M. van Baal. (2010) Lifestyle intervention: from cost savings to value for money. Journal of Public Health 32, 440-447
CrossRef43
(2010) LONG-TERM EFFECTS OF ALCOHOL POLICIES: AN ECONOMIC PERSPECTIVE. Addiction 105:10.1111/add.2010.105.issue-3, 395-397
CrossRef44
Kari Linden, Vesa Jormanainen, Miika Linna, Harri Sintonen, Koo Wilson, Teija Kotomäki. (2010) Cost effectiveness of varenicline versus bupropion and unaided cessation for smoking cessation in a cohort of Finnish adult smokers. Current Medical Research and Opinion 26, 549-560
CrossRef45
K. Bolin, K. Wilson, H. Benhaddi, E. de Nigris, S. Marbaix, A.-C. Mork, H.-J. Aubin. (2009) Cost-effectiveness of varenicline compared with nicotine patches for smoking cessation--results from four European countries. The European Journal of Public Health 19, 650-654
CrossRef46
Taiwo A. Oriola. (2009) Ethical and Legal Analyses of Policy Prohibiting Tobacco Smoking in Enclosed Public Spaces. The Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics 37:10.1111/jlme.2009.37.issue-4, 828-840
CrossRef47
David R. Rappange, Werner B.F. Brouwer, Rudolf T. Hoogenveen, Pieter H.M. Van Baal. (2009) Healthcare Costs and Obesity Prevention. PharmacoEconomics 27, 1031-1044
CrossRef48
Tuvia Hadar, Eitan Yaniv, Ytzhak Shvili, Rumelia Koren, Jacob Shvero. (2009) Histopathological changes of the nasal mucosa induced by smoking. Inhalation Toxicology 21, 1119-1122
CrossRef49
Michael F. Steger, Joshua R. Mann, Phil Michels, Tyler C. Cooper. (2009) Meaning in life, anxiety, depression, and general health among smoking cessation patients. Journal of Psychosomatic Research 67, 353-358
CrossRef50
Hans Keiding. (2009) Cost–effectiveness of varenicline for smoking cessation. Expert Review of Pharmacoeconomics & Outcomes Research 9, 215-221
CrossRef51
Joseph Menzin, Lisa M Lines, Jeno Marton. (2009) Estimating the short-term clinical and economic benefits of smoking cessation: do we have it right?. Expert Review of Pharmacoeconomics & Outcomes Research 9, 257-264
CrossRef52
Mieke Reuser, Luc G Bonneux, Frans J. Willekens. (2009) Smoking Kills, Obesity Disables: A Multistate Approach of the US Health and Retirement Survey. Obesity 17, 783-789
CrossRef53
D F Heitjan, D A Asch, Riju Ray, Margaret Rukstalis, Freda Patterson, C Lerman. (2008) Cost-effectiveness of pharmacogenetic testing to tailor smoking-cessation treatment. The Pharmacogenomics Journal 8, 391-399
CrossRef54
Mieke Reuser, Luc Bonneux, Frans Willekens. (2008) The burden of mortality of obesity at middle and old age is small. A life table analysis of the US Health and Retirement Survey. European Journal of Epidemiology 23, 601-607
CrossRef55
Helen L. Walls, Anna Peeters, Christopher M. Reid, Danny Liew, John J. McNeil. (2008) Predicting the Effectiveness of Prevention: A Role for Epidemiological Modeling. The Journal of Primary Prevention 29, 295-305
CrossRef56
Sarah M. McGhee, C Mary Schooling, Lai Chin Wong, Gabriel M. Leung, Lai Ming Ho, G Neil Thomas, Daniel S. Y. Ho, Tai Hing Lam, Anthony J. Hedley. (2008) Does Smoking Affect Hospital Use Before Death?. Medical Care 46, 614-619
CrossRef57
H.H. König, S. Riedel-Heller. (2008) Prävention aus dem Blickwinkel der Gesundheitsökonomie. Der Internist 49, 146-153
CrossRef58
E. M. Augustson, K. L. Wanke, S. Rogers, A. W. Bergen, N. Chatterjee, K. Synder, D. Albanes, P. R. Taylor, N. E. Caporaso. (2008) Predictors of Sustained Smoking Cessation: A Prospective Analysis of Chronic Smokers From the Alpha-Tocopherol Beta-Carotene Cancer Prevention Study. American Journal of Public Health 98, 549-555
CrossRef59
David Hoeflmayr, Reiner Hanewinkel. (2008) Do school-based tobacco prevention programmes pay off? The cost-effectiveness of the ‘Smoke-free Class Competition’. Public Health 122, 34-41
CrossRef60
Martine Hoogendoorn, Paco Welsing, Maureen P.M.H. Rutten-van Mölken. (2008) Cost-effectiveness of varenicline compared with bupropion, NRT, and nortriptyline for smoking cessation in the Netherlands. Current Medical Research and Opinion 24, 51-61
CrossRef61
Gregory S. Brigham, Grant Schroeder, Eric Schindler. (2007) Addressing Smoking in Community Drug Abuse Treatment Programs: Practical and Policy Considerations. Journal of Psychoactive Drugs 39, 435-441
CrossRef62
Timothy M. Dall, Yiduo Zhang, Yaozhu J. Chen, Rachel C. Askarinam Wagner, Paul F. Hogan, Nancy K. Fagan, Samuel T. Olaiya, David N. Tornberg. (2007) Cost Associated With Being Overweight and With Obesity, High Alcohol Consumption, and Tobacco Use Within the Military Health System's TRICARE Prime–Enrolled Population. American Journal of Health Promotion 22, 120-139
CrossRef63
Amit Bhargava, M.E. Greiss. (2007) Effects of smoking in foot and ankle surgery—An awareness survey of members of the British Orthopaedic Foot & Ankle Society. The Foot 17, 132-135
CrossRef64
Gretchen A. Harwood, Pamela Salsberry, Amy K. Ferketich, Mary Ellen Wewers. (2007) Cigarette Smoking, Socioeconomic Status, and Psychosocial Factors: Examining a Conceptual Framework. Public Health Nursing 24:10.1111/phn.2007.24.issue-4, 361-371
CrossRef65
Sebastian E. Baumeister, Anja Schumann, Christian Meyer, Ulrich John, Henry Völzke, Dietrich Alte. (2007) Effects of smoking cessation on health care use: Is elevated risk of hospitalization among former smokers attributable to smoking-related morbidity?. Drug and Alcohol Dependence 88, 197-203
CrossRef66
Pieter H. M. van Baal, Talitha L. Feenstra, Rudolf T. Hoogenveen, G. Ardine de Wit, Werner B. F. Brouwer. (2007) Unrelated medical care in life years gained and the cost utility of primary prevention: in search of a ‘perfect’ cost–utility ratio. Health Economics 16:10.1002/hec.v16:4, 421-433
CrossRef67
Ronald M. Davis, Melanie Wakefield, Amanda Amos, Prakash C. Gupta. (2007) The Hitchhiker's Guide to Tobacco Control: A Global Assessment of Harms, Remedies, and Controversies. Annual Review of Public Health 28, 171-194
CrossRef68
Kenneth C. Jackson, Robert Nahoopii, Qayyim Said, Riad Dirani, Diana Brixner. (2007) An Employer-Based Cost-Benefit Analysis of a Novel Pharmacotherapy Agent for Smoking Cessation. Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine 49, 453-460
CrossRef69
Naoki Shimada, Michiko Miyakawa, Masayuki Tatemichi, Yumi Otahara, Takashi Izuno, Minoru Sugita. (2007) Comparing medical expenditures of smokers and nonsmokers in studies using direct methodology in Japan. The Keio Journal of Medicine 56, 53-60
CrossRef70
Kim Rose Olsen, Lone Bilde, Henrik Hauschildt Juhl, Niels Them Kjaer, Holger Mosbech, Torben Evald, Mette Rasmussen, Helle Hiladakis. (2006) Cost-effectiveness of the Danish smoking cessation interventions. The European Journal of Health Economics 7, 255-264
CrossRef71
Janneke Kaper, Edwin J Wagena, Constant P van Schayck, Johan L Severens. (2006) Encouraging Smokers to Quit. PharmacoEconomics 24, 453-464
CrossRef72
Sarah Ross, David Williams. (2005) Bupropion: risks and benefits. Expert Opinion on Drug Safety 4:10.1517/eds.2005.4.issue-6, 995-1003
CrossRef73
Pia Johansson, Per Tillgren, Karin Guldbrandsson, Lars Lindholm. (2005) A model for cost‐effectiveness analyses of smoking cessation interventions applied to a Quit‐and‐Win contest for mothers of small children. Scandinavian Journal of Public Health 33, 343-352
CrossRef74
Robert C Kaplan, Clyde Schechter. (2005) Cost implications of new evidence on prevention of cardiovascular disease. Expert Review of Pharmacoeconomics & Outcomes Research 5, 183-192
CrossRef75
Athanasios Gaitatzis, Kevin Carroll, Azeem Majeed, Josemir W. Sander. (2004) The Epidemiology of the Comorbidity of Epilepsy in the General Population. Epilepsia 45:10.1111/epi.2004.45.issue-12, 1613-1622
CrossRef76
Onyebuchi A Arah. (2004) Catastrophic failures of public health. The Lancet 363, 1551-1552
CrossRef77
Donald D McGeary, Tom G Mayer, Robert J Gatchel, Christopher Anagnostis. (2004) Smoking status and psychosocioeconomic outcomes of functional restoration in patients with chronic spinal disability. The Spine Journal 4, 170-175
CrossRef78
Young Whan Kim. (2004) The Socioeconomic Effects of Tobacco Smoking. Journal of the Korean Medical Association 47, 209
CrossRef79
Wayne N. Burton, Chin-Yu Chen, Daniel J. Conti, Alyssa B. Schultz, Dee W. Edington. (2003) Measuring the Relationship Between Employees’ Health Risk Factors and Corporate Pharmaceutical Expenditures. Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine 45, 793-802
CrossRef80
Marianne L.L. van Genugten, Rudolf T. Hoogenveen, Ina Mulder, Henriëtte A. Smit, Jan Jansen, Augustinus E.M. de Hollander. (2003) Future Burden and Costs of Smoking-Related Disease in the Netherlands: A Dynamic Modeling Approach. Value in Health 6, 494-499
CrossRef81
Paul A. Fishman, Zeba M. Khan, Ella E. Thompson, Susan J. Curry. (2003) Health Care Costs among Smokers, Former Smokers, and Never Smokers in an HMO. Health Services Research 38:10.1111/hesr.2003.38.issue-2, 733-749
CrossRef82
Stephan R. Orth, Eberhard Ritz. (2002) Adverse effect of smoking on renal function in the general population: Are men at higher risk?. American Journal of Kidney Diseases 40, 864-866
CrossRef83
Monica Ortendahl, James F Fries. (2002) Time-related issues with application to health gains and losses. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 55, 843-848
CrossRef84
Truls Østbye, Donald Hugh Taylor, Sang-Hyuk Jung. (2002) A Longitudinal Study of the Effects of Tobacco Smoking and Other Modifiable Risk Factors on Ill Health in Middle-Aged and Old Americans. Preventive Medicine 34, 334-345
CrossRef85
Lynn H. Hoffman, David R. Strutton, Paul E. Stang, Susan L. Hogue. (2002) Impact of smoking on respiratory illness—related outpatient visits among 50- to 75-year-olds in the United States. Clinical Therapeutics 24, 317-324
CrossRef86
Martin L. Brown, Kevin B. Knopf, Stephen E. Marcus, Joseph Lipscomb. . Economic Analysis and Clinical Research. 2002:, 275-304.
CrossRef87
Raymond Niaura, David B. Abrams. (2002) Smoking cessation: Progress, priorities, and prospectus.. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 70, 494-509
CrossRef88
TALITHA L. FEENSTRA, MARIANNE L. L. van GENUGTEN, RUDOLF T. HOOGENVEEN, EMIEL F. WOUTERS, MAUREEN P. M. H. RUTTEN-van MÖLKEN. (2001) The Impact of Aging and Smoking on the Future Burden of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease. American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine 164, 590-596
CrossRef89
Morten Frisch, Christoffer Johansen, Lene Mellemkjær, Eric A. Engels, Gloria Gridley, Robert J. Biggar, Jørgen H. Olsen. (2001) Appendectomy and subsequent risk of inflammatory bowel diseases. Surgery 130, 36-43
CrossRef90
R. M. Kaplan, C. F. Ake, S. L. Emery, A. M. Navarro. (2001) Simulated effect of tobacco tax variation on population health in California. American Journal of Public Health 91, 239-244
CrossRef91
SEANA VALENTINE SHIFFRIN. (2000) Paternalism, Unconscionability Doctrine, and Accommodation. Philosophy <html_ent glyph="@amp;" ascii="&"/> Public Affairs 29:10.1111/papa.2000.29.issue-3, 205-250
CrossRef92
Bruce N. Leistikow, Daniel C. Martin, Christina E. Milano. (2000) Estimates of Smoking-Attributable Deaths at Ages 15–54, Motherless or Fatherless Youths, and Resulting Social Security Costs in the United States in 1994. Preventive Medicine 30, 353-360
CrossRef93
Bruce N. Leistikow. (2000) THE HUMAN AND FINANCIAL COSTS OF SMOKING. Clinics in Chest Medicine 21, 189-197
CrossRef94
K. Nielsen, M.C. Fiore. (2000) Cost-Benefit Analysis of Sustained-Release Bupropion, Nicotine Patch, or Both for Smoking Cessation. Preventive Medicine 30, 209-216
CrossRef95
Catherine A. Sarkisian MD, Honghu Liu, Peter R. Gutierrez, Dana G. Seeley, Steven R. Cummings, Carol M. Mangione MD. (2000) Modifiable Risk Factors Predict Functional Decline Among Older Women: A Prospectively Validated Clinical Prediction Tool. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society 48:10.1111/jgs.2000.48.issue-2, 170-178
CrossRef96
Frank J. Chaloupka, Kenneth E. Warner. . Chapter 29 The economics of smoking. 2000:, 1539-1627.
CrossRef97
William Rakowski, Melissa A. Clark, Beverly Ehrich. (1999) Smoking and Cancer Screening for Women Ages 42–75: Associations in the 1990–1994 National Health Interview Surveys. Preventive Medicine 29, 487-495
CrossRef98
M.P.M.H. Rutten-van Mölken, M.J. Postma, M.A. Joore, M.L.L. Van Genugten, R. Leidl, J.C. Jager. (1999) Current and future medical costs of asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease in the Netherlands. Respiratory Medicine 93, 779-787
CrossRef99
D B Allison, R Zannolli, K M Narayan. (1999) The direct health care costs of obesity in the United States.. American Journal of Public Health 89, 1194-1199
CrossRef100
Linda Sarna. (1999) Prevention: Tobacco control and cancer nursing. Cancer Nursing 22, 21-28
CrossRef101
S Suranovic. (1999) An economic theory of cigarette addiction. Journal of Health Economics 18, 1-29
CrossRef102
K Lynn Gates. (1998) From Scientific Evidence to Child Health Policy. Pediatric Annals 27, 554-559
CrossRef103
Anne M. Wolf. (1998) What Is the Economic Case for Treating Obesity?. Obesity Research 6, 2S-7S
CrossRef104
(1998) The Health Care Costs of Smoking. New England Journal of Medicine 338:7, 470-472
Free Full Text
- Letters
