Twenty-year health and economic impact of reducing cigarette use: Minnesota 1998–2017

Abstract

BackgroundAdult smoking prevalence in Minnesota fell from 21.8% in 1997 to 15.2% in 2016. This reduction improved heart and lung health, prevented cancers, extended life and reduced healthcare costs, but quantifying these benefits is difficult.Methods1.3 million individuals were simulated in a tobacco policy model to estimate the gains to Minnesotans from 1998 to 2017 in health, medical spending reductions and productivity gains due to reduced cigarette smoking. A constant prevalence scenario was created to simulate the tobacco harms that would have occurred had smoking prevalence stayed at 1997 levels. Those harms were compared with tobacco harms from a scenario of actual smoking prevalence in Minnesota from 1998 to 2017.ResultsThe simulation model predicts that reducing cigarette smoking from 1998 to 2017 has prevented 4560 cancers, 31 691 hospitalisations for cardiovascular disease and diabetes, 12 881 respiratory disease hospitalisations and 4118 smoking-attributable deaths. Minnesotans spent an estimated $2.7 billion less in medical care and gained $2.4 billion in paid and unpaid productivity, inflation adjusted to 2017 US$. In sensitivity analysis, medical care savings ranged from $1.7 to $3.6 billion.ConclusionsMinnesota’s investment in comprehensive tobacco control measures has driven down smoking rates, saved billions in medical care and productivity costs and prevented tobacco related diseases of its residents. The simulation method employed in this study can be adapted to other geographies and time periods to bring to light the invisible gains of tobacco control.

Gender Differences in Labour Losses Associated with Smoking-Related Mortality

“…The two previous studies were published more than a decade ago, so new evidence, such as that produced in this paper, was needed. Other literature on economic costs and productivity losses have been found in the literature, but none of those studies calculated the impact of labour losses, using deaths averted and YPPLLs [6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14]. Our results show that men continue to account for the greatest burden of premature deaths, YPPLLs and labour losses associated with smoking.…”

“…Some studies have quantified the economic cost that smoking imposes on society [6,7,8,9,10,11]. In fact, some of these papers have measured the economic impact of smoking reduction [11,12], or productivity losses caused by smoking [7,8,9,13] or both at the same time [6,10,14]. All papers concluded that investment in tobacco cessation interventions have led to reductions in smoking prevalence, savings in both healthcare and productivity costs as well as reductions in a high number of related diseases in the population.…”

The 20-year impact of tobacco price and tobacco control expenditure increases in Minnesota, 1998-2017

“…We previously estimated the health and economic gains that Minnesotans realized between 1998 and 2017 from reductions in tobacco prevalence during that period, without regard to the source of prevalence decline. [17] The ITCI + Price Scenario in the current study produced a lower adult prevalence in 2017 (11.6%) than was used to estimate the impact of all reductions in prevalence regardless of cause in the prior report (13.5%). This seemingly incongruent result may have several sources.…”

“…We simulated changes in policies using the HealthPartners Institute's ModelHealth TM : Tobacco MN-a microsimulation model. [17] The model simulates annual changes in cigarette smoking behavior over the lifetimes of individuals and estimates the health and economic consequences of cigarette smoking. The simulation model, data inputs, and policy parameters are described in S1 and S2 Supplements, including details on the use of databases and literature to PLOS ONE 20-year impact of tobacco price and tobacco control expenditure increases PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0230364 March 18, 2020 2 / 14…”

Health Behavior of Adolescent Smokers During Covid-19 Pandemic

“…Minnesotan (United States) investments in extensive tobacco control measures have slowed the smoking rate. It saved billions in medical care and productivity costs and prevented tobacco-related diseases [61]. Furthermore, it is not much different from the smoke-free housing policy which has the potential to reduce exposure to cigarette smoke for residents of multi-unit housing.…”