States' collective spending on tobacco control programs (shown in green) between 1991 and 2007 compared to tax revenues from tobacco sales (blue) and revenue from the Tobacco Master Settlement Agreement (red). A new study by San Francisco State University economist Sudip Chattopadhyay shows that states could save 14-20 times more than the cost of implementing tobacco control programs, reaping savings in medical costs, Medicaid payments and lost productivity by workers. Contemporary Economic Policy
Moving funding from tobacco control to other spending areas will cost money because tobacco control saves money, according to a new report.
Funding tobacco control programs at recommended levels could save 14 to 20 times more than the cost of implementing the programs, according to researchers Sudip Chattopadhyay of the San Francisco State University and David R. Pieper at University of California, Berkeley.
The report comes at a time when the Nebraska Legislature is evaluating the sustainability of the Nebraska Health Care Cash fund and looking at the programs it funds, which includes Nebraska's program to reduce tobacco use and costs for Medicaid coverage of smoking cessation.
MedicalExpress.com reports:
If these programs were funded at the levels recommended by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), states could save an astonishing 14-20 times more than the cost of implementing the programs. The costs of smoking are felt by the states, mostly through medical costs, Medicaid payments and lost productivity by workers.
'The evidence is clear that state tobacco control programs have a "sustained and steadily increasing long-run impact" on the demand for cigarettes, Chattopadhyay and his colleague David R. Pieper at University of California, Berkeley write in a paper published online today in the journal Contemporary Economic Policy. Chattopadhyay is the chair of the Economics Department and professor of economics,' according to a news release.
"Almost all states are facing financial crisis, and they are really diverting their funds," the researchers said in the statement. "If tobacco control funding was restored, states "would save money in terms of reduced Medicaid, and reduced medical and productivity costs -- costs that are only going to go up."
UPI.com reports:
The study, published in the journal Contemporary Economic Policy, said the costs of smoking are felt by the states, mostly through medical costs, Medicaid payments and lost productivity by workers. The researchers used data from 1991 to 2007, when states paid for the tobacco control programs with the help of the tobacco taxes, public and private initiatives and funds from the Tobacco Master Settlement Agreement between the nation's four largest tobacco companies and 46 states.
State tobacco control programs have a "sustained and steadily increasing long-run impact" on the demand for cigarettes, Chattopadhyay and Pieper said, but in tough economic times, many states have turned to tobacco control funds and taxes to help balance state budgets.
Funding has dropped since 2002 and states, on average, spent 17 percent of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's recommended levels in 2010 for smoking cessation, state smoke-free laws, regulating tobacco products and advertising.
Funding tobacco control programs at recommended levels could save 14 to 20 times more than the cost of implementing the programs, according to researchers Sudip Chattopadhyay of the San Francisco State University and David R. Pieper at University of California, Berkeley.
The report comes at a time when the Nebraska Legislature is evaluating the sustainability of the Nebraska Health Care Cash fund and looking at the programs it funds, which includes Nebraska's program to reduce tobacco use and costs for Medicaid coverage of smoking cessation.
MedicalExpress.com reports:
If these programs were funded at the levels recommended by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), states could save an astonishing 14-20 times more than the cost of implementing the programs. The costs of smoking are felt by the states, mostly through medical costs, Medicaid payments and lost productivity by workers.
'The evidence is clear that state tobacco control programs have a "sustained and steadily increasing long-run impact" on the demand for cigarettes, Chattopadhyay and his colleague David R. Pieper at University of California, Berkeley write in a paper published online today in the journal Contemporary Economic Policy. Chattopadhyay is the chair of the Economics Department and professor of economics,' according to a news release.
"Almost all states are facing financial crisis, and they are really diverting their funds," the researchers said in the statement. "If tobacco control funding was restored, states "would save money in terms of reduced Medicaid, and reduced medical and productivity costs -- costs that are only going to go up."
UPI.com reports:
The study, published in the journal Contemporary Economic Policy, said the costs of smoking are felt by the states, mostly through medical costs, Medicaid payments and lost productivity by workers. The researchers used data from 1991 to 2007, when states paid for the tobacco control programs with the help of the tobacco taxes, public and private initiatives and funds from the Tobacco Master Settlement Agreement between the nation's four largest tobacco companies and 46 states.
State tobacco control programs have a "sustained and steadily increasing long-run impact" on the demand for cigarettes, Chattopadhyay and Pieper said, but in tough economic times, many states have turned to tobacco control funds and taxes to help balance state budgets.
Funding has dropped since 2002 and states, on average, spent 17 percent of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's recommended levels in 2010 for smoking cessation, state smoke-free laws, regulating tobacco products and advertising.
RSS Feed