Tobacco Control

HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS REGISTER
[Advanced]

This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Web-only Methods Section
Right arrow Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this link to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Add article to my folders
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Max, W
Right arrow Articles by Miller, L
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Max, W
Right arrow Articles by Miller, L
Tobacco Control 2004;13:264-267
© 2004 BMJ Publishing Group Ltd


RESEARCH PAPER

The economic burden of smoking in California

W Max1, D P Rice1, H-Y Sung1, X Zhang2, L Miller3

1 Institute for Health & Aging, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, California, USA
2 Institute of Social Development and Public Policy, Beijing Normal University, Beijing, China
3 School of Social Welfare, University of California, Berkeley, Berkeley, California, USA

Correspondence to:
Professor Wendy Max
Institute for Health & Aging, University of California, San Francisco, 3333 California Street, Suite 340, San Francisco, CA 94118, USA; wmax{at}itsa.ucsf.edu

Objective: To develop estimates of the direct and indirect costs of smoking for California in 1999.

Methods: A prevalence based approach was used to estimate the annual costs of smoking. Econometric models were used to estimate the smoking attributable fraction (SAF) for direct costs (hospitalisations, ambulatory care, prescription drugs, home health care, and nursing home services) and indirect costs due to lost productivity from smoking related illness. The models controlled for socioeconomic factors and other risk behaviours. Epidemiological methods were used to estimate the SAF for indirect costs due to lost productivity from premature deaths. The SAFs were applied to total health care expenditures, days lost, and deaths to obtain smoking attributable total costs.

Results: In 1999, the total costs of smoking in California were $15.9 billion, $475 per resident, and $3331 per smoker. Direct costs were $8.6 billion (54% of the total), indirect costs due to lost productivity from illness were $1.5 billion (10%), and indirect costs due to premature deaths were $5.7 billion (36%). The cost of smoking was $9.4 billion for men and $6.3 billion for women. There were 43 137 deaths attributed to smoking, representing a total of 535 000 years of life lost. The value of life lost per death averaged $132 000, or 12.4 years.

Conclusions: California smoking related costs are high. The cost methodology presented is useful for other states and nations interested in estimating their costs of smoking. Cost estimates can be used to evaluate the level of cigarette taxes and other policies related to smoking.


Abbreviations: CDC, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; SAF, smoking attributable fraction

Keywords: costs; direct costs; indirect lost productivity; premature death




This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
Scand J Public HealthHome page
K. Bolin and B. Lindgren
Smoking, healthcare cost, and loss of productivity in Sweden 2001
Scand J Public Health, March 1, 2007; 35(2): 187 - 196.
[Abstract] [PDF]


Home page
Tobacco ControlHome page
H-Y Sung, L Wang, S Jin, T-W Hu, and Y Jiang
Economic burden of smoking in China, 2000
Tob. Control, June 1, 2006; 15(suppl_1): i5 - i11.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Int J EpidemiolHome page
M. Roosli, N. Kunzli, C. Braun-Fahrlander, and M. Egger
Years of life lost attributable to air pollution in Switzerland: dynamic exposure-response model
Int. J. Epidemiol., October 1, 2005; 34(5): 1029 - 1035.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]




HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS REGISTER
Terms and conditions relating to subscriptions purchased online  ¦  Website terms and conditions  ¦  Privacy policy
Copyright © 2004 by the BMJ Publishing Group Ltd.