Introduction Taxing tobacco is one of the most effective ways to reduce smoking prevalence, mitigate its devastating consequential health harms and progress towards a tobacco-free society. This study modelled the health and economic impacts of increasing the existing cigarette tobacco duty escalator (TDE) in the UK from the current 2% above consumer price inflation to 5%.
Methods A two-stage modelling process was used. First, a non-linear multivariate regression model was fitted to cross-sectional smoking data, creating longitudinal projections from 2015 to 2035. Second, these projections were used to predict the future incidence, prevalence and cost of 17 smoking-related diseases using a Monte Carlo microsimulation approach. A sustained increase in the duty escalator was evaluated against a baseline of continuing historical smoking trends and the existing duty escalator.
Results A sustained increase in the TDE is projected to reduce adult smoking prevalence to 6% in 2035, from 10% in a baseline scenario. After increasing the TDE, only 65% of female and 60% of male would-be smokers would actually be smoking in 2035. The intervention is projected to avoid around 75 200 new cases of smoking-related diseases between 2015 and 2035. In 2035 alone, £49 m in National Health Service and social care costs and £192 m in societal premature mortality and morbidity costs are projected to be avoided.
Conclusion Increasing the UK TDE to 5% above inflation could effectively reduce smoking prevalence, prevent diseases and avoid healthcare costs. It would deliver substantial progress towards a tobacco-free society and should be implemented by the UK Government with urgency.
- end game
Statistics from Altmetric.com
Contributors All authors: involved in the design of the study. AKT, AJ, LR and MB: developed the model methodology, including development of algorithms and model assumptions. AKT, AB, AJ, LR and LW: provided information on the study methodology, data inputs and carried out the analysis of outputs. DH: wrote the introduction and discussion. AKT, DH, SH, LB and LW: contributed to manuscript revisions.
Funding This study was funded by Cancer Research UK (10.13039/501100000289).
Competing interests AKT and AB worked at the UK Health Forum when this research was under taken.
Patient consent Not obtained.
Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.
If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.