Elsevier

Social Science & Medicine

Volume 72, Issue 2, January 2011, Pages 166-172
Social Science & Medicine

Effect of the Arizona tobacco control program on cigarette consumption and healthcare expenditures

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2010.11.015Get rights and content

Abstract

This research investigates the relationship between per capita tobacco control expenditures, cigarette consumption, and healthcare expenditures in the state of Arizona. Arizona’s tobacco control program, which was established in 1994, concentrates on youth uptake of smoking and avoids public policy and commentary on the tobacco industry. We use a cointegrating time series analysis using aggregate data on healthcare and tobacco control expenditures, cigarette consumption and prices and other data. We find there is a strong association between per capita healthcare expenditure and per capita cigarette consumption. In the long run, a marginal increase in annual cigarette consumption of one pack per capita increases per capita healthcare expenditure by $19.5 (SE $5.45) in Arizona. A cumulative increase of $1.00 in the difference between control state and Arizona per capita tobacco control expenditures increases the difference in cigarette consumption by 0.190 (SE 0.0780) packs per capita. Between 1996 and 2004, Arizona's tobacco control program was associated with a cumulative reduction in cigarette consumption of 200 million packs (95% CI 39.0 million packs, 364 million packs) worth $500 million (95% CI: $99 million, $896 million) in pre-tax cigarette sales to the tobacco industry. The cumulative healthcare savings was $2.33 billion (95% CI $0.37 billion, $5.00 billion) and the cumulative reduction in cigarette. Arizona’s tobacco control expenditures are associated with reduced cigarette consumption and healthcare expenditures, amounting to about 10 times the cost of the program through 2004. This return on investment, while large, was less than the more aggressive California program, which did not limit its focus to youth and included tobacco industry denomalization messages.

Research highlights

► Arizona's tobacco control program reduced cigarette consumption and healthcare expenditures. ► In its first 9 years it prevented about 200 million packs of cigarettes from being smoked. ► In its first 9 years it saved about $2.3 billion in healthcare costs, 10 times what the program cost. ► This return on investment was less than the more aggressive California program.

Introduction

Large scale tobacco control programs reduce cigarette consumption (Institute of Medicine, 2007) and tobacco-induced heart disease (Fichtenberg & Glantz, 2000) and cancer (Barnoya and Glantz, 2004, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2007a, Jemal et al., 2003). Rapidly increasing healthcare expenditures are a major problem in the United States and around the world. The California Tobacco Control Program was created in 1988 by voter initiative and implemented beginning in 1989 (Glantz & Balbach, 2000) and has been associated with significant reductions in smoking and direct healthcare expenditures, which, over the first 15 years of the program, totaled approximately 50 times what the program cost (Lightwood, Dinno, et al., 2008). Arizona voters established its tobacco control program in 1994, with implementation beginning in 1996 (Bialous and Glantz, 1999, Hendlin et al., 2008). There are substantial differences between the two programs. The California program focuses on adults, reinforces the nonsmoking norm, emphasizes policy change, and uses media focused on secondhand smoke and the manipulative behavior of the tobacco industry (Tobacco Control Section, 1998). The Arizona program concentrates on youth uptake of smoking and avoids public policy and commentary on the tobacco industry. This paper applies and extends our earlier California model (Lightwood, Dinno, et al., 2008) to Arizona to estimate the associations between per capita state tobacco control expenditures, cigarette consumption and healthcare expenditures in Arizona and compares the results to California.

Section snippets

Model

Classical time series regression techniques are not be appropriate for analysis of the relationship between aggregate tobacco control expenditures and healthcare costs because these classical techniques require that the parameters describing the underlying processes remain constant over time (ie, the processes are “stationary”). The underlying processes that determine state expenditures on tobacco control programs, smoking behavior, and healthcare costs change with time as does the tobacco

Cointegrating regressions (long run relationships) and ECMs

The data are integrated of order one, except for the proportion of the population that is elderly (A*, t), which may be integrated of order two. Regressions with mixed variables integrated of order one and two may be cointegrating, so Eq. (1) is an acceptable specification (Haldrup, 1997). Eqs. (1), (2) are cointegrating regressions with stationary residuals (Fig. 1). The explanatory value of the regressions is high (using R2 as a measure of fit) and all coefficients are highly significant, as

Discussion

These estimates for Arizona confirm earlier work for California (Lightwood, Dinno, et al. 2008) that large scale tobacco control programs are associated with substantial reductions in smoking and healthcare costs, despite the fact that implementation of the two programs has been quite different. Using a different state, the parameter estimates are very similar in the two analyses. The cointegrating regression coefficients for the effect of per capita cigarette consumption on per capita

Acknowledgments

This research was supported by NCI grant CA-61021. The funding agency played no role in the conduct of the research, preparation of the manuscript or decision to publish.

References (38)

  • A. Abadie et al.

    Synthetic control methods for comparative case studies: Estimating the effect of California’s Tobacco Control Program

    (2007)
  • J. Barnoya et al.

    Association of the California tobacco control program with declines in lung cancer incidence

    Cancer Causes Control

    (2004)
  • S.A. Bialous et al.

    A tobacco control policy making: United States: Tobacco control in Arizona, 1973–1997

    (1997)
  • A.S. Bialous et al.

    Arizona’s tobacco control initiative illustrates the need for continuing oversight by tobacco control advocates

    Tobacco Control

    (1999)
  • Bureau of Economic Analysis

    State annual personal income

    (2007)
  • Bureau of Labor Statistics

    Consumer price index – All urban consumers (current series)

    (2007)
  • S.P. Burke et al.

    Modelling non-stationary economic time series: A multivariate approach

    (2005)
  • California State Department of Finance

    California Almanac 2007: Consumer Price Index, Selected Areas

    (2007)
  • Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

    Best practices for comprehensive tobacco control programs–2007

    (2007)
  • Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

    Smoking and tobacco use, state tobacco activities tracking and evaluation (STATE) system

    (2007)
  • Department of Health and Human Services

    Health expenditures by state of provider, 1980–2004

    (2007)
  • W. Enders

    Applied econometric time series

    (2004)
  • R.F. Engle et al.

    Co-Integration and error correction: representation, estimation, and testing

    Econometrica

    (1987)
  • M.C. Farrelly et al.

    The impact of tobacco control program expenditures on aggregate cigarette sales: 1981–1998

    Journal of Health Economics

    (2001)
  • C.M. Fichtenberg et al.

    Association of the California tobacco control program with declines in cigarette consumption and mortality from heart disease

    New England Journal of Medicine

    (2000)
  • C.A. Gallet

    The efficacy of state-level antismoking laws: demand and supply considerations

    Journal of Economics and Finance

    (2004)
  • Giovino, G. (2009). Cigarette Smoking Prevalence and Policies in the 50 States: An Era of Change. National Conference...
  • S. Glantz et al.

    Tobacco war: Inside the California battles

    (2000)
  • W.H. Greene

    Econometric analysis

    (2000)
  • Cited by (26)

    • A systematic review of the cost-effectiveness of community and population interventions to reduce the modifiable risk factors for dementia

      2022, Maturitas
      Citation Excerpt :

      The simplest design, used in 12 studies [16,20,31–33,38,45,46,49,52,54,58], expressed the cost of the intervention per outcome measure achieved (e.g. cost per quitter, or cost per extra year of schooling). Six studies [17,23,50,51,53,56] performed return on investment (ROI) calculations without the need for modelling of long-term intervention benefits, either by performing the analysis long enough after the intervention took place to allow for direct measurement of the outcomes [17,23,50,51] (e.g. Lightwood et al. directly measured changes in health costs associated with changes to tobacco consumption over two decades [17,23]); or by using an outcome that was directly measurable as a result of the intervention (federal aid received due to extra enrolees) [56]. The remaining studies took the empirically observed changes due to the intervention and modelled the long-term effects, usually using pre-existing chronic disease models, or applying estimates from observational data about the various advantages associated with extra education (e.g. higher salaries).

    • The Minnesota SimSmoke Tobacco Control Policy Model of Smokeless Tobacco and Cigarette Use

      2019, American Journal of Preventive Medicine
      Citation Excerpt :

      Whereas early policies were implemented at the federal level, recent policies have mostly been implemented by states.3 Simulation models have been used to show the effect of state-level policies.4–11 As one of the more active tobacco control states, a previous SimSmoke7 policy simulation model for Minnesota attributed a 25% reduction in smoking prevalence to policies implemented between 1993 and 2011.

    View all citing articles on Scopus
    View full text