You are here

Article Text

Article menu
Download PDFPDF
Original research
Return on investment of Canadian tobacco control policies implemented between 2001 and 2016
  1. Jean-Eric Tarride1,2,3,
  2. Gord Blackhouse1,2,3,
  3. G. Emmanuel Guindon1,2,
  4. Michael O Chaiton4,5,6,
  5. Lynn Planinac4,6,
  6. Robert Schwartz4,5,6
  1. 1 Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact, Faculty of Health Sciences, McMaster University Faculty of Health Sciences, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
  2. 2 Center for Health Economics and Policy Analysis (CHEPA), McMaster University Faculty of Health Sciences, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
  3. 3 Programs for Assessment of Technologies in Health, St. Joseph's Healthcare Hamilton, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
  4. 4 Dalla Lana School of Public Health, Institute for Health Policy, Management and Evaluation, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
  5. 5 Institute for Mental Health Policy Research, Center for Addiction and Mental Health (CAMH), Toronto, Ontario, Canada
  6. 6 Ontario Tobacco Research Unit, Dalla Lana School of Public Health, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
  1. Correspondence to Dr Jean-Eric Tarride, McMaster University Faculty of Health Sciences, Hamilton L8S 4L8, ON, Canada; tarride{at}mcmaster.ca

Abstract

Objectives To determine the return on investment (ROI) associated with tobacco control policies implemented between 2001 and 2016 in Canada.

Methods Canadian expenditures on tobacco policies were collected from government sources. The economic benefits considered in our analyses (decrease in healthcare costs, productivity costs and monetised life years lost, as well as tax revenues) were based on the changes in smoking prevalence and attributable deaths derived from the SimSmoke simulation model for the period 2001–2016. The net economic benefit (monetised benefits minus expenditures) and ROI associated with these policies were determined from the government and societal perspectives. Sensitivity analyses were conducted to check the robustness of the result. Costs were expressed in 2019 Canadian dollars.

Results The total of provincial and federal expenditures associated with the implementation of tobacco control policies in Canada from 2001 through 2016 was estimated at $2.4 billion. Total economic benefits from these policies during that time were calculated at $49.2 billion from the government perspective and at $54.2 billion from the societal perspective. The corresponding ROIs were $19.8 and $21.9 for every dollar invested. Sensitivity analyses yielded ROI values ranging from $16.3 to $28.3 for every dollar invested depending on the analyses and perspective.

Conclusions This analysis has found that the costs to implement the Canadian tobacco policies between 2001 and 2016 were far outweighed by the monetised value associated with the benefits of these policies, making a powerful case for the investment in tobacco control policies.

  • economics
  • harm reduction
  • public policy

Data availability statement

Data sharing not applicable as no data sets generated and/or analysed for this study. No data are available. Our analysis did not use any data sets.

https://doi.org/10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2021-056473

Statistics from Altmetric.com

    Request Permissions

    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.

    Data availability statement

    Data sharing not applicable as no data sets generated and/or analysed for this study. No data are available. Our analysis did not use any data sets.

    View Full Text

    Footnotes

    • Twitter @michaelchaiton

    • Funding The study was funded by Health Canada (contract 4500389951).

    • Competing interests None declared.

    • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.

    • Supplemental material This content has been supplied by the author(s). It has not been vetted by BMJ Publishing Group Limited (BMJ) and may not have been peer-reviewed. Any opinions or recommendations discussed are solely those of the author(s) and are not endorsed by BMJ. BMJ disclaims all liability and responsibility arising from any reliance placed on the content. Where the content includes any translated material, BMJ does not warrant the accuracy and reliability of the translations (including but not limited to local regulations, clinical guidelines, terminology, drug names and drug dosages), and is not responsible for any error and/or omissions arising from translation and adaptation or otherwise.