Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2012 Feb;102(2):e22-8.
doi: 10.2105/AJPH.2011.300506. Epub 2011 Dec 15.

Program, policy, and price interventions for tobacco control: quantifying the return on investment of a state tobacco control program

Julia A Dilley  1 , Jeffrey R Harris, Michael J Boysun, Terry R Reid
Affiliations

Program, policy, and price interventions for tobacco control: quantifying the return on investment of a state tobacco control program

Julia A Dilley et al. Am J Public Health. 2012 Feb.

Abstract

Objectives: We examined health effects associated with 3 tobacco control interventions in Washington State: a comprehensive state program, a state policy banning smoking in public places, and price increases.

Methods: We used linear regression models to predict changes in smoking prevalence and specific tobacco-related health conditions associated with the interventions. We estimated dollars saved over 10 years (2000-2009) by the value of hospitalizations prevented, discounting for national trends.

Results: Smoking declines in the state exceeded declines in the nation. Of the interventions, the state program had the most consistent and largest effect on trends for heart disease, cerebrovascular disease, respiratory disease, and cancer. Over 10 years, implementation of the program was associated with prevention of nearly 36,000 hospitalizations, at a value of about $1.5 billion. The return on investment for the state program was more than $5 to $1.

Conclusions: The combined program, policy, and price interventions resulted in reductions in smoking and related health effects, while saving money. Public health and other leaders should continue to invest in tobacco control, including comprehensive programs.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

FIGURE 1—
FIGURE 1—
Washington State and US adult smoking prevalence trends, 1990–2009.
FIGURE 2—
FIGURE 2—
Influence of tobacco control on trends for heart disease hospitalization, 1990–2008.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Office on Smoking and Health. Best Practices for Comprehensive Tobacco Control Programs—2007. Atlanta, GA: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; 2007
    1. Task Force on Community Preventive Services Strategies for exposure to environmental tobacco smoke, increasing tobacco-use cessation, and reducing initiation in communities and health-care systems. A report on recommendations of the Task Force on Community Preventive Services. MMWR Recomm Rep. 2000;49(RR-12):1–11 Available at: http://www.thecommunityguide.org/tobacco. Accessed October 27, 2010) - PubMed
    1. Fichtenberg CM, Glantz SA. Association of the California Tobacco Control Program with declines in cigarette consumption and mortality from heart disease. N Engl J Med. 2000;343(24):1772–1777 - PubMed
    1. Barnoya J, Glantz S. Association of the California tobacco control program with declines in lung cancer incidence. Cancer Causes Control. 2004;15(7):689–695 - PubMed
    1. Cowling DW, Yang J. Smoking-attributable cancer mortality in California, 1979–2005. Tob Control. 2010;19(suppl 1):i62–i67 - PMC - PubMed

MeSH terms

Substances

LinkOut - more resources