Tuesday
Oct072008
Cost of smoking has "soared"
Tuesday, October 7, 2008 Smoking costs to the the NHS have "soared" from £1.7 billion to £2.7 billion a year in the past decade according to "brand new figures" included in a report being launched today by ASH. The report, Beyond Smoking Kills, calls for a number of tobacco control measures after new research "revealed" that tobacco branding sends misleading messages to young people. The report will be presented to minister of state for public health Dawn Primarolo today.
The BBC covers the story - and Forest's response - HERE.
Reader Comments (7)
I see that they have mentioned TWICE that smokers pay £9bn in tax. I wonder if they will take notice?
I have looked At the ASH report. Firstly, spending on the NHS increased by 50%, from 60 billion to 90 billion, between 1997 and 2007; so one would expect a proportionate increase in the amount spent on so-called smoking related diseases. This would bring the expected amount spent up to 2.55 billion.
Second, ASH's methodology is flawed. It compares current and ex smokers Health Service use to that of never smokers. Since smokers are over represented among the poor, this confounds the health effects from smoking with those from poverty, eg. obesity, poor diet, alcohol abuse, damp accommodation, stress, etc. I'd be surprised if ASH didn't know what it was doing here.
Third, the report is only 2 pages and it is impossible to figure out exactly how ASH arrived at its figures. However, the diseases of extreme old age, which require long term nursing care, and which if ASH's claims of lowered life-expectancy are to be believed affect never smokers far more than smokers, seem to have been ignored. I read recently that, soon, one in two 85 year old Americans will suffer from dementia. Long term care must surely now be a huge cost to either local authorities or the NHS.
Fourthly, these figures seem to contradict everthing else I have read about the costs of health ie. that the lifelong cost of treating a healthy person is far greater than that of a smoker.
Finally, state pensions are paid for by the tax payer. I have heard ASH claim ridiculous figures for reduced life expectancy from smoking; but suppose we assume something sensible, like 5 years. At at least £6k a year incuding various benefits and admin. costs, this adds up to £30k in saved pension. Spread over a 40 year year smoking career, this extra £750 per year constitutes 50% of the average £1500 per year spent by the NHS on each man, woman and child in the UK.
I'd be interested to know fmore details of ASH's calculations if anybody manages to get hold of them.
jon, they perhaps haven't included the cost of long term care because if people have even modest assets they have to pay for it themselves. Care costs range from £24K-£50K a year and are set to double in the next twenty years, as is the predicted percentage of those ending their lives in care (at the moment about 25% of men and 30% of women). I, too, have read that 50% of over 85 year olds suffer from alzheimers (in the UK). If smoking is significantly more prevalent among the poor, and if you define poverty as owning assets of less than £22K, then the care of the poor in old age is state-funded. If ASH had included the cost of long term care I'm sure that they'd perversely argue poor = smoking; poor = state funding of care therefore smoking = state funding of care. If the poor die younger, never reaching the local nursing home, it's not just, as ASH would have everyone believe, because they're smokers but because of all the other factors which you highlighted.
I've yet to meet anyone who can produce a compelling argument for giving up smoking in order to spend an extra three years in a care home.
£9 Billion in tax! That covers that then, the tax covers the cost, and then some £6.3 billion left over to play with.
About time that governments began to pay attention to the number of deaths caused by road traffic accidents and the number of cyclist killed by large unnecessary enormous cars that seem to populate our roads, pavements and anywhere they can these days.
Are they just trying to take our minds off the current financial mess that we are in by focusing on this?
Some thoughts.
1 I think the costs were a distraction. The point was made that the number of smokers declined from 12 million to 9 million. The point here is that there are fewer people smoking (you are a minority that is getting smaller) and to add insult, you cost more.
Q Whatever happened to the cost savings and health benefits from all those who previously quit?
2 The 'Beyond smoking kills' is a strategy document. More than that it seems to be a hardly disguised marketing action plan for NRT.
Q Why the marketing of NRT in this way?
3 Apart from NRT there are several mentions of health inequalities, suggesting tobacco was the largest factor in health inequality. If only smoking were eliminated we would all be happy and healthy. This suggestion seems to partly conflict with the recent WHO report:-
2005 background report - Commission on Social Determinants of Health - Scoial Determinants Backgrounder
Quote....
[Sweden] The policy is based on 11 objectives reflecting the most important determinants of health:
1 Participation and influence in society
2 Economic and social security
3 Secure and favourable conditions during childhood and adolescence
4 Healthier working life
5 Healthy and safe environments and products
6 Health and medical care that more actively promotes good health
7 Effective protection against communicable diseases
8 Safe sexuality and good reproductive health
9 Increased physical activity
10 Good eating habits and safe food
11 Reduced use of tobacco and alcohol, a society free from illicit drugs and a reduction in the harmful effects of excessive gambling
The WHO suggest Sweden's approach as a model. Note tobacco use reduction is bottom of the list.
Q Is the 'Beyond Smoking Kills' document exagerating the role tobacco plays in health inequality?
west
----
Simon,
Mark Wadsworth has a far more acute dissection of the whole situation here:
http://markwadsworth.blogspot.com/2008/10/smoking-costs-nhs-billions.html
It's worth the trip.
Does anyone know how many people who need to be in a care home are having difficulties in finding a place that has smoking facilities?