Last data update: May 13, 2024. (Total: 46773 publications since 2009)
Records 1-3 (of 3 Records) |
Query Trace: Contreary K[original query] |
---|
Economic impact of tobacco price increases through taxation: a Community Guide systematic review
Contreary KA , Chattopadhyay SK , Hopkins DP , Chaloupka FJ , Forster JL , Grimshaw V , Holmes CB , Goetzel RZ , Fielding JE . Am J Prev Med 2015 49 (5) 800-808 CONTEXT: Tobacco use is a leading cause of preventable death in the U.S. and around the world. Increasing tobacco price through higher taxes is an effective intervention both to reduce tobacco use in the population and generate government revenues. The goal of this paper is to review evidence on the economic impact of tobacco price increases through taxation with a focus on the likely healthcare cost savings and improvements in employee productivity. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: The search covered studies published in English from January 2000 to July 2012 and included evaluations of national, state, and local policies to increase the price of any type of tobacco product by raising taxes in high-income countries. Economic review methods developed for The Guide to Community Preventive Services were used to screen and abstract included studies. Economic impact estimates were standardized to summarize the available evidence. Analyses were conducted in 2012. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: The review included eight modeling studies, with seven providing estimates of the impact on healthcare costs and three providing estimates of the value of productivity gains. Only one study provided an estimate of intervention costs. The economic merit of tobacco product price increases through taxation was determined from the overall body of evidence on per capita annual cost savings from a conservative 20% price increase. CONCLUSIONS: The evidence indicates that interventions that raise the unit price of tobacco products through taxes generate substantial healthcare cost savings and can generate additional gains from improved productivity in the workplace. |
Impact of increasing coverage for select smoking cessation therapies with no out-of-pocket cost among the Medicaid population in Alabama, Georgia, and Maine
Athar H , Chen ZA , Contreary K , Xu X , Dube SR , Chang MH . J Public Health Manag Pract 2015 22 (1) 40-7 Prevalence of smoking is particularly high among individuals with low socioeconomic status and who may be receiving Medicaid benefits. This study evaluates the public health and economic impact of providing coverage for nicotine replacement therapy with no out-of-pocket cost to the adult Medicaid population in Alabama, Georgia, and Maine, in 2012. We estimated the increase in the number of quitters and the savings in Medicaid medical expenditures associated with expanding Medicaid coverage of nicotine replacement therapy to the entire adult Medicaid population in the 3 states. With an expansion of Medicaid coverage of nicotine replacement therapy from only pregnant women to all adult Medicaid enrollees, the state of Alabama might expect 1873 to 2810 additional quitters ($526,203 and $789,305 in savings of annual Medicaid expenditures from both federal and state funds), Georgia 2911 to 4367 additional quits ($1,455,606 and $2,183,409 savings), and Maine 1511 to 2267 additional quits in ($431,709 and $647,564 savings). The expansion of coverage for smoking cessation therapy with no out-of-pocket cost could reduce Medicaid expenditures in all 3 states. |
A review of tools to calculate the cost of health conditions and common health risk factors
Contreary K , Chen ZA , Chattopadhyay S , Chang MH . J Public Health Manag Pract 2015 21 (6) E1-E10 A cost calculator is a software tool that calculates the monetary cost associated with a disease, condition, or risk factor within a population group. We attempted to identify all available public health cost calculators using adapted systematic review methodology and performed a qualitative and a quantitative review on each included calculator. We first abstracted each calculator to ascertain its subject, target user, methodology, and output. We also developed a novel set of scoring criteria and evaluated each calculator for transparency and customizability. We found a wide variety of existing calculators in terms of subject area, target user, and analytic methodology. Furthermore, using our rating criteria, we found large differences in transparency with respect to the assumptions and parameter inputs driving results. |
- Page last reviewed:Feb 1, 2024
- Page last updated:May 13, 2024
- Content source:
- Powered by CDC PHGKB Infrastructure