Dataset Information

Healthcare costs around the time of smoking cessation.

ABSTRACT:

Background

The Affordable Care Act mandates that new insurance plans cover smoking-cessation therapy without cost-sharing. Previous cost difference estimates, which show a spike around the time of cessation, suggest premiums might rise as a result of covering these services.

Purpose

The goal of the study was to test (1) whether individuals in an RCT of pharmacotherapy and counseling for smoking cessation differed in their healthcare costs around the cessation period, and (2) whether the healthcare costs of those in the trial who successfully quit were different from a matched sample of smokers in the community.

Methods

Generalized linear regression models were used to analyze healthcare cost data on individuals enrolled in a comparative effectiveness trial of cessation therapies between October 2005 and May 2007 (1346 total participants; 1338 with requisite data for further analysis). Cost differences for the period preceding and subsequent to the cessation attempt were assessed by trial participants' 12-month sustained quit status. Healthcare cost differences between sustained quitters and a sample of community-dwelling smokers, matched to these quitters on the basis of health services use around the time trial participant enrolled and by demographics, were also examined. Data were analyzed in 2011.

Results

All three groups had a spike in cost associated with the index clinic visit. Regression results revealed little difference in healthcare costs by quit status for trial participants until the sixth quarter post-quit. By that quarter, continuous sustained quitters cost $541 (p<0.001) less than continuing smokers. Continuous sustained quitters cost less than their matched community- dwelling smokers in almost every quarter observed. The cost difference ranged from $270 (p=0.01) during the quarter of quit, to $490 (p<0.01) in the 6th quarter after quitting.

Conclusions

The inclusion of smoking-cessation therapy does not appear to raise short-term healthcare costs. By the sixth quarter post-quit, sustained quitters were less costly than trial participants who continued smoking.

SUBMITTER: Hockenberry JM

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3358703 | biostudies-literature | 2012 Jun

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundThe potential economic benefit in terms of reduced healthcare costs when patients quit smoking after hospital discharge has not been directly measured. The aim of this study was to compare the costs for hospital admission and six-month follow-up for a cohort of patients who self-reported abstinence from cigarettes at 6 months after hospital discharge and a matched group of patients who reported continued smoking.Materials and methodsThis was a secondary analysis of a recent population-based clinical trial cohort (ClinicalTrials.gov ID: NCT01575145), with cohort membership determined by self-reported 7 day point prevalence abstinence at 6 months after the index hospital discharge. Participants were admitted to Mayo Clinic Hospital, Rochester, MN, between May 5, 2012 and August 10, 2014 for any indication and lived in the areas covered by postal codes included in Olmsted County, MN. Propensity score matching was used to control for differences between groups other than smoking status, and any residual imbalance was adjusted through generalized linear model with gamma distribution for cost and log-link transformation.ResultsOf 600 patients enrolled in the clinical trial, 144 could be contacted and self-reported 7 day point prevalence abstinence at 6 months after hospital discharge. Of these patients, 99 were successfully matched for this analysis. The cost for the index hospitalization was significantly greater in patients who abstained compared to those that did not abstain (mean difference of $3042, higher for abstainers, 95% CI $170 to $5913, P = 0.038). However, there was no difference between mean 6-month follow-up costs, number of inpatient hospitalizations, or number of emergency room visits for abstainers versus non-abstainers.ConclusionThere was no evidence to support the hypothesis that abstinence at 6 months after hospital discharge is associated with a decrease in health care costs or utilization over the first 6 months after hospital discharge.

Project description:Background and aimsModelling return on investment (ROI) from smoking cessation interventions requires estimates of their costs and benefits. This paper describes a standardized method developed to source both economic costs of tobacco smoking and costs of implementing cessation interventions for a Europe-wide ROI model [European study on Quantifying Utility of Investment in Protection from Tobacco model (EQUIPTMOD)].DesignFocused search of administrative and published data. A standardized checklist was developed in order to ensure consistency in methods of data collection.Setting and participantsAdult population (15+ years) in Hungary, Netherlands, Germany, Spain and England. For passive smoking-related costs, child population (0-15 years) was also included.MeasurementsCosts of treating smoking-attributable diseases; productivity losses due to smoking-attributable absenteeism; and costs of implementing smoking cessation interventions.FindingsAnnual costs (per case) of treating smoking attributable lung cancer were between €5074 (Hungary) and €52 106 (Germany); coronary heart disease between €1521 (Spain) and €3955 (Netherlands); chronic obstructive pulmonary disease between €1280 (England) and €4199 (Spain); stroke between €1829 (Hungary) and €14 880 (Netherlands). Costs (per recipient) of smoking cessation medications were estimated to be: for standard duration of varenicline between €225 (England) and €465 (Hungary); for bupropion between €25 (Hungary) and €220 (Germany). Costs (per recipient) of providing behavioural support were also wide-ranging: one-to-one behavioural support between €34 (Hungary) and €474 (Netherlands); and group-based behavioural support between €12 (Hungary) and €257 (Germany). The costs (per recipient) of delivering brief physician advice were: €24 (England); €9 (Germany); €4 (Hungary); €33 (Netherlands); and €27 (Spain).ConclusionsCosts of treating smoking-attributable diseases as well as the costs of implementing smoking cessation interventions vary substantially across Hungary, Netherlands, Germany, Spain and England. Estimates for the costs of these diseases and interventions can contribute to return on investment estimates in support of national or regional policy decisions.

Project description:BackgroundSmoking is the main risk factor for most of the leading causes of death. Cessation is the single most important step that smokers can take to improve their health. With the aim of informing policy makers about decisions on future tobacco control strategies, we estimated time and age trends in smoking cessation in Europe between 1980 and 2010.MethodsData on the smoking history of 50,228 lifetime smokers from 17 European countries were obtained from six large population-based studies included in the Ageing Lungs in European Cohorts (ALEC) consortium. Smoking cessation rates were assessed retrospectively, and age trends were estimated for three decades (1980-1989, 1990-1999, 2000-2010). The analyses were stratified by sex and region (North, East, South, West Europe).ResultsOverall, 21,735 subjects (43.3%) quit smoking over a total time-at-risk of 803,031 years. Cessation rates increased between 1980 and 2010 in young adults (16-40 years), especially females, from all the regions, and in older adults (41-60 years) from North Europe, while they were stable in older adults from East, South and West Europe. In the 2000s, the cessation rates for men and women combined were highest in North Europe (49.9 per 1,000/year) compared to the other regions (range: 26.5-32.7 per 1,000/year). A sharp peak in rates was observed for women around the age of 30, possibly as a consequence of pregnancy-related smoking cessation. In most regions, subjects who started smoking before the age of 16 were less likely to quit than those who started later.ConclusionsOur findings suggest an increasing awareness on the detrimental effects of smoking across Europe. However, East, South and West European countries are lagging behind North Europe, suggesting the need to intensify tobacco control strategies in these regions. Additional efforts should be made to keep young adolescents away from taking up smoking, as early initiation could make quitting more challenging during later life.

Project description:IntroductionBehavioral smoking cessation programs are an effective tool for quitting smoking, yet remain underused by smokers. Proactive referral may be a promising strategy for healthcare staff to connect smokers to such programs.Aims and methodsThe aim of this study was to gain insight into the effectiveness and implementability of proactive referral of smokers to behavioral smoking cessation programs by healthcare staff. A systematic review was conducted using five databases. Effectiveness of proactive referral was defined as the proportion of referred smokers who enrolled in a behavioral smoking cessation program. To determine the implementability of proactive referral, measures of feasibility, acceptability, adoption, and referral rates were included as variables of interest. Out of 6686 screened records, 34 articles were eligible for review. A narrative synthesis approach was used.ResultsThe majority of the included studies investigated proactive referral within an e-referral system, combined with one or more intervention components that enhance implementation. Overall, proactive referral resulted in higher enrollment rates, especially among low-income smokers, and was found to be feasible, adoptable, and acceptable to healthcare staff. E-referral systems performed better in terms of implementability compared to fax referral systems. About half of the studies were of good quality. Many studies lacked information which resulted in lower-quality scores.ConclusionsThe literature provides evidence that the proactive referral of smokers to behavioral smoking cessation programs by healthcare staff is effective and implementable across different settings. Based on the results, e-referral systems may be preferable to fax referral systems in terms of implementability.ImplicationsThis systematic review demonstrated that proactive referral has the potential to increase the reach of smoking cessation programs and reduce inequalities in access to such programs. In the selection and implementation of behavioral smoking cessation programs with a proactive referral component, stakeholders (eg, policymakers, healthcare funders, and healthcare professionals) may benefit from taking different aspects of proactive referral systems into account, such as the type of proactive referral system used and additional strategies which can enhance the implementability of the system.