Dataset Information

Estimating the return on investment of the Bureau of Tobacco Free Florida tobacco control programme from 1999 to 2015.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

To assess the return on investment (ROI) of the Florida tobacco control programme, the Bureau of Tobacco Free Florida (BTFF), in terms of healthcare expenditure savings and mortality cost saved as a result of reduced mortality due to the programme from 1999 to 2015.

Methods

We use a synthetic control method to estimate the impact of the BTFF on smoking-attributable mortality, years of life lost (YLL), healthcare expenditures, and the economic value of premature mortality due to smoking in Florida from 1999 through 2015. We calculated an ROI for healthcare expenditures and for the value of life years saved.

Results

From 1999 to 2015, adult smoking prevalence in Florida averaged 0.98?percentage points lower than prevalence in the synthetic control states (19.6% vs 20.6%). The ROI over the period from 1999 to 2015 was 9.61 for healthcare expenditures and 112.44 for premature mortality. These ROIs suggest that for every US$1 of expenditure by BTFF, smoking-attributable healthcare expenditures decreased by almost US$11 and reductions in the economic costs associated with YLL due to smoking-attributable mortality totaled approximately US$113.

Conclusions

Our results suggest the BTFF resulted in fewer YLL, substantial healthcare cost savings and substantial savings in terms of mortality costs. The positive ROIs for healthcare expenditures and premature mortality suggest that the BTFF is a good investment of public funds.

SUBMITTER: Nonnemaker J

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7831704 | biostudies-literature | 2021 Jan

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Estimating the return on investment of the Bureau of Tobacco Free Florida tobacco control programme from 1999 to 2015.

Nonnemaker James J MacMonegle Anna J AJ Mann Nathan N Woodlea Robyn R Duke Jennifer J Porter Lauren L

BMJ open 20210122 1

<h4>Objective</h4>To assess the return on investment (ROI) of the Florida tobacco control programme, the Bureau of Tobacco Free Florida (BTFF), in terms of healthcare expenditure savings and mortality cost saved as a result of reduced mortality due to the programme from 1999 to 2015.<h4>Methods</h4>We use a synthetic control method to estimate the impact of the BTFF on smoking-attributable mortality, years of life lost (YLL), healthcare expenditures, and the economic value of premature mortality ...[more]

PMID: 33483438

Similar Datasets

Project description:Rheumatic Heart Disease (RHD) remains endemic in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) despite its virtual elimination in high-income countries. RHD Action was launched to amplify global efforts to control RHD in 2015 by World Heart Federation and Reach, with demonstration projects in Uganda and Tanzania, and support from Medtronic Foundation. The Small Grants Programme focuses on three domains: People and Communities, Medicines and Technologies, and Systems and Services. It is designed to support patient and community groups in promoting awareness, advocacy, and to build health workers' capacity to prevent and treat RHD in LMICs. Our study evaluates the impact and effectiveness of the RHD Action Small Grants Programme. Methods: We conducted a mixed method study that involved both quantitative and qualitative surveys, through phone interviews and online surveys amongst the grant beneficiaries, to assess the impact and effectiveness of the small grant programme. An invitation to complete an online survey, using a Google Forms format, was issued to Small Grant Project Directors and Co-Directors that received funding for projects between 2017 and 2019. The online survey requested basic project information using tick boxes, Likert scales, and short answer open-ended questions about successes and challenges faced by recipients. The questionnaire also addressed recipients' experience with the RHD Action Small Grants process - applying for the grant, nature and quality of support received to carry out project, the reporting process, and any media coverage provided. For the phone interviews, responses to the short-answer questions were used as the basis for follow up phone interviews. The discussions were recorded, transcribed and thematically analysed for new and recurring themes emerging from the in-depth discussions. Initiated in 2017, RHD Action has funded 21 proposals from a pool of 60 submissions. Recipient countries include Zambia, Uganda (2), Namibia, Kenya, Malawi (2), Egypt, Ethiopia, Nigeria (3), Rwanda (2), Mozambique, and Cameroon (2) as well as Fiji (2), the Philippines and Nepal. Five recipients were funded in 2017, eight in 2018 and eight in 2019. Project directors are primarily junior doctors and project managers supervised by senior mentors. In most cases, this is their first funding award. These projects have demonstrated tangible impact and have provided content for first manuscript and abstract submissions and presentations at professional conferences. Grant reports are presented as website stories showcasing the achievements of small local efforts with meaningful impact. For RHD Action, there is large return on a modest monetary investment resulting in a very visible, viable global RHD networking platform for enthusiastic community and provider activists.

Project description:ObjectivesTo evaluate potential return on investment of the National Health Service Diabetes Prevention Programme (NHS DPP) in England and estimate which population subgroups are likely to benefit most in terms of cost-effectiveness, cost-savings and health benefits.DesignEconomic analysis using the School for Public Health Research Diabetes Prevention Model.SettingEngland 2015-2016.PopulationAdults aged ≥16 with high risk of type 2 diabetes (HbA1c 6%-6.4%). Population subgroups defined by age, sex, ethnicity, socioeconomic deprivation, baseline body mass index, baseline HbA1c and working status.InterventionsThe proposed NHS DPP: an intensive lifestyle intervention focusing on dietary advice, physical activity and weight loss. Comparator: no diabetes prevention intervention.Main outcome measuresIncremental costs, savings and return on investment, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), diabetes cases, cardiovascular cases and net monetary benefit from an NHS perspective.ResultsIntervention costs will be recouped through NHS savings within 12 years, with net NHS saving of £1.28 over 20 years for each £1 invested. Per 100 000 DPP interventions given, 3552 QALYs are gained. The DPP is most cost-effective and cost-saving in obese individuals, those with baseline HbA1c 6.2%-6.4% and those aged 40-74. QALY gains are lower in minority ethnic and low socioeconomic status subgroups. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis suggests that there is 97% probability that the DPP will be cost-effective within 20 years. NHS savings are highly sensitive to intervention cost, effectiveness and duration of effect.ConclusionsThe DPP is likely to be cost-effective and cost-saving under current assumptions. Prioritising obese individuals could create the most value for money and obtain the greatest health benefits per individual targeted. Low socioeconomic status or ethnic minority groups may gain fewer QALYs per intervention, so targeting strategies should ensure the DPP does not contribute to widening health inequalities. Further evidence is needed around the differential responsiveness of population subgroups to the DPP.

Project description:IntroductionOver 50% of people affected by cancer report unmet support needs. To address unmet information and psychological needs, non-government organisations such as Cancer Councils (Australia) have developed state-based telephone cancer information and support services. Due to competing demands, evidence of the value of these services is needed to ensure that future investment makes the best use of scarce resources. This research aims to determine the costs and broader economic and social value of a telephone support service, to inform future funding and service provision.Methods and analysisA codesigned, evaluative social return on investment analysis (SROI) will be conducted to estimate and compare the costs and monetised benefits of Cancer Council Victoria's (CCV) telephone support line, 13 11 20, over 1-year and 3-year benefit periods. Nine studies will empirically estimate the parameters to inform the SROI and calculate the ratio (economic and social value to value invested): step 1 mapping outcomes (in-depth analysis of CCV's 13 11 20 recorded call data; focus groups and interviews); step 2 providing evidence of outcomes (comparative survey of people affected by cancer who do and do not call CCV's 13 11 20; general public survey); step 3 valuing the outcomes (financial proxies, value games); step 4 establishing the impact (Delphi); step 5 calculating the net benefit and step 6 service improvement (discrete choice experiment (DCE), 'what if' analysis). Qualitative (focus groups, interviews) and quantitative studies (natural language processing, cross-sectional studies, Delphi) and economic techniques (willingness-to-pay, financial proxies, value games, DCE) will be applied.Ethics and disseminationEthics approval for each of the studies will be sought independently as the project progresses. So far, ethics approval has been granted for the first two studies. As each study analysis is completed, results will be disseminated through presentation, conferences, publications and reports to the partner organisations.

Dataset Information

Estimating the return on investment of the Bureau of Tobacco Free Florida tobacco control programme from 1999 to 2015.

Objective

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Publications

Estimating the return on investment of the Bureau of Tobacco Free Florida tobacco control programme from 1999 to 2015.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets