BackgroundThe detrimental impact of smoking on health has been widely documented since the 1960s. Numerous studies have also quantified the economic cost that smoking imposes on society. However, these studies have mostly been in high income countries, with limited documentation from developing countries. The aim of this paper is to measure the economic cost of smoking-attributable diseases in countries throughout the world, including in low- and middle-income settings.MethodsThe Cost of Illness approach is used to estimate the economic cost of smoking attributable-diseases in 2012. Under this approach, economic costs are defined as either ‘direct costs' such as hospital fees or ‘indirect costs’ representing the productivity loss from morbidity and mortality. The same method was applied to 152 countries, which had all the necessary data, representing 97% of the world's smokers.FindingsThe amount of healthcare expenditure due to smoking-attributable diseases totalled purchasing power parity (PPP) $467 billion (US$422 billion) in 2012, or 5.7% of global health expenditure. The total economic cost of smoking (from health expenditures and productivity losses together) totalled PPP $1852 billion (US$1436 billion) in 2012, equivalent in magnitude to 1.8% of the world's annual gross domestic product (GDP). Almost 40% of this cost occurred in developing countries, highlighting the substantial burden these countries suffer.ConclusionsSmoking imposes a heavy economic burden throughout the world, particularly in Europe and North America, where the tobacco epidemic is most advanced. These findings highlight the urgent need for countries to implement stronger tobacco control measures to address these costs.

In this report, the authors provide comprehensive and up‐to‐date US data on disparities in cancer occurrence, major risk factors, and access to and utilization of preventive measures and screening by sociodemographic characteristics. They also review programs and resources that have reduced cancer disparities and provide policy recommendations to further mitigate these inequalities. The overall cancer death rate is 19% higher among Black males than among White males. Black females also have a 12% higher overall cancer death rate than their White counterparts despite having an 8% lower incidence rate. There are also substantial variations in death rates for specific cancer types and in stage at diagnosis, survival, exposure to risk factors, and receipt of preventive measures and screening by race/ethnicity, socioeconomic status, and geographic location. For example, kidney cancer death rates by sex among American Indian/Alaska Native people are ≥64% higher than the corresponding rates in each of the other racial/ethnic groups, and the 5‐year relative survival for all cancers combined is 14% lower among residents of poorer counties than among residents of more affluent counties. Broad and equitable implementation of evidence‐based interventions, such as increasing health insurance coverage through Medicaid expansion or other initiatives, could substantially reduce cancer disparities. However, progress will require not only equitable local, state, and federal policies but also broad interdisciplinary engagement to elevate and address fundamental social inequities and longstanding systemic racism.

No abstract

This paper examines how socio-economic status (SES) modifies how smokers adjust to changes in the price of tobacco products through utilization of multiple price minimizing techniques. Data come from the International Tobacco Control Policy Evaluation (ITC) Four Country Survey, nationally representative samples of adult smokers and includes respondents from Canada, the United States, the United Kingdom and Australia. Cross-sectional analyses were completed among 8,243 respondents (7,038 current smokers) from the survey wave conducted between October 2006 and February 2007. Analyses examined predictors of purchasing from low/untaxed sources, using discount cigarettes or roll-your-own (RYO) tobacco, purchasing cigarettes in cartons, and engaging in high levels of price and tax avoidance at last purchase. All analyses tested for interactions with SES and were weighted to account for changing and under-represented demographics. Relatively high levels of price and tax avoidance behaviors were present; 8% reported buying from low or untaxed source; 36% used discount or generic brands, 13.5% used RYO tobacco, 29% reported purchasing cartons, and 63% reported using at least one of these high price avoidance behaviors. Respondents categorized as having low SES were approximately 26% less likely to report using low or untaxed sources and 43% less likely to purchase tobacco by the carton. However, respondents with low SES were 85% more likely to report using discount brands/RYO compared to participants with higher SES. Overall, lower SES smokers were 25% more likely to engage in at least one or more tax avoidance behaviors compared to their higher SES counterparts. Price and tax avoidance behaviors are relatively common among smokers of all SES strata, but strategies differed with higher SES groups more likely to report traveling to a low-tax location to avoid paying higher prices, purchase duty free tobacco, and purchase by cartons instead of packs all of which were less commonly reported by low SES smokers. Because of the strategies lower SES respondents are more likely to use, reducing price differentials between discount and premium brands may have a greater impact on them, potentially increasing the likelihood of quitting.

Aims This paper presents updated prevalence estimates of awareness, ever‐use, and current use of nicotine vaping products (NVPs) from 14 International Tobacco Control Policy Evaluation Project (ITC Project) countries that have varying regulations governing NVP sales and marketing. Design, Setting, Participants and Measurements A cross‐sectional analysis of adult (≥ 18 years) current smokers and ex‐smokers from 14 countries participating in the ITC Project. Data from the most recent survey questionnaire for each country were included, which spanned the period 2013–17. Countries were categorized into four groups based on regulations governing NVP sales and marketing (allowable or not), and level of enforcement (strict or weak where NVPs are not permitted to be sold): (1) most restrictive policies (MRPs), not legal to be sold or marketed with strict enforcement: Australia, Brazil, Uruguay; (2) restrictive policies (RPs), not approved for sale or marketing with weak enforcement: Canada, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand; (3) less restrictive policies (LRPs), legal to be sold and marketed with regulations: England, the Netherlands, Republic of Korea, United States; and (4) no regulatory policies (NRPs), Bangladesh, China, Zambia. Countries were also grouped by World Bank Income Classifications. Country‐specific weighted logistic regression models estimated adjusted NVP prevalence estimates for: awareness, ever/current use, and frequency of use (daily versus non‐daily). Findings NVP awareness and use were lowest in NRP countries. Generally, ever‐ and current use of NVPs were lower in MRP countries (ever‐use = 7.1–48.9%; current use = 0.3–3.5%) relative to LRP countries (ever‐use = 38.9–66.6%; current use = 5.5–17.2%) and RP countries (ever‐use = 10.0–62.4%; current use = 1.4–15.5%). NVP use was highest among high‐income countries, followed by upper–middle‐income countries, and then by lower–middle‐income countries. Conclusions With a few exceptions, awareness and use of nicotine vaping products varied by the strength of national regulations governing nicotine vaping product sales/marketing, and by country income. In countries with no regulatory policies, use rates were very low, suggesting that there was little availability, marketing and/or interest in nicotine vaping products in these countries where smoking populations are predominantly poorer. The higher awareness and use of nicotine vaping products in high income countries with moderately (e.g. Canada, New Zealand) and less (e.g. England, United States) restrictive policies, is likely due to the greater availability and affordability of nicotine vaping products.