Estimating the cost of a smoking employee

Berman, Micah L.; Crane, Rob; Seiber, Eric E.; Munur, Mehmet

doi:10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2012-050888

Cited by 114 publications

(132 citation statements)

References 32 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

128

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Smoking also causes significant societal consequences globally in the form of work productivity impairment. Working smokers in the US are estimated to miss an average of 2.3 more workdays annually than those who have never smoked and be less productive while at work 5, 6, 7…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Benefits of quitting smoking on work productivity and activity impairment in the United States, the European Union and China

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

SummaryBackgroundSmoking has important health and economic consequences for individuals and society. This study expands the understanding of work‐related burden associated with smoking and benefit of smoking cessation across the US, European Union (EU) and China using large‐scale, representative survey methodology.MethodsData utilised the 2013 National Health and Wellness Survey in United States (US), EU5 (UK, France, Germany, Italy, and Spain) and China. Working‐aged respondents 18‐64 were used in the analyses (US N=58 500; EU5 N=50 417; China N=17 987) and were categorised into: current smokers, trying to quit, former smokers and never smokers. Generalised linear models controlling for demographics and health characteristics examined the relationship of smoking status with work productivity and activity impairment (WPAI‐GH). The WPAI‐GH measures were: absenteeism, presenteeism, overall work impairment, and activity impairment. Separately, current smokers were compared with those who quit 0‐4, 5‐10 and 11 or more years ago on WPAI‐GH end‐points.ResultsCurrent smokers reported greater absenteeism in the US and China and greater presenteeism, overall work impairment, and activity impairment than former and never smokers across the three regions. Those who quit even 0‐4 years ago demonstrated lower absenteeism, presenteeism, and activity impairment in China and lower presenteeism, overall work impairment, and activity impairment in the US and EU5.ConclusionsSmoking was associated with significant work productivity loss in the US, EU5 and China. The results suggest that quitting benefits extend to work productivity rapidly after cessation, serving to further encourage and promote the implementation of workplace cessation programs.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Benefits of quitting smoking on work productivity and activity impairment in the United States, the European Union and China

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…2015 25 showed that although effectiveness was halved 6 months after stopping incentives, it was still good (RR= 2.17). As the estimated annual excess costs of employing a smoker can range around US$5816 (€4482, GDP‐based PPP‐ and inflation‐adjusted, currency year 2015) 45, smoking‐related costs are likely to be higher than financial incentive programme costs, even on an annual basis 25. Another risk of financial incentive programmes is the enrolment of non‐smokers.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Cost‐effectiveness of increasing the reach of smoking cessation interventions in Germany: results from the EQUIPTMOD

Huber¹,

Präger²,

Coyle

et al. 2017

Addiction

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

AimsTo evaluate costs, effects and cost‐effectiveness of increased reach of specific smoking cessation interventions in Germany.DesignA Markov‐based state transition return on investment model (EQUIPTMOD) was used to evaluate current smoking cessation interventions as well as two prospective investment scenarios. A health‐care perspective (extended to include out‐of‐pocket payments) with life‐time horizon was considered. A probabilistic analysis was used to assess uncertainty concerning predicted estimates.SettingGermany.ParticipantsCohort of current smoking population (18+ years) in Germany.InterventionsInterventions included group‐based behavioural support, financial incentive programmes and varenicline. For prospective scenario 1 the reach of group‐based behavioral support, financial incentive programme and varenicline was increased by 1% of yearly quit attempts (= 57 915 quit attempts), while prospective scenario 2 represented a higher reach, mirroring the levels observed in England.MeasurementsEQUIPTMOD considered reach, intervention cost, number of quitters, quality‐of‐life years (QALYs) gained, cost‐effectiveness and return on investment.FindingsThe highest returns through reduction in smoking‐related health‐care costs were seen for the financial incentive programme (€2.71 per €1 invested), followed by that of group‐based behavioural support (€1.63 per €1 invested), compared with no interventions. Varenicline had lower returns (€1.02 per €1 invested) than the other two interventions. At the population level, prospective scenario 1 led to 15 034 QALYs gained and €27 million cost‐savings, compared with current investment. Intervention effects and reach contributed most to the uncertainty around the return‐on‐investment estimates. At a hypothetical willingness‐to‐pay threshold of only €5000, the probability of being cost‐effective is approximately 75% for prospective scenario 1.ConclusionsIncreasing the reach of group‐based behavioural support, financial incentives and varenicline for smoking cessation by just 1% of current annual quit attempts provides a strategy to German policymakers that improves the population's health outcomes and that may be considered cost‐effective.

show abstract

“…Also, not only are nonsmoking workers generally healthier, but they are more productive and less costly for employers. Considering aggregate cost and productivity impacts, one recent study estimated that the annual cost to employ a smoker was, on average, nearly $6,000 greater than the cost to employ a nonsmoker [Berman et al 2013]. It follows that interventions that help smoking workers quit can benefit the bottom line of a business.…”

Section: Preventive Interventionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Considering aggregate cost and productivity impacts associated with smoking breaks, absenteeism, presenteeism, healthcare expenses, and pension benefits, the study estimated that the annual cost to employ a smoker was, on average, $5,816 greater than the cost to employ a nonsmoker [Berman et al 2013]. Interventions that help smoking workers quit can benefit a business' bottom line [NBGH 2013].…”

Section: Niosh Cib 67 • Workplace Tobacco Policiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Current intelligence bulletin 67: promoting health and preventing disease and injury through workplace tobacco policies.

2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

On the cover: The cover design includes a wispy background image intended to evoke the well-known health hazard of smoke associated with the use of combustible tobacco products, and the much less studied misty emissions associated with the use of electronic devices to "vape" liquids containing nicotine and other components. The full range of hazards associated with tobacco use extends well beyond such air contaminants, so the cover design also incorporates a text box to highlight the optimal "Tobacco-Free" (i.e., not just "SmokeFree") status for both workplaces and workers. The text box also evokes the NIOSH Total Worker Health TM strategy. This strategy maintains a strong focus on protection of workers against occupational hazards, including exposure to secondhand tobacco smoke on the job, while additionally encompassing workplace health promotion to target lifestyle risk factors, including tobacco use by workers. Photo by ©Thinkstock. Current Intelligence Bulletin 67 DisclaimerMention of any company or product does not constitute endorsement by the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH). In addition, citations to websites external to NIOSH do not constitute NIOSH endorsement of the sponsoring organizations or their programs or products. Furthermore, NIOSH is not responsible for the content of these websites. All Web addresses referenced in this document were accessible as of the publication date. Ordering InformationTo receive documents or other information about occupational safety and health topics, contact NIOSH at

show abstract

Estimating the cost of a smoking employee

Abstract: Employees who smoke impose significant excess costs on private employers. The results of this study may help inform employer decisions about tobacco-related policies.

Cited by 114 publications

References 32 publications

Benefits of quitting smoking on work productivity and activity impairment in the United States, the European Union and China

Benefits of quitting smoking on work productivity and activity impairment in the United States, the European Union and China

Cost‐effectiveness of increasing the reach of smoking cessation interventions in Germany: results from the EQUIPTMOD

Current intelligence bulletin 67: promoting health and preventing disease and injury through workplace tobacco policies.

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About