5 ms·

>$750,000 per person You’re making GP’s point. If you filter for just tobacco users from the general population it could very well be above a million per tobac

>$750,000 per person You’re making GP’s point. If you filter for just tobacco users from the general population it could very well be above a million per tobacco user.

Retric 7y ago
Sanity check. From 1990 to 2000 ~1/4 of US adult population smoked. Suggesting that smoking adds 750,000 * ~50,000,000 people / (75 years lifespan) ~500 Billion per year to US heath care costs is wildly off base. It turns out smokers do cost more while alive, but die sooner which mostly erases the difference in medical costs. There are estimates for lost productivity amounting to 150 Billion per year in the US, but again these ignore the fact Nicotine is a stimulant.
- trianglem 7y ago
  Not all of them die early. Plus there are a variety of high priced treatments that they use along the way.
  - cm2012 7y ago
    And some have almost no healthy issues. But the average is overall cheaper costs, which is what we're discussing.
- MiroF 7y ago
  The number is closer to $200 billion according to the CDC. Still crazy high and of the same order of magnitude, so hardly "wildly off base"
  - Retric 7y ago
    The CDC lists $170 billion in direct medical costs. https://www.cdc.gov/chronicdisease/resources/publications/factsheets/tobacco.htm https://www.cdc.gov/chronicdisease/resources/publications/fa... Clearly the living have higher medical costs than the dead so some indirect savings exist. Thus, net costs are below that 170B and thus wildly off of a 500B net healthcare cost.
    - jachee 7y ago
      That is still the same order of magnitude. $5T would be "wildly off"... And you must concede that even "only" a $170B reduction in medical costs could change the entire market.
      - Retric 7y ago
        As I said it’s not a difference in net costs of 170B. It may cost 20$ to eat out at lunch, but the alternative is not skipping eating. So the net cost for eating out is the delta between my options. Random study: Results Smoking was associated with a greater mean annual healthcare cost of €1600 per living individual during follow-up. However, due to a shorter lifespan of 8.6 years, smokers’ mean total healthcare costs during the entire study period were actually €4700 lower than for non-smokers. For the same reason, each smoker missed 7.3 years (€126 850) of pension. https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/2/6/e001678 https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/2/6/e001678.
    - MiroF 7y ago
      So I can't count the $ in lost productivity from these people dying early, but you can count their deaths as savings on healthcare?
      - imtringued 7y ago
        If you did that you would also have to count all the impossible to count effects like increased productivity from using smoking as a stimulant. It is possible that some smokers wouldn't have the willpower to maintain a job if they didn't have smoking as a stress reliever.
        MiroF 7y ago
        I feel like increased productivity from smoking tobacco wouldn't be impossible to calculate if you just compare performance of smoker vs non-smoker in aggregate. I would be surprised if the stimulating effects outstripped the dying early effects. edit: just did a brief search and apparently on aggregate former smokers who quit have increased productivity following quitting, so even while smoking there is decreased productivity effects
taneq 7y ago
But we’re converting smokers to non-smokers, not executing them out of hand, so you’re only saving $250k. Of course, allowing smokers to buy their own vapes seems like a trivial cost to save $250k/person (and, you know, their lives).
- ethbro 7y ago
  Which also doesn't include the economic output of their still being fit enough to work (and still living).

>$750,000 per person You’re making GP’s point. If you filter for just tobacco users from the general population it could very well be above a million per tobacco user.

Retric 7y ago

Sanity check. From 1990 to 2000 ~1/4 of US adult population smoked. Suggesting that smoking adds 750,000 * ~50,000,000 people / (75 years lifespan) ~500 Billion per year to US heath care costs is wildly off base. It turns out smokers do cost more while alive, but die sooner which mostly erases the difference in medical costs. There are estimates for lost productivity amounting to 150 Billion per year in the US, but again these ignore the fact Nicotine is a stimulant.

trianglem 7y ago
Not all of them die early. Plus there are a variety of high priced treatments that they use along the way.
- cm2012 7y ago
  And some have almost no healthy issues. But the average is overall cheaper costs, which is what we're discussing.
MiroF 7y ago
The number is closer to $200 billion according to the CDC. Still crazy high and of the same order of magnitude, so hardly "wildly off base"
- Retric 7y ago
  The CDC lists $170 billion in direct medical costs. https://www.cdc.gov/chronicdisease/resources/publications/factsheets/tobacco.htm https://www.cdc.gov/chronicdisease/resources/publications/fa... Clearly the living have higher medical costs than the dead so some indirect savings exist. Thus, net costs are below that 170B and thus wildly off of a 500B net healthcare cost.
  - jachee 7y ago
    That is still the same order of magnitude. $5T would be "wildly off"... And you must concede that even "only" a $170B reduction in medical costs could change the entire market.
    - Retric 7y ago
      As I said it’s not a difference in net costs of 170B. It may cost 20$ to eat out at lunch, but the alternative is not skipping eating. So the net cost for eating out is the delta between my options. Random study: Results Smoking was associated with a greater mean annual healthcare cost of €1600 per living individual during follow-up. However, due to a shorter lifespan of 8.6 years, smokers’ mean total healthcare costs during the entire study period were actually €4700 lower than for non-smokers. For the same reason, each smoker missed 7.3 years (€126 850) of pension. https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/2/6/e001678 https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/2/6/e001678.
  - MiroF 7y ago
    So I can't count the $ in lost productivity from these people dying early, but you can count their deaths as savings on healthcare?
    - imtringued 7y ago
      If you did that you would also have to count all the impossible to count effects like increased productivity from using smoking as a stimulant. It is possible that some smokers wouldn't have the willpower to maintain a job if they didn't have smoking as a stress reliever.
      - MiroF 7y ago
        I feel like increased productivity from smoking tobacco wouldn't be impossible to calculate if you just compare performance of smoker vs non-smoker in aggregate. I would be surprised if the stimulating effects outstripped the dying early effects. edit: just did a brief search and apparently on aggregate former smokers who quit have increased productivity following quitting, so even while smoking there is decreased productivity effects

taneq 7y ago

But we’re converting smokers to non-smokers, not executing them out of hand, so you’re only saving $250k. Of course, allowing smokers to buy their own vapes seems like a trivial cost to save $250k/person (and, you know, their lives).

ethbro 7y ago
Which also doesn't include the economic output of their still being fit enough to work (and still living).