Journal of Hospital & Medical Management

Background

The cost – benefit relation is a rate of practice using. It is largely utilized to measure the smoking socioeconomic impact in the researched population [1]. Public Health often supports extended arguments showing the smoking economic consequences over morbidity and mortality in costs form. However, the arguments about benefits attributable to smoking usually are supported by smoking defenders [2,3,4,5]. The smoking economic benefits acknowledge don’t means a position agrees to smoking. Moreover that, it is important to understand these economic benefits for a better understanding about government position agree to smoking extension specially when these political authorities are extensive knowing the smoking impact over morbidity and mortality [6,7]. Smoking is given by the tobacco consumption. Thus all smoking economic benefits are based on this fact [8]. In tobacco producer countries the tobacco industry is an important supplier of employees. At same time the fiscal income obtained from the tobacco economic activities may makes an important contribution to the fiscal equilibrium. Thus the addiction to nicotine given by the tobacco consumption supports the labor stability of the tobacco industry [9,10]. It is unquestionable that smoking cause many damages to the individual and social health because of the smoking impact over the morbidity and mortality too. Because of that some economic sectors are benefited because may cover more demand given by the health services incremented attributable to smoking. Example of that are the pharmaceutics, the insurance and the social security sectors [11,12].

Objective

To describe the main economic benefits attributable to smoking.

Materials and methods

It made a descriptive research about the main smoking economic benefits. As theory methods were used the historic – logic the inductive – deductive and the comparative. As empiric method it used the bibliographic research.

Results

The largest smoking impact over morbidity is determined by no-communicable illness. The health services because of these illnesses are covered in specialized health institutions. These services need specific treatments covered by high financial costs given the complexion of these illnesses. That’s why the pharmaceutical industry meets in smokers easy clients because of the addiction to nicotine [13,14]. The smoking impact over the individual morbidity is directly determined by the tobacco consumption intensity. Thus smokers may afford more expensive health insurance quote. At same time the increase of health services demand because of smoking should raise the general price from the health services and the insurance services too. Nevertheless these economic benefits are questionable [15,16]. The magnitude of these economic benefits is given by the relevancy from the effective demand of health services attributable to smoking. Patients with higher tobacco consumption intensity must afford higher tobacco spends to cover the nicotine needs by the tobacco consumption. Then, the financial resources able to access to the health services may be limited by the same reason that motive the health service demand: the smoking. In cases like these patients need choose between tobacco and health [17,18]. By other side if tobacco consumption increase don´t means that tobacco industry will hire more people or that pharmacy or insurance sector will do too because of the smoking incidence over morbidity. Neither means that fiscal income will increase.

However is probable that tobacco industry profits will increase and a much reduced number of persons will be benefited because of the dependence of smokers to the nicotine supported by the tobacco consumption [19,20]. Something favorable to smoking economic benefits is the fact that these appear first than smoking economic costs. That’s why the less frequent tobacco consumers may carries to a positive position in the benefit – cost relation attributable to smoking [21,22]. One of the more singular economic benefits from smoking is given by the smoker earlier death. The smoker over-mortality carries to reduce the demand of Social Security services to retired people agree to life expectation reduction [23,24]. However, the transversal analysis of the smoking economic benefits don’t consider that across smoker life the dynamic from the smoking economic benefits is minor that the dynamic of the smoking economic costs. Also this relation becomes more significant considering the money value at time [25,26]. Moreover that it is important to consider that the individual and the social health are untouchable goods, which lose value can´t back at short time, especially taking account the oldness process [27,28]. Much health researches support that health value is as high that may not be evaluated since the financial point of view. Agree to this argument the opportunity cost from the smoking existence is too high and unjustifiable the existence of this risk factor because there aren’t sufficient arguments from the smoking economic benefits to compare to the health value [29,30,31,32]. Much times the unquestionable health valued isn´t sufficiently considered by fiscal authorities who consider more important at short time the practice value from the smoking economic benefits. This fact is more often in tobacco producer countries where the signification from the tobacco industry is too high [33,34]. That’s why it isn´t sufficient with the understanding and acknowledge from the smoking impact over the life quality and life expectation. It is important to make significant transformations inside these economies to reduce the dependence to the tobacco industry [35,36].

Conclusion

The social and the human development may not be supported in the existence of a risk factor that reduces the life value reducing the health quality and life expectative at same time, which raise the living cost and favor to a reduced people number across the addiction to the nicotine.

References

1. Fernández Hernández F., Sánchez González E. (2019) Health Economic Evaluations for the Health Education Management. Int J EducAdv 052.
2. Fernández Hernández F., Sánchez González E. (2020)Contributions since the Health Economy Research to the Smoking Control in Cuba. BJSTR 30:23102-23104.
3. Sánchez González E, Fernández Hernández F. (2020) Characterization of the socioeconomic inequity attributable to smoking. JQHE3.
4. Fernández Hernández F. Sánchez González E. (2020) Smoking incidence over thelabor health. Med Care Res Rev3: 417-419.
5. Sánchez González E, Fernández Hernández F. (2020) Rates to measures the social inequity attributable to smoking. JCRR 2.
6. Sánchez González E, Fernández Hernández F. (2020) the fiscal policy and the smoking control in Cuba. JCRR 2(4).
7. Fernández Hernández F, Sánchez González E. (2020) the social and economic inequity from smoking in Cuba. AMSCR 2(2).
8. Fernández Hernández F, Sánchez González E. (2020) Analytic validation of a formula estimating the smoking economic burden. MOJPH 9:5-7.
9. Sánchez González E, Fernández Hernández F. (2020) Brief Appointments about Fiscal Policy for the Smoking Control. JCRR2(5).
10. Sánchez González E, Fernández-Hernández F. (2019) The smoking fiscal space in Cuba. J. Clin. Med. Res1:1-5.
11. Fernández Hernández F, Sánchez González E. (2020) The Smoking Economic Burden in the National Institute on Oncology and Radiology from Cuba. J Med. Health Care. 2.
12. Sánchez González E, Fernández Hernández F. (2019) A view for the morbidity attributable to smoking since the microeconomic. OAT TIR 2.
13. Fernánde Hernández F, Sánchez González E. (2014) Impacto del tabaquismo en el presupuesto sanitario de Cuba 1997-2014. Rev. del Hosp. Psiquiatr. de la Habana 14: 2.
14. Fernández Hernández F, Sánchez González E. (2020) The absolute socioeconomic inequity attributable to smoking. Clin. Rev. Clin. TRIALS 2.
15. Sánchez González E, Fernández Hernández F. (2020) The smoking economic control across the primary health services. Clin. Rev. Clin. TRIALS2.
16. Fernández Hernández F, Sánchez González E. (2020) Personal spend on cigarettes and tobaccos in Cuba from 2013 to 2016.Clin. Rev. Clin. TRIALS 2.
17. Fernández Hernández F, Sánchez González E. (2018) Algorithm to calculate the smoking economic burden in active and passive smokers. MOJ Toxicol. 4:373‒375.
18. Fernández Hernández F., Sánchez González E. (2019) Estimating the economic burden attributable to some risk factor. OAT J Clin Invest Stud 2.
19. Hirono KT, Smith KE. (2018) Australia’s $40 per pack cigarette tax plans: the need to consider equityTobacc0 Control. 27:229–233.
20. Owen AJ, Maulida SB, Zomer E. (2019) A life table modelling study. Tobacco Control28:297–304.
21. Fernández Hernández F, Sánchez González E. (2017) Carga epidemiológica vs carga económica del tabaquismo por morbilidad. Rev. cienc. méd. Pinar Río21: 210-216.
22. Fernández Hernández F., Sánchez González E. (2020) The Smoking Epidemiologic Control across the Primary Health Service. Ascl Med. Res. Rev 3: 1-3.
23. Kuipers MAG, Partos T, McNeill A.(2019) Smokers’ strategies across social grades to minimise the cost of smoking in a period with annual tax increases: evidence from a national survey in England. BMJ Open9:e026320.
24. Cher BP, Chen C, Yoong J. (2017) Prevalence-based, disease-specific estimate ofthe social cost of smoking in Singapore. BMJ Open 7:e014377.
25. Virtanen SE, Galanti MR, Johansson PM. (2017) Economic evaluation of a brief counselling for smoking cessation in dentistry: a case study comparing two health economic models. BMJ Open 7:e016375.
26. Goodchild M, Nargis N, Tursan d’Espaignet E. (2018)Global economic cost of smoking-attributable diseases.Tobacco Control 27:58–64.
27. Rosselli D, Gil Tamayo S. (2017) Costo por años de vida perdidos: una propuesta para estimar el impuesto al tabaco. Rev. Salud Pública19:591-594.
28. Jha V, Narayanan BG, Wadhwa D. (2020) Economic and environmental effects of reduction in smoking prevalence in Tanzania. Tobacco Control 29:24–28.
29. Macinko J. (2018) Austeridad, inequidad y resiliencia en España. Salud Colect 14:675-678.
30. Laurentino dos Santos I. (2020) Equality, equity and justice in health in the light of bioethics. Rev. bioét. Impr 28:229-38.
31. Lightwood J, Glantz SA. (2016) Smoking Behavior and Healthcare Expenditure in the United States, 1992–2009: Panel Data Estimates. PLoS Med 13: e1002020.
32. Fernández Hernández F, Sánchez González E. (2020) Postgraduate Course: Smoking vs. Labor ProductivityInt J Qual Health Care. ECON3(6).
33. Sánchez González E, Fernández Hernández F. (2017) El rol de las autoridades fiscales en el control del tabaquismo. Rev. cienc. méd. Pinar Río21: 362-367.
34. Sánchez González E, Fernández Hernández F. (2018) La relación entre la política tributaria y el control del tabaquismo en Cuba. Correo cient. méd2: 238-249.
35. Sánchez González E, Fernández Hernández F. (2018) Costo social por pérdida absoluta de productividad laboral. Rev Cub Salud Y Trab 19:33-39.
36. Fernández Hernández F, Sánchez González E. (2019) Coeficiente de inequidad económica del tabaquismo en los servicios de la salud pública. Correo cient. méd 23(4).