Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

The effect of health shocks on smoking and obesity

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
The European Journal of Health Economics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Aim

To investigate whether negative changes in their own health (i.e. health shocks) or in that of a smoking or obese household member, lead smokers to quit smoking and obese individuals to lose weight.

Methods

The study is informed by economic models (‘rational addiction’ and ‘demand for health’ models) which offer hypotheses on the relationship between health shocks and health-related behaviour. Each hypothesis was tested applying a discrete-time hazard model with random effects using up to ten waves of the German Socioeconomic Panel (GSOEP) and statistics on cigarette, food and beverage prices provided by the Federal Statistical Office.

Results

Health shocks had a significant positive impact on the probability that smokers quit during the same year in which they experienced the health shock. Health shocks of a smoking household member between year t−2 and t−1 also motivated smoking cessation, although statistical evidence for this was weaker. Health shocks experienced by obese individuals or their household members had, on the other hand, no significant effect on weight loss, as measured by changes in Body Mass Index (BMI).

Conclusion

The results of the study suggest that smokers are aware of the risks associated with tobacco consumption, know about effective strategies to quit smoking, and are willing to quit for health-related reasons. In contrast, there was no evidence for changes in health-related behaviour among obese individuals after a health shock.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Measures for smoking prevalence differed depending on the data source: Telephone surveys conducted by the RKI reported that rates for men decreased from 39% in the early nineties to 38% in 2003, while rates for women increased from 27.5 to 30.1% (where n = 7,341 in 2003) [2]. Data from GSOEP indicates that smoking prevalence declined for young people aged 12 to 17 years, from roughly 28% in 2001 to about 15% in 2008 (n = 25,000 per year [but not all answered the health questionnaire]) [44]. Data on cigarette consumption per head strongly suggest a decrease in consumption from about 2,000 cigarettes in 1970 to 1,000 in 2008 [2]. In this study, I chose to refer to data of the Mikrozensus provided by the Federal Statistical Office because it has the largest and, therefore, most representative sample size (n = 824,380 individuals; 1% of the population were asked health questions in 2005) [3].

  2. The model is based on Stigler and Becker’s model on addiction [16].

  3. In the first year, the variable takes a value of zero. If the individual does not alter his lifestyle in the second year, it takes a value of one. If there is no lifestyle change in the third year, it takes a value of two and so on. It is reset to zero if the individual “dies” (i.e. quits smoking or loses weight and then starts counting up again).

  4. The standard method for modelling time dependence in binary data has been to incorporate time dummies or splined time in logistic regressions. Carter and Signorino showed however that the cubic polynomial of the temporal variable (t, t 2, t 3) outperformed time dummies in Monte Carlo analysis and performed as well as splines [24].

  5. Other studies have used measures of waist-hip or waist-height ratio, or waist circumference. These measures are not available in the GSOEP.

  6. The study also showed that rising cigarette prices lead to an increase in body weight in the US [45]. As, however, the latter finding was contested by Gruber et al., who found the opposite effect using cigarette taxes rather than prices as a variable in their explanatory model [46], I did not factor cigarette taxes or prices into the equation.

  7. The GSOEP does not indicate if the individual is pregnant in the respective time period or not. However, pregnancy is an important predictor for quitting smoking and invalidates BMI measures. Therefore, a proxy for pregnancy is constructed. The proxy assumes that a woman is pregnant if a child between zero and one year of age becomes a new household member in the consecutive time period.

  8. For example, I make no attempt to resolve the debate over whether increasing food and beverages prices play a major role in explaining obesity.

  9. The analysis was conducted on a sample with ten waves and six durations per individual for the smoking equation and on a sample with ten waves and only four durations for the obesity equation.

  10. Cawley was careful to note that the impact of rising prices may be two-fold, such that rising prices may decrease overall consumption or incentivise individuals to opt for cheaper and higher caloric food [34].

References

  1. Whitlock, G., Lewington, S., Sherliker, P.: Body-mass index and cause-specific mortality in 900,000 adults: collaborative analyses of 57 prospective studies. Lancet 373, 1083–1096 (2009)

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Robert Koch Institut (RKI): Gesundheit in Deutschland—Gesundheitsberichterstattung des Bundes, Berlin (2006)

  3. Statistisches Bundesamt: Leben in Deutschland. Haushalt, Familie und Gesundheit–Ergebnisse des Mikrozensus 2005. Statistisches Bundesamt, Wiesbaden (2006)

    Google Scholar 

  4. National Institute of Health (NIH): Clinical Guidelines on the identification, evaluation and treatment of overweight and obesity in adults. The evidence report. No. 98–4083 (1998)

  5. Sander, B., Bergemann, R.: Economic burden of obesity and its complications. Eur. J. Health. Econ. 4(4), 248–253 (2003)

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Noah, S.M., Zimmermann, R.S.: Health behaviour theory and cumulative knowledge regarding health behaviours. Health Edu. Res. 20(3), 275–290 (2005)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. McCaul, K.D., Hockemeyer, J.R., Johnson, R.J., Zetocha, K., Quinlan, K., Glasgow, R.E.: Motivation to quit using cigarettes: a review. Addict. Behav. 31, 42–56 (2003)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Furmanski, W.L.: Untapped opportunity: Increasing consumer demand for tobacco cessation. Paper presented at the Society of Behavioral Medicine Annual Meeting, Salt Lake City

  9. Grave, R.D., Calugi, S., Corica, F., Di Dominzio, S.D., Marchesini, R.D.: Psychological variables associated with weight loss in obese patients seeking treatment at medical centers. J. Am. Diet. Assoc. 109, 2010–2016 (2009)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Clark, A., Etilé, F.: Do health changes affect smoking? Evidence from the British panel data. Health Econ. 21, 533–562 (2002)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Smith, K., Taylor, D.J., Sloan, F.A., Johnson, F., Desvogues, W.H.: Do smokers respond to health shocks. Department of Economics. Working Paper 8. Duke University, Durham (2000)

  12. Hsieh, C.R.: Health risk and the decision to quit smoking. Appl. Econ. 30, 795–804 (1998)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Wagstaff, A.: The economic consequences of health shocks: evidence from Vietnam. J. Health Econ. 26(1), 82–100 (2007)

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. García-Gómez, P.: Institutions, health shocks and labour market outcomes across Europe. J. Health Econ. 30(1), 200–213 (2011)

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Becker, G., Murphy, K.: A theory of rational addiction. J. Polit. Econ. 96, 675–700 (1988)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Stigler, G.J., Becker, G.S.: De Gustibus Non Est Disputandum. Am. Econ. Rev. 67, 76–90 (1977)

    Google Scholar 

  17. Grossman, M.: On the concept of health capital and the demand for health. J. Polit. Econ. 80, 223–255 (1972)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Grossman, M.: The Human Capital Model. In: Culyer, A., Newhouse, P. (eds.) The Handbook for Health Economics, pp. 347–408. Elsevier Science, Paris (2000)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  19. Chaloupka, F., Kenneth, W.: The Economics of Smoking. In: Culyer, A., Newhouse, P., et al. (eds.) The Handbook for Health Economics, pp. 1540–1627. Elsevier Science, Paris (2000)

    Google Scholar 

  20. Davis, C., Carter, J.C.: Compulsive overeating as an addiction disorder. a review of theory and evidence. Appetite. 53, 1–8 (2009)

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Etilé, F.: Usage de drogues et dependance: une analyse economique. PhD Thesis University of Paris. University of Paris, Paris (2000)

  22. Jenkins, S.P.: Easy estimation methods for discrete-time duration models. Oxford B. Econ. Stat. 57, 129–138 (1995)

    Google Scholar 

  23. Poirier, D., Ruud, P.: Probit with dependent observations. Rev. Econ. Stud. 55, 593–614 (1988)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Carter, D.B., Signorino, C.S.: Back to the future: modelling time dependence in binary data. Polit Anal. 18(3), 271–292 (2010)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Baum II, C.L., Ruhm, C.J.: Age, socioeconomic status and obesity growth. J. Health Econ. 28, 635–648 (2009)

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Burkhauser, R.V., Cawley, J.: Beyond BMI: The value of more accurate measures of fatness and obesity in social science research. J. Health Econ. 27, 519–529 (2008)

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. World Health Organization (WHO): Obesity. http://www.who.int/topics/obesity/en/. Accessed 15 February 2011

  28. Racette, S.B., Weiss, E.P., Hickner, R.C., Holloszy, J.O.: Modest weight loss improves insulin action in obese Africans. Metabolis. 54(7), 960–965 (2005)

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Nerfeldt, P., Nilsson, B.Y., Mayor, L., Uddén, J., Rössner, S., Friberg, D.: Weight reduction improves sleep, sleepiness and metabolic status in obese sleep apnoea patients. Obes. Res. Clin. Pract. 2(4), 251–262 (2008)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Melanson, K.J., Dell’Olio, J., Carpenter, M.R., Berlin, D.P., Knipe, S.J., McInnis, K.J., Rippe, J.M.: Self-efficacy and quality-of-life in obesity: roles of diet counseling and degree of weight loss. J. Am. Diet. Assoc. 101(9), A-19 (2001)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Erdogan-Ciftci, E., van Doorslaer, E., Bago d’Uva, T., van Lenthe, F.: Do self-perceived health changes predict longevity? Soc. Sci. Med. 71, 1981–1988 (2010)

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Leinonen, R., Heikkinen, E., Jylhä, M.: Predictors of decline in self-assessments of health among older people—a 5-year longitudinal study. Soc. Sci. Med. 52(9), 1329–1341 (2001)

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Baltagi, B., Levin, D.: Cigarette taxation: Raising revenues and reducing consumption. Struct. Chang. Econ. dyn. 3, 231–335 (1992)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Cawley, J.: Rational addiction, the consumption of calories, and body weight. PhD dissertation. University of Chicago, Chicago, IL (1999)

  35. Khuder, S.A., Dayal, H.H., Mutgi, A.B.: Age at smoking onset and its effect on smoking cessation. Addict. Behav. 24(5), 673–677 (1999)

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Maennig, W., Schicht, T., Sievers, T.: Determinants of obesity: the case of Germany. J. Socio-Econ. 37(6), 2523–2534 (2008)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Classen, T., Hokayem, C.: Childhood influences on youth obesity. Econ. Hum. Biol. 3(2), 165–187 (2005)

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Murasko, J.E.: Socioeconomic status, height, and obesity in children. Econ. Hum. Biol. 7(3), 376–386 (2009)

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Morris, S.: The impact of obesity on employment. Labour Econ. 14, 413–433 (2007)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Morley, B., Wakefield, M., Dunlop, S., Hill, D.: Impact of mass media campaign linking abdominal obesity and cancer: a natural exposure evaluation. Health Edu. Res. 24, 1069–1079 (2009)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Gregory, C.O., Blanck, H.M., Gillespie, C., Maynard, L.M., Serdula, M.K.: Perceived health risks of excess body weight among overweight and obese men and women: differences by sex. Prev. Med. 47, 42–52 (2008)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Dolor, R.J., Ostbye, T., Lyna, P., Coffman, C.: What are physicians’ and patients’ belief about diet, weight, exercise, and smoking cessation counselling? Prev. Med. 51, 440–442 (2010)

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Fritjers, P.: Haisken-DeNew J.P, Shields, M.A.: The causal effect of income on health: Evidence from the German reunification. J. Health Econ. 24, 997–1017 (2005)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. German Socioeconomic Panel (SOEP): http://panel.gsoep.de/soepinfo2009/ (2009). Accessed 10 February 2011

  45. Chou, S.Y., Grossman, M., Saffer, H.: An economic analysis of adult obesity: results from the behavioural risk factor surveillance system. J. Health Econ. 23, 565–587 (2004)

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Gruber, J., Frakes, M.: Does falling smoking lead to rising obesity? J. Health Econ. 25, 183–197 (2006)

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Health Care Management, Berlin University of Technology, H80, Straße des 17. Juni 135, 10623, Berlin, Germany

    Leonie Sundmacher

Authors
  1. Leonie Sundmacher
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Leonie Sundmacher.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Sundmacher, L. The effect of health shocks on smoking and obesity. Eur J Health Econ 13, 451–460 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10198-011-0316-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10198-011-0316-0

Keywords

JEL classification

Search

Navigation