Abstract
In Poland smoking poses a severe socioeconomic problem. Not only does tobacco consumption cause an increase in direct medical costs due to the necessity for treatment of smoking-attributable diseases, but it also generates indirect costs due to productivity losses. The aim of this paper was to estimate the annual productivity loss due to smoking in Poland from the societal perspective and to compare the obtained results with the equivalent research in other selected countries (Germany, Sweden, and USA). The assessment was performed by the use of the human capital approach, considering loss of productivity until achieving the retirement age and gross income. Four distinct components of indirect costs of nicotine consumption were included: costs of premature mortality, costs of acquired disability, as well as costs of absenteeism and presenteeism caused by smokers. The costs of smoking-attributable productivity loss within a year amount to more than 15 billion PLN (1 Euro approx. 4 PLN) which is about 402 PLN per capita and 1418 PLN per smoker. This represents about 2.6% of Polish annual Gross Domestic Product (GDP), which is more than in Germany, Sweden, or the USA. This amount clearly shows the enormous socioeconomic burden and suggests the need for taking measures to reduce it.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
For such generalized disease groups SAF set by Peto and Lopez (2006) was used.
References
Cost-Effectiveness in Health and Medicine: Report of the Panel on Cost-Effectiveness in Health and Medicine. (1996). M.R. Gold, J.E. Siegel, L.B. Russell, & M.C. Weinstein (Eds.). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Bolin, K., & Lindgren, B. (2007). Smoking, health cost, and loss of productivity in Sweden 2001. Scandinavian Journal of Public Health, 35, 187–196.
Brouwer, W. B. F., van Exel, N. J. A., Baltussen, R. M. P. M., & Rutten, F. F. H. (2006). A dollar is a dollar is a dollar – Or is it? Value in Health, 9, 341–347.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). (2002). Annual smoking-attributable mortality, years of potential life lost, and economic costs – United States, 1995–1999. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, 51, 300–303.
Fagerstrom, K. (2002). The epidemiology of smoking: Health consequences and benefits of cessation. Drugs, 62(Suppl 2), 1–9.
Glied, S. (1996). Estimating the indirect cost of illness: An assessment of the forgone earnings approach. American Journal of Public Health, 86, 1723–1728.
Jakubczyk, M., Wrona, W., Macioch, T., Golicki, D., Niewada, M., & Hermanowski, T. (2010). Indirect costs in the evaluation of medical technologies. Polski Merkuriusz Lekarski, 28(163), 42–45 (in Polish).
Johnston, K., Buxton, M. J., Jones, D. R., & Fitzpatrick, R. (1999). Assessing the costs of healthcare technologies in clinical trials. Health Technology Assessment, 3, 1–76.
Jonsson, B. (2009). Ten arguments for a societal perspective in the economic evaluation of medical innovations. The European Journal of Health Economics, 10, 357–359.
Krzyzanowska, A., & Glogowski, C. (2004). Smoking in the world. Economic consequences. Farmakoekonomika, 2, 38–42 (in Polish).
Levin-Epstein, J. (2005). Presenteeism and paid sick days. CLASP. www.clasp.org/admin/site/publications/files/0212.pdf. Accessed 15 Aug 2011.
Liljas, B. (1998). How to calculate indirect costs in economic evaluations. Pharmaeconomics, 13, 1–7.
Maciag, A. (2008). The importance of indirect costs in the treatment of chronic diseases in the socio-economic perspective. Problemy Higieny i Epidemiologii, 89, 18–20 (in Polish).
McCormack, C. (2009). The problem of presenteeism – An expanded definition of the topic. www.ColmMcCormack.com. Accessed 15 Aug 2011.
Middaugh, D. J. (2006). Presenteeism: Sick and tired at work. Medsurg Nursing, 15, 103–105.
Parrott, S., Godfrey, C., & Raw, M. (2000). Costs of employee smoking in the workplace in Scotland. Tobacco Control, 9, 187–192.
Peto, R., Lopez, A. D., Boreham, J., & Thun, M. J. (2006). Mortaily from smoking in developed countries 1950–2000, 2nd ed. International Union Against Cancer (UICC). Geneva: Switzerland. www.deathsfromsmoking.net. Accessed 20 Sep 2011.www.deathsfromsmoking.net
Rockville, M. D. (1989). Reducing the health consequences of smoking: 25 years of progress. A report of the Surgeon General. Rockville: US Department of Health and Human Services USDHHS, Public Health Service, Centers for Disease Control, Office on Smoking and Health.
Segel, J. E. (2006). Cost-of-illness studies – A primer. RTI-UNC Center of Excellence in Health Promotion Economics. http://www.rti.org/pubs/coi_primer.pdf. Accessed 12 Sep 2011.
Shultz, J. M., Novotny, T. E., & Rice, D. P. (1991). Quantifying the disease impact of cigarette smoking with SAMMEC II software. Public Health Reports, 106, 326–333.
Tranmer, J. E., Guerriere, D. N., Ungar, W. J., & Coyte, P. C. (2005). Valuing patient and caregiver time: A review of the literature. Pharmacoeconomics, 23, 449–459.
Tsai, S. P., Wen, C. P., Hu, S. C., Cheng, T. Y., & Huang, S. J. (2005). Workplace smoking related absenteeism and productivity costs in Taiwan. Tobacco Control, 14(Suppl 1), 33–37.
Welte, R., Koenig, H., & Leidl, R. (2000). The costs of health damage and productivity losses attributable to cigarette smoking in Germany. European Journal of Public Health, 10, 31–38.
Wendy, M., Rice, D. P., Sung, H. Y., & Michel, M. (2004). Valuing human life: Estimating the present value of lifetime earnings, 2000. San Francisco: Center for Tobacco Control Research and Education UC.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflicts of interest in relation to this article.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Appendix
Appendix
The formula of smoking-attributable fraction (SAF) is as following (Bolin and Lindgren 2007; Schultz et al. 1991):
and
where:
-
O s – percentage of smokers in the population,
-
O f – percentage of former smokers in the population,
-
O n – percentage of non-smokers in the population,
-
R s – relative risk of death in the population of smokers,
-
R f – relative risk of death in the population of former smokers,
-
1 – relative risk of death in the population of non-smokers,
-
SAF s – SAF for smokers,
-
SAF f – SAF for former smokers.
The formula of present value of future earnings (PVFE) is as following (Wendy et al. 2004):
where:
-
y – the current age of a person
-
g – gender
-
PVFE y,g – present discounted value of future earnings of a person of age y and gender g
-
P y,g (n) – probability that a person of age y and gender g will live to age n
-
Y g (n) – average annual salary of an employee of gender g and age n
-
E g (n) – percentage of the employed population of gender g and age n
-
\( {Y}_{g}^{h}(n)\)– average annual value of homemaking of a person of gender g and age n
-
\( {E}_{g}^{h}(n)\)– percentage of the homemaking population of gender g and age n
-
p – labor productivity growth (for both – the employed and the homemakers)
-
r – actual discount rate
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2013 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht
About this paper
Cite this paper
Lasocka, J., Jakubczyk, M., Siekmeier, R. (2013). Costs of Smoking-Attributable Productivity Losses in Poland. In: Pokorski, M. (eds) Respiratory Regulation - Clinical Advances. Advances in Experimental Medicine and Biology, vol 755. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-4546-9_23
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-4546-9_23
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-94-007-4545-2
Online ISBN: 978-94-007-4546-9
eBook Packages: Biomedical and Life SciencesBiomedical and Life Sciences (R0)