Browse through this section by using the jump menu below or the navigation at the bottom of the page
Modelling Framework
Smoking Costs includes a number of different types of costs to the local economy. The table below shows the modelling framework used for the report and explains the assumptions made in each case.
| Impact | Measures | Reasoning and assumptions |
| Key statistics | Demographics: · Smoking prevalence by age, gender and socio-economic status. Expenditure: · Value of tobacco consumption in the regional economy and shifts in purchasing power to other goods and services as people stop smoking. · Indirect effect of income generated and spent by those supplying and selling tobacco in the West Midlands. This must take into account illegal sales as well as purchases made through conventional outlets. |
· Different groups have different take-up rates of smoking and a programme targeted at different groups will produce different economic impacts. |
| Health | · Cost of treating patients suffering from smoking-induced
illnesses. · Opportunity cost of a reduction in patients requiring treatment due to smoking. · Reduced burden on family members and the care industry to look after people becoming ill and dying prematurely due to smoking. · Additions to pension funds and to pensioner spending power through longer working life and greater life expectancy. · Consequences to the region of a larger number of people living to a greater age. |
· Though the
burden of treating smokers lies heavy on the health service, it will
continue to operate to full capacity regardless of a reduction in
one type of patient or disease. There will likely be a shift in the
types of patients being seen and the type of treatments received,
as well as the knock-on effects on NHS waiting lists and the consequent
speeding-up in return to work for other patient types. · Life expectancy is assumed to be 75 for men and 80 for women (Cambridge Group for the History of Population and Social Structure). |
| Business | · Reduced number of sick days taken by the regional workforce. · The cost of employees may be greater in SMEs where there is less opportunity for absenteeism to be absorbed by a firm with a smaller workforce. · Cost in lost productivity of staff taking cigarette breaks during work time. |
· Productivity will likely be increased by a fitter, healthier workforce taking less time off work. |
| Employment | · Change in numbers working in retail, wholesale, distribution,
advertising and marketing jobs reliant on tobacco production and
consumption. · Likely displacement of labour to other industries from tobacco-dependent sectors. |
· Increase in retail employment due to
more cessation products and higher sales likely to be negligible
as new product ranges will be absorbed within existing premises and
staff structures. · Ex-smokers will shift spend from tobacco to (mainly) goods and leisure services. |
| Fire | · Cost of fires whose source of ignition is defined as smokers’ materials in terms of death, injury, property, business, repair and fire service. | · Cost of fires whose source of ignition is defined as smokers’ materials in terms of death, injury, property, business, repair and fire service. |
| Attitudes | · Support for either bans or restrictions on smoking in a range of public places. | · Assumes uniform opinion across some different demographic groups. |