Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement


£½m an hour goes up in smoke

Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image

Published Date: 09 June 2009
SMOKING costs the NHS more than £5 billion a year – up to five times the previously accepted figure, researchers have said.

Previous studies put the cost of smoking to the NHS at between £1.4 billion and £1.7 billion in 1991.

But the new analysis pushes this figure to £5.17 billion in 2005/06 and the researchers believe this is still an underestimate. It equates to £
571,000 an hour.

The largest proportion of the money spent on illness caused by smoking was on cardiovascular diseases, at £250.8 million, the study showed.

The researchers, from the Department of Public Health at Oxford University, also calculated that almost one in five deaths in 2005 was due to smoking. "We estimate that 109,164 deaths (18.6 per cent of all deaths) in the UK in 2005 can be attributed to smoking," they wrote in the journal Tobacco Control.

This figure is similar to previous calculations and "suggests that the overall numbers of deaths attributable to smoking have not changed much in the past ten years".

The authors used a variety of sources to arrive at their £5.17 billion figure, including a review of studies published between 1997 and 2007 which calculated the cost of smoking.

Other data included NHS figures on deaths linked to smoking, NHS costs and information from the World Health Organisation's Global Burden of Disease Project, which looks at illness by region and gender.

One in four men and 23 per cent of women are smokers, based on 2005 figures, the paper noted.

But the authors warned that their figures were an underestimate. "First, we have not included indirect costs in our economic analysis; second, we have not included the burden due to passive smoking; and, third, we have not considered all conditions related to smoking," they wrote.

They noted, however, that the proportion of NHS money spent on smoking – around 5 per cent – has remained similar since the early 1990s.

The research comes after a report from the London School of Economics, published last week, put the cost of smoking to UK businesses at more than £2 billion.

Betty McBride, policy and communications director at the British Heart Foundation, said: "We are now spending over £5 billion a year dealing with the health consequences of smoking. This is money being drained out of the NHS as a direct result of something we have the power to prevent.

"Yet the true tragedy of this monstrous figure is the lives that are cut short or ruined as a result of smoking. This study shows exactly why we need the strongest possible measures to control the sale of tobacco."





Page 1 of 1

  • Last Updated: 08 June 2009 9:29 PM
  • Source: The Scotsman
  • Location: Edinburgh
  • Related Topics: Health of the NHS , Tobacco
 
1

Selgovae,

09/06/2009 01:03:42
"This is money being drained out of the NHS"

Not really if you factor in the income from tobacco duty. (About £10 billion, I believe.)

Of course, with an annual budget of about £100 billion, we could say that not-smoking is costing the NHS much more.

Aren't numbers great?
2

Charles Linskaill,

Edinburgh 09/06/2009 01:26:20

,,,,"researchers have said",,,,

,,And Pray Tell!, Who is behind these "Researchers"?

A tad of 'Political Correctness' going on, one presumes, that is if you are not 'Green'!

3

Charles Linskaill,

Edinburgh 09/06/2009 02:23:10


Take it all as a "Puff-of-Smoke"!, as we all know the revenue, the Government makes from cigarette's, far outweighs the cries of, "£½m an hour".


4

AB_R,

09/06/2009 05:52:30
Smoking costs the NHS nothing, as said above the duty on cigarettes more than pays for this.

5

Peripatetic Pensioner,

banff 09/06/2009 06:35:03
Whtever the arguements smokers still stink.
6

fife runner,

09/06/2009 06:49:07
what about the drain on resources.does not matter how altruistic smokers are about ploughing money in to the tax coffers there is still a finite number of staff to go round so everyone else suffers. money cannot buy doctors etc. if it could we could all become what we wnated by paying for it.
7

fife runner,

09/06/2009 06:50:20
ie smokers are a main cause of NHS waiting lists as are the obese and excessive drinkers
8

madrab,

edinburgh 09/06/2009 07:42:51
People that like to run are more likely to be injured than those that don't, are they not also a drain on resources?
9

an interested party,

09/06/2009 07:58:24
people that live longer are a clear drain on resources

(by that logic)
10

Dave From Barra,

Western Isles 09/06/2009 08:04:14
People who actively dodge soap and work are a clear drain on resources.
11

Scars,

Hamilton 09/06/2009 08:27:45
The thing id love someone to answer is : Why is this product not just banned ?

We now see grotesque images on a deck of fags showing the consequences of participation, yet seemingly this is no deterent. If these figures are true, and it seems folly to argue that tobacco is not a killer, then why on earth is this product permitted ?

The obvious reposte is "money" ... "income" for duty etc, but this is a false economy surely? If you didnt spend your money on fags, you spend it on something else and that'd be taxed too, so that one dont fly.

So, anyone got an answer as to why we just dont ban this substance ?

12

Herry Oaksters,

09/06/2009 09:11:32
11
Scars,Hamilton.
Simple,TAX REVENUE.
13

Scars,

hamilton 09/06/2009 09:38:14
#12 : herry

nah, surely that's never an urgument to justify a killer ?

As I say, tax is tax, the government need X amount of tax income, if its not fags (sic) they tax, then its something else. Why leave a killer product that is a drain on scciety, in circulation?

Tax cannot be the only answer!

Is it a just argument to say, I enjoy this product, even though its killing me and for the government to agree that this is an acceptable situation ? Surely this is irresponsible ?

14

english charlie,

09/06/2009 09:56:04
#2. Charles. The leader of this research works for the BHF. BHF spend a lot of money on anti-smoking propaganda. How long have the BHF been experts in finance?
15

Belinda-2,

09/06/2009 10:26:06
#13 'tax cannot be the answer.'

Perhaps not but it is a large part of the answer. Governments exist to run the economy and stop it going belly up. Tobacco income (tax and duties) helps to stop this happening. The prime purpose of the government is not health management but money management (without money you can't pay for health care, certainly not through the big business health care models that are pharmaceutical companies).

There is also the issue of Scottish Parliament pension funds, certainly some was invested in tobacco at the time the smoking ban was brought in. Highland council has been told by legal advisers that tobacco is the most sound investment for its pensions portfolio (that will ensure a reasonable retirment for Highland council employees) and advised it against disinvesting from tobacco.

Health insurance is another one: http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/152599.php including Standard Life up the road, they all have billions invested in tobacco (and into the bargain they all charge smokers a premium).

All these 'inethical investments' show that balancing the bookst is the bottom line for the government and business. If government or business has a good income stream they will not forgo it in the hope of replacing it with something cleaner, in case an alternative doesn't materialise.

The health services have an unhealthy relationship with drug companies and this also contributes to the costs of the NHS. I think one of the researchers said that the overall cost of the NHS had increased rather than the proportional cost of smokers.

If they want to charge people for taking risks with their health there will be a two tier system created by some doctor passing judgments on what are reasonable risks. This is very dodgy ground indeed and we would almost be better off without anyone getting free services. At least then the drug companies would not make a killing peddling drugs at public expense!
16

Davy,

09/06/2009 10:29:38
It has nothing to do with health.
It is about control, divide, stigmatize, & greed.
Instigated by freaky people.
I.e. greens, environmentalists, global warming nuts, & politicians.
17

SandyBottoms,

Edinburgh 09/06/2009 10:32:06
Well, there's all that, and the fact that if they banned tobacco, people would just turn to something else. The goal of the government is to eventually ban everything fun that gives people a bit of escape fromt heir everyday troubles.
18

an interested party,

09/06/2009 12:13:58
"if they banned tobacco, people would just turn to something else"

no they wouldnt, they would buy them on the black market
handing the tax money straight to crooks (same thing?)

banning things never reduced their use

see hash, coke, smack etc

the best way to stop drugs use / smoking is to persuade the user to stop, i.e. the path we are on
19

Davy,

09/06/2009 13:12:44
18 an interested party,
I don’t think the path we are on is working. We have now been on that path for over four decades.
Drug use is now epidemic, worldwide.
Smokers are treated as second class citizens
The system is clueless.
They have no idea what so ever as in reversing this trend apart from criminalizing & oppressing the population. Society’s failures are our present and past government’s failures.
They are the ones at fault.

20

english charlie,

09/06/2009 13:40:31
Don't forget all the other billions that the Government receives in taxation from employees of tobacco companies and tobacco related industries.
21

DaveA,

Forfarshire 09/06/2009 13:52:52
It just seems that it this is more propaganda than science, remember the Dutch study? Also to back myself here is a study published in the New England Journal Of Medicine from 1997.

“Revealed: Why healthy patients cost more to treat than smokers and the obese”


“Based on healthcare costs in Holland, where the study was conducted, a person of normal weight can expect their medical bills from the age of 20 to total £210,000 over the course of their lifetime, while an obese person's costs will be £187,000. Smokers, whose life expectancy is the shortest of the three, cost the least, at £165,000, the researchers from the National Institute for Public Health and Environment calculated.”

NEJM

"Conclusions If people stopped smoking, there would be a savings in health care costs, but only in the short term. Eventually, smoking cessation would lead to increased health care costs."


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/health/healthmain.html?in_article_id=512333&in_page_id=1774&in_page_id=1774&expand=true#StartComments

http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/abstract/337/15/1052

22

soapy1,

Rainworth 09/06/2009 14:42:05
The anti smoking lobby claim that smoker numbers are declining, if that is the case why are treatment costs for smokers rising and by such a huge amount?

Were the original estimates wrong? if that is the case why should these latest figures be any more believable?

It is established fact that smokers cover their own costs in the NHS in fact they cover the costs of more non smokers than they do smokers!

That being the case why is the NHS diverting £27million into smoking cessation when they benefit so much from smokers,£27million could pay a lot of staff, replace old equipment, open wards and casualty centres, all these things are of benefit to the NHS and to their patients!

Where is the wisdom in robbing the NHS in this manner?
23

Fletty73,

Stirling 09/06/2009 17:31:27
Have roughly worked out £25k is how much tobacco tax I've paid in my entire life thus far. That against 10 minutes of NHS time once when I got a routine check up. Will I be entitled to a cash sum rebate under these proposals?
24

fife runner,

09/06/2009 18:46:20
#23 what a waste of money.
25

fife runner,

09/06/2009 18:47:04
putting something between your lips, setting fire to it then paying for the priveledge
26

soapy1,

09/06/2009 19:04:32
#24/25

You mean like the £27 million that could be used to save real lives then as opposed to statistical lives?

we are getting through then, there is still hope for this country yet!

27

Captain Flint,

Edinburgh 11/06/2009 14:37:38
The argument that smokers make a net contribution to the economy keeps on going unchallenged, presumably based on the myth that tobacco is the only commodity that is ever taxed, and that non-smokers are somehow sponging off the nicotine-junkies.

What a lot of cobblers.

If I don't spend £5.80 on a packet of fags, I'll spend it on something else. I grant you that it probably won't be taxed as heavily as that one-off cigarette transaction, but the net result of the money going round and round within the economy will be much the same: every time it changes hands, the treasury gets its cut. Whether I buy fags or anything else.

The bottom line is that if cigarettes were banned tomorrow, the treasury would be no worse off. Smokers do not make an additional contribution to the national economy, and they definitely take much more out of it.
28

soapy1,

11/06/2009 14:57:24
to ensurethat the treasury is no worse off for the loss of tobacco revenue it is a cast iron guarentee thet tax will be raised on alcohol and petrol to make up the difference! Captain Flint may wish to absorb the extra taxation, thye would also increase VAT and gain by indirect taxation too at a greater rate than it would have been had the smokers been left alone do i have any other volunteers?

while they tack on the loss of tobacco revenue they'll also add a little more for good measure so the non smoker will pay more tax for the privilage of stopping smoking but if that is what you want then so be it.

Personally the LESS TAX I PAY THE BETTER!

 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
 
  

 
 

Today's Vote

Should the Western General ditch its fresh-cooked meals to make more room?
Yes, it’s cheaper to bring in food from elsewhere
No, patients need decent food to help them get better
Maybe, it depends what they make room for

Featured Advertising



Sister Newspapers:
Press Complaints Commission

This website and its associated newspaper adheres to the Press Complaints Commission’s Code of Practice. If you have a complaint about editorial content which relates to inaccuracy or intrusion, then contact the Editor by clicking here.

If you remain dissatisfied with the response provided then you can contact the PCC by clicking here.