Tobacco Cessation in Affordable Care Act Medicaid Expansion States Versus Non-expansion States.

INTRODUCTION: Community health centers (CHCs) care for vulnerable patients who use tobacco at higher than national rates. States that expanded Medicaid eligibility under the Affordable Care Act (ACA) provided insurance coverage to tobacco users not previously Medicaid-eligible, thereby potentially increasing their odds of receiving cessation assistance. We examined if tobacco users in Medicaid expansion states had increased quit rates, cessation medications ordered, and greater health care utilization compared to patients in non-expansion states. METHODS: Using electronic health record (EHR) data from 219 CHCs in 10 states that expanded Medicaid as of January 1, 2014, we identified patients aged 19-64 with tobacco use status documented in the EHR within 6 months prior to ACA Medicaid expansion and ≥1 visit with tobacco use status assessed within 24 months post-expansion (January 1, 2014 to December 31, 2015). We propensity score matched these patients to tobacco users from 108 CHCs in six non-expansion states (n = 27 670 matched pairs; 55 340 patients). Using a retrospective observational cohort study design, we compared odds of having a quit status, cessation medication ordered, and ≥6 visits within the post-expansion period among patients in expansion versus non-expansion states. RESULTS: Patients in expansion states had increased adjusted odds of quitting (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] = 1.35, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.28-1.43), having a medication ordered (aOR = 1.53, 95% CI: 1.44-1.62), and having ≥6 follow-up visits (aOR = 1.34, 95% CI: 1.28-1.41) compared to patients from non-expansion states. CONCLUSIONS: Increased access to insurance via the ACA Medicaid expansion likely led to increased quit rates within this vulnerable population. IMPLICATIONS: CHCs care for vulnerable patients at higher risk of tobacco use than the general population. Medicaid expansion via the ACA provided insurance coverage to a large number of tobacco users not previously Medicaid-eligible. We found that expanded insurance coverage was associated with increased cessation assistance and higher odds of tobacco cessation. Continued provision of insurance coverage could lead to increased quit rates among high-risk populations, resulting in improvements in population health outcomes and reduced total health care costs.

Impact of tax and tobacco-free generation on health-adjusted life years in the Solomon Islands: a multistate life table simulation.

OBJECTIVE: To estimate health-adjusted life years (HALY) gained in the Solomon Islands for the 2016 population over the remainder of their lives, for three interventions: hypothetical eradication of cigarettes; 25% annual tax increases to 2025 such that tax represents 70% of sales price of tobacco; and a tobacco-free generation (TFG). DESIGN: We adapted an existing multistate life table model, using Global Burden of Disease (GBD) and other data inputs, including diseases contributing >5% of the GBD estimated disability-adjusted life years lost in the Solomon Islands in 2016. Tax effects used price increases and price elasticities to change cigarette smoking prevalence. The TFG was modelled by no uptake of smoking among those 20 years and under after 2016. RESULTS: Under business as usual (BAU) smoking prevalence decreased over time, and decreased faster under the tax intervention (especially for younger ages). For example, for 20-year-old males the best estimated prevalence in 2036 was 22.9% under BAU, reducing to 14.2% under increased tax. Eradicating tobacco in 2016 would achieve 1510 undiscounted HALYs per 1000 people alive in 2016, over the remainder of their lives. The tax intervention would achieve 370 HALYs per 1000 (24.5% of potential health gain), and the TFG 798 HALYs per 1000 people (52.5%). By time horizon, 10.5% of the HALY gains from tax and 8.0% from TFG occur from 2016 to 2036, and the remainder at least 20 years into the future. CONCLUSION: This study quantified the potential of two tobacco control policies over maximum health gains achievable through tobacco eradication in the Solomon Islands.

The potential impact and cost-effectiveness of tobacco reduction strategies for tuberculosis prevention in Canadian Inuit communities.

BACKGROUND: Tuberculosis (TB) remains a significant public health problem in Canadian Inuit communities. In 2016, Canadian Inuit had an incidence rate 35 times the Canadian average. Tobacco use is an important risk factor for TB, and over 60% of Inuit adults smoke. We aimed to estimate changes in TB-related outcomes and costs from reducing tobacco use in Inuit communities. METHODS: Using a transmission model to estimate the initial prevalence of latent TB infection (LTBI), followed by decision analysis modelling, we conducted a cost-effectiveness analysis that compared the current standard of care for management of TB and LTBI without additional tobacco reduction intervention (Status Quo) with (1) increased tobacco taxation, (2) pharmacotherapy and counselling for smoking cessation, (3) pharmacotherapy, counselling plus mass media campaign, and (4) the combination of all these. Projected outcomes included the following: TB cases, TB-related deaths, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and health system costs, all over 20 years. RESULTS: The combined strategy was projected to reduce active TB cases by 6.1% (95% uncertainty range 4.9-7.0%) and TB deaths by 10.4% (9.5-11.4%) over 20 years, relative to the status quo. Increased taxation was the only cost-saving strategy. CONCLUSIONS: Currently available strategies to reduce commercial tobacco use will likely have a modest impact on TB-related outcomes in the medium term, but some may be cost saving.

Effect of an Evidence-based Inpatient Tobacco Dependence Treatment Service on 1-Year Postdischarge Health Care Costs.

BACKGROUND: In 2014, the Medical University of South Carolina (MUSC) implemented a Tobacco Dependence Treatment Service (TDTS) consistent with the Joint Commission (JC) standards recommending that hospitals screen patients for smoking, provide cessation support, and follow-up contact for relapse prevention within 1 month of discharge. We previously demonstrated that patients exposed to the MUSC TDTS were approximately half as likely to be smoking one month after discharge and 23% less likely to have a 30-day hospital readmission. This paper examines whether exposure to the TDTS influenced downstream health care charges 12 months after patients were discharged from the hospital. METHODS: Data from MUSC's electronic health records, the TDTS, and statewide health care utilization datasets (eg, hospitalization, emergency department, and ambulatory surgery visits) were linked to assess how exposure to the MUSC TDTS impacted health care charges. Total health care charges were compared for patients with and without TDTS exposure. To reduce potential TDTS exposure selection bias, propensity score weighting was used to balance baseline characteristics between groups. The cost of delivering the MUSC TDTS intervention was calculated, along with cost per smoker. RESULTS: The overall adjusted mean health care charges for smokers exposed to the TDTS were $7299 lower than for those who did not receive TDTS services (P=0.047). The TDTS cost per smoker was modest by comparison at $34.21 per smoker eligible for the service. DISCUSSION: Results suggest that implementation of a TDTS consistent with JC standards for smoking cessation can be affordably implemented and yield substantial health care savings that would benefit patients, hospitals, and insurers.

State Medicaid Coverage for Tobacco Cessation Treatments and Barriers to Accessing Treatments - United States, 2015-2017.

Cigarette smoking prevalence among Medicaid enrollees (25.3%) is approximately twice that of privately insured Americans (11.8%), placing Medicaid enrollees at increased risk for smoking-related disease and death (1). Medicaid spends approximately $39 billion annually on treating smoking-related diseases (2). Individual, group, and telephone counseling and seven Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved medications* are effective in helping tobacco users quit (3). Although state Medicaid coverage of tobacco cessation treatments improved during 2014-2015, coverage was still limited in most states (4). To monitor recent changes in state Medicaid cessation coverage for traditional (i.e., nonexpansion) Medicaid enrollees, the American Lung Association collected data on coverage of a total of nine cessation treatments: individual counseling, group counseling, and seven FDA-approved cessation medications† in state Medicaid programs during July 1, 2015-June 30, 2017. The American Lung Association also collected data on seven barriers to accessing covered treatments, such as copayments and prior authorization. As of June 30, 2017, 10 states covered all nine of these treatments for all enrollees, up from nine states as of June 30, 2015; of these 10 states, Missouri was the only state to have removed all seven barriers to accessing these cessation treatments. State Medicaid programs that cover all evidence-based cessation treatments, remove barriers to accessing these treatments, and promote covered treatments to Medicaid enrollees and health care providers would be expected to reduce smoking, smoking-related disease, and smoking-attributable federal and state health care expenditures (5-7).

Tobacco cessation and household spending on non-tobacco goods: results from the US Consumer Expenditure Surveys.

OBJECTIVES: To estimate the impact of tobacco cessation on household spending on non-tobacco goods in the USA. METHODS: Using 2006-2015 Consumer Expenditure Survey data, 9130 tobacco-consuming households were followed for four quarters. Households were categorised during the fourth quarter as having: (1) recent tobacco cessation, (2) long-term cessation, (3) relapsed cessation or (4) no cessation. Generalised linear models were used to compare fourth quarter expenditures on alcohol, food at home, food away from home, housing, healthcare, transportation, entertainment and other goods between the no-cessation households and those with recent, long-term or relapsed cessation. The full sample was analysed, and then analysed by income quartile. RESULTS: In the full sample, households with long-term and recent cessation had lower spending on alcohol, food, entertainment and transportation (p<0.001). Recent cessation was further associated with reduced spending on food at home (p<0.001), whereas relapsed cessation was associated with higher spending on healthcare and food away from home (p<0.001). In the highest income quartile, long-term and recent cessations were associated with reduced alcohol spending only (p<0.001), whereas in the lowest income quartile, long-term and recent cessations were associated with lower spending on alcohol, food at home, transportation and entertainment (p<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Households that quit tobacco spend less in areas that enable or complement their tobacco cessation, most of which may be motivated by financial strain. The most robust association between tobacco cessation and spending was the significantly lower spending on alcohol.

Evaluation of a population-level strategy to promote tobacco treatment use among insured smokers: a pragmatic, randomized trial.

BACKGROUND: Most smokers do not use evidence-based smoking cessation treatment. Increasing utilization of these services is an important public health goal. Health care systems and insurers are well positioned to support this goal within their patient populations. We tested whether a brief, mail-based intervention increased utilization of tobacco cessation services among insured smokers. METHODS: Adult smokers were identified via automated health plan data and randomized to one of five treatment arms (n = 4767). Randomization was stratified by gender, age, and type of health plan coverage. Three arms received a letter containing motivational content and treatment referral information. Motivational content emphasized either the financial, health, or values-based benefits of quitting. One arm received a referral letter with no motivational content, and one arm received no letter. Enrollment in the referred tobacco cessation program was monitored for 5 months. Treatment was available to all participants through their insurance. RESULTS: Across all four letter conditions, 0.8% of participants enrolled in tobacco treatment compared to 0.9% in the no letter reference group (p = .69). No single letter condition was superior to the others (p = .71), but treatment uptake was greater among participants who received their care and coverage from the health plan versus those with insurance coverage only (1.2% vs. 0.3%, p < .01). CONCLUSIONS: A one-time, mailed letter is not a cost-effective strategy for promoting use of covered smoking cessation treatment within large health plan populations, particularly when the message source is an insurance provider only and does not also provide clinical care. Health plans and insurers should consider alternative outreach efforts to promote treatment uptake among smokers. TRIAL REGISTRATIONS: TRN registered retrospectively with ISRCTN registry ( www.isrctn.com ). Registered on 11/01/2018. Registration number: ISRCTN32311137 .

Association of the Affordable Care Act With Smoking and Tobacco Treatment Utilization Among Adults Newly Enrolled in Health Care.

OBJECTIVES: To examine rates of smoking and tobacco treatment utilization by insurance coverage status (Medicaid, commercial, exchange) among newly enrolled patients in the post Affordable Care Act (ACA) era. METHODS: We examined new members who enrolled in Kaiser Permanente Northern California through Medicaid, the California exchange, or nonexchange commercial plans (N=122,298) in the first 6 months of 2014 following ACA implementation. We compared these groups on smoking prevalence and tested whether smokers in each group differed on sociodemographic characteristics and in their utilization of tobacco treatment (pharmacotherapy and counseling) in 2014. RESULTS: Smoking prevalence was higher among Medicaid (22%) than exchange (13%) or commercial (12%) patients (P<0.0001). Controlling for key sociodemographic and clinical characteristics, Medicaid (odds ratio, 1.49; 95% confidence interval, 1.29-1.73) smokers had greater odds of tobacco treatment use than commercial smokers. Other groups at risk for underuse included men, younger patients, Asians, and Latinos. CONCLUSIONS: In this cohort of newly enrolled patients after ACA implementation, Medicaid patients were more likely to be smokers compared with exchange and commercial patients, but they were also more likely to use tobacco treatment. Low tobacco treatment use among exchange and commercial plan smokers, as well as younger men, Asians and Latinos poses a significant obstacle to improving public health and additional targeted outreach strategies may be needed to engage these patients with available health services.

Healthcare financing systems for increasing the use of tobacco dependence treatment.

BACKGROUND: Tobacco smoking is the leading preventable cause of death worldwide, which makes it essential to stimulate smoking cessation. The financial cost of smoking cessation treatment can act as a barrier to those seeking support. We hypothesised that provision of financial assistance for people trying to quit smoking, or reimbursement of their care providers, could lead to an increased rate of successful quit attempts. This is an update of the original 2005 review. OBJECTIVES: The primary objective of this review was to assess the impact of reducing the costs for tobacco smokers or healthcare providers for using or providing smoking cessation treatment through healthcare financing interventions on abstinence from smoking. The secondary objectives were to examine the effects of different levels of financial support on the use or prescription of smoking cessation treatment, or both, and on the number of smokers making a quit attempt (quitting smoking for at least 24 hours). We also assessed the cost effectiveness of different financial interventions, and analysed the costs per additional quitter, or per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group Specialised Register in September 2016. SELECTION CRITERIA: We considered randomised controlled trials (RCTs), controlled trials and interrupted time series studies involving financial benefit interventions to smokers or their healthcare providers, or both. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two reviewers independently extracted data and assessed the quality of the included studies. We calculated risk ratios (RR) for individual studies on an intention-to-treat basis and performed meta-analysis using a random-effects model. MAIN RESULTS: In the current update, we have added six new relevant studies, resulting in a total of 17 studies included in this review involving financial interventions directed at smokers or healthcare providers, or both.Full financial interventions directed at smokers had a favourable effect on abstinence at six months or longer when compared to no intervention (RR 1.77, 95% CI 1.37 to 2.28, I² = 33%, 9333 participants). There was no evidence that full coverage interventions increased smoking abstinence compared to partial coverage interventions (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.48, I² = 64%, 5914 participants), but partial coverage interventions were more effective in increasing abstinence than no intervention (RR 1.27 95% CI 1.02 to 1.59, I² = 21%, 7108 participants). The economic evaluation showed costs per additional quitter ranging from USD 97 to USD 7646 for the comparison of full coverage with partial or no coverage.There was no clear evidence of an effect on smoking cessation when we pooled two trials of financial incentives directed at healthcare providers (RR 1.16, CI 0.98 to 1.37, I² = 0%, 2311 participants).Full financial interventions increased the number of participants making a quit attempt when compared to no interventions (RR 1.11, 95% CI 1.04 to 1.17, I² = 15%, 9065 participants). There was insufficient evidence to show whether partial financial interventions increased quit attempts compared to no interventions (RR 1.13, 95% CI 0.98 to 1.31, I² = 88%, 6944 participants).Full financial interventions increased the use of smoking cessation treatment compared to no interventions with regard to various pharmacological and behavioural treatments: nicotine replacement therapy (NRT): RR 1.79, 95% CI 1.54 to 2.09, I² = 35%, 9455 participants; bupropion: RR 3.22, 95% CI 1.41 to 7.34, I² = 71%, 6321 participants; behavioural therapy: RR 1.77, 95% CI 1.19 to 2.65, I² = 75%, 9215 participants.There was evidence that partial coverage compared to no coverage reported a small positive effect on the use of bupropion (RR 1.15, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.29, I² = 0%, 6765 participants). Interventions directed at healthcare providers increased the use of behavioural therapy (RR 1.69, 95% CI 1.01 to 2.86, I² = 85%, 25820 participants), but not the use of NRT and/or bupropion (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.18, I² = 6%, 2311 participants).We assessed the quality of the evidence for the main outcome, abstinence from smoking, as moderate. In most studies participants were not blinded to the different study arms and researchers were not blinded to the allocated interventions. Furthermore, there was not always sufficient information on attrition rates. We detected some imprecision but we judged this to be of minor consequence on the outcomes of this study. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Full financial interventions directed at smokers when compared to no financial interventions increase the proportion of smokers who attempt to quit, use smoking cessation treatments, and succeed in quitting. There was no clear and consistent evidence of an effect on smoking cessation from financial incentives directed at healthcare providers. We are only moderately confident in the effect estimate because there was some risk of bias due to a lack of blinding in participants and researchers, and insufficient information on attrition rates.

A tobacco-free world: a call to action to phase out the sale of tobacco products by 2040.

The time has come for the world to acknowledge the unacceptability of the damage being done by the tobacco industry and work towards a world essentially free from the sale (legal and illegal) of tobacco products. A tobacco-free world by 2040, where less than 5% of the world's adult population use tobacco, is socially desirable, technically feasible, and could become politically practical. Three possible ways forward exist: so-called business-as-usual, with most countries steadily implementing the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC) provisions; accelerated implementation of the FCTC by all countries; and a so-called turbo-charged approach that complements FCTC actions with strengthened UN leadership, full engagement of all sectors, and increased investment in tobacco control. Only the turbo-charged approach will achieve a tobacco-free world by 2040 where tobacco is out of sight, out of mind, and out of fashion--yet not prohibited. The first and most urgent priority is the inclusion of an ambitious tobacco target in the post-2015 sustainable development health goal. The second priority is accelerated implementation of the FCTC policies in all countries, with full engagement from all sectors including the private sector--from workplaces to pharmacies--and with increased national and global investment. The third priority is an amendment of the FCTC to include an ambitious global tobacco reduction goal. The fourth priority is a UN high-level meeting on tobacco use to galvanise global action towards the 2040 tobacco-free world goal on the basis of new strategies, new resources, and new players. Decisive and strategic action on this bold vision will prevent hundreds of millions of unnecessary deaths during the remainder of this century and safeguard future generations from the ravages of tobacco use.

Effects of Global Payment and Accountable Care on Tobacco Cessation Service Use: An Observational Study.

BACKGROUND: Tobacco use is the leading cause of preventable death and disability. New payment and delivery system models including global payment and accountable care have the potential to increase use of cost-effective tobacco cessation services. OBJECTIVE: To examine how the Alternative Quality Contract (AQC) established in 2009 by Blue Cross Blue Shield of Massachusetts (BCBSMA) has affected tobacco cessation service use. DESIGN: We used 2006-2011 BCBSMA claims and enrollment data to compare adults 18-64 years in AQC provider organizations to adults in non-AQC provider organizations. We examined the AQC's effects on all enrollees; a subset at high risk of tobacco-related complications due to certain medical conditions; and behavioral health service users. MAIN MEASURES: We examined use of: (1) any cessation treatment (pharmacotherapy or counseling); (2) varenicline or bupropion; (3) nicotine replacement therapies (NRTs); (4) cessation counseling; and (4) combination therapy (pharmacotherapy plus counseling). We also examined duration of pharmacotherapy use and number of counseling visits among users. KEY RESULTS: Rates of tobacco cessation treatment use were higher following implementation of the AQC relative to the comparison group overall (2.02 vs. 1.87 %, p < 0.0001), among enrollees at risk for tobacco-related complications (4.97 vs. 4.66 %, p < 0.0001), and among behavioral health service users (3.67 vs. 3.25 %, p < 0.0001). Statistically significant increases were found for use of varenicline or bupropion alone, counseling alone, and combination therapy, but not for NRT use, pharmacotherapy duration, or number of counseling visits among users. CONCLUSIONS: In its initial three years, the AQC was associated with increases in use of tobacco cessation services.

State Medicaid Expansion Tobacco Cessation Coverage and Number of Adult Smokers Enrolled in Expansion Coverage - United States, 2016.

In 2015, 27.8% of adult Medicaid enrollees were current cigarette smokers, compared with 11.1% of adults with private health insurance, placing Medicaid enrollees at increased risk for smoking-related disease and death (1). In addition, smoking-related diseases are a major contributor to Medicaid costs, accounting for about 15% (>$39 billion) of annual Medicaid spending during 2006-2010 (2). Individual, group, and telephone counseling and seven Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved medications are effective treatments for helping tobacco users quit (3). Insurance coverage for tobacco cessation treatments is associated with increased quit attempts, use of cessation treatments, and successful smoking cessation (3); this coverage has the potential to reduce Medicaid costs (4). However, barriers such as requiring copayments and prior authorization for treatment can impede access to cessation treatments (3,5). As of July 1, 2016, 32 states (including the District of Columbia) have expanded Medicaid eligibility through the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA),*,† which has increased access to health care services, including cessation treatments (5). CDC used data from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) Medicaid Budget and Expenditure System (MBES) and the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS) to estimate the number of adult smokers enrolled in Medicaid expansion coverage. To assess cessation coverage among Medicaid expansion enrollees, the American Lung Association collected data on coverage of, and barriers to accessing, evidence-based cessation treatments. As of December 2015, approximately 2.3 million adult smokers were newly enrolled in Medicaid because of Medicaid expansion. As of July 1, 2016, all 32 states that have expanded Medicaid eligibility under ACA covered some cessation treatments for all Medicaid expansion enrollees, with nine states covering all nine cessation treatments for all Medicaid expansion enrollees. All 32 states imposed one or more barriers on at least one cessation treatment for at least some enrollees. Providing barrier-free access to cessation treatments and promoting their use can increase use of these treatments and reduce smoking and smoking-related disease, death, and health care costs among Medicaid enrollees (4,6-8).

The impact of an increase in excise tax on the retail price of tobacco in New Zealand.

BACKGROUND: In 2010, the New Zealand (NZ) government introduced an annual 10% tobacco excise tax increase. We examined retailers' adherence to recommended retail prices (RRP), and whether the RRP included the full tax increase. METHODS: We collected price data on three British American Tobacco (BAT) factory-made cigarette brands, (premium, mainstream, and budget), and one roll-your-own tobacco brand before and after the 2014 tax increase from a sample of tobacco retailers. We examined price increases in each tobacco brand and compared these with the RRP. The extent to which the excise tax increases had been included in the RRP since 2010 was estimated using data sourced from the Ministry of Health and NZ Customs. FINDINGS: The median increase in price from before to after the tax change was only 3% for the budget brand (461 retailers). This contrasted with the median of 8% for the premium brand (448 retailers), and 11% for both mainstream and roll-your-own brands (471 and 464 retailers, respectively). While many retail outlets made changes according to the RRP set by BAT, several did not comply. Our analyses suggest BAT may be undershifting excise tax on the budget brand, and overshifting tax on brands in other price partitions. CONCLUSIONS: Tobacco companies do not appear to be increasing the RRPs of budget brands in line with tobacco excise tax increases. The increasing price differential between budget brands, and mainstream and premium brands may undermine cessation and impede realisation of New Zealand's Smokefree 2025 goal.

How Medicaid and Other Public Policies Affect Use of Tobacco Cessation Therapy, United States, 2010-2014.

INTRODUCTION: State Medicaid programs can cover tobacco cessation therapies for millions of low-income smokers in the United States, but use of this benefit is low and varies widely by state. This article assesses the effects of changes in Medicaid benefit policies, general tobacco policies, smoking norms, and public health programs on the use of cessation therapy among Medicaid smokers. METHODS: We used longitudinal panel analysis, using 2-way fixed effects models, to examine the effects of changes in state policies and characteristics on state-level use of Medicaid tobacco cessation medications from 2010 through 2014. RESULTS: Medicaid policies that require patients to obtain counseling to get medications reduced the use of cessation medications by approximately one-quarter to one-third; states that cover all types of cessation medications increased usage by approximately one-quarter to one-third. Non-Medicaid policies did not have significant effects on use levels. CONCLUSIONS: States could increase efforts to quit by developing more comprehensive coverage and reducing barriers to coverage. Reductions in barriers could bolster smoking cessation rates, and the costs would be small compared with the costs of treating smoking-related diseases. Innovative initiatives to help smokers quit could improve health and reduce health care costs.

State Tobacco Control Program Spending--United States, 2011.

Evidence-based, statewide tobacco control programs that are comprehensive, sustained, and accountable reduce smoking rates and tobacco-related diseases and deaths. States that made larger investments in tobacco prevention and control have seen larger declines in cigarettes sales than the United States as a whole, and the prevalence of smoking has declined faster as spending for tobacco control programs has increased. CDC's Best Practices for Comprehensive Tobacco Control Programs (Best Practices) outlines the elements of an evidence-based state tobacco control program and provides recommended state funding levels to substantially reduce tobacco-related disease, disability, and death. To analyze states' spending in relation to program components outlined within Best Practices, CDC assessed state tobacco control programs' expenditures for fiscal year 2011. In 2011, states spent approximately $658 million on tobacco control and prevention, which accounts for less than 3% of the states' revenues from the sale of tobacco products and only 17.8% of the level recommended by CDC. Evidence suggests that funding tobacco prevention and control efforts at the levels recommended in Best Practices could achieve larger and more rapid reductions in tobacco use and associated morbidity and mortality.

State Medicaid Coverage for Tobacco Cessation Treatments and Barriers to Coverage - United States, 2014-2015.

Medicaid enrollees have a cigarette smoking prevalence (30.4%) twice as high as that of privately insured Americans (14.7%), placing them at increased risk for smoking-related disease and death. Individual, group, and telephone counseling and seven Food and Drug Administration (FDA)­approved medications are evidence-based, effective treatments for helping tobacco users quit. A Healthy People 2020 objective (TU-8) calls for all state Medicaid programs to adopt comprehensive coverage of these treatments. However, a previous MMWR report indicated that, although state Medicaid coverage of cessation treatments had improved during 2008­2014, this coverage was still limited in most states. To monitor the most recent trends in state Medicaid cessation coverage, the American Lung Association collected data on coverage of, and barriers to, accessing all evidence-based cessation treatments except telephone counseling in state Medicaid programs (for a total of nine treatments) during January 31, 2014­June 30, 2015. As of June 30, 2015, all 50 states covered certain cessation treatments for at least some Medicaid enrollees. During 2014­2015, increases were observed in the number of states covering individual counseling, group counseling, and all seven FDA-approved cessation medications for all Medicaid enrollees; however, only nine states covered all nine treatments for all enrollees. Common barriers to accessing covered treatments included prior authorization requirements, limits on duration, annual limits on quit attempts, and required copayments. Previous research in both Medicaid and other populations indicates that state Medicaid programs could reduce smoking prevalence, smoking-related morbidity, and smoking-related health care costs among Medicaid enrollees by covering all evidence-based cessation treatments, removing all barriers to accessing these treatments, promoting coverage to Medicaid enrollees and health care providers, and monitoring use of covered treatments.

Economic evaluations of tobacco control mass media campaigns: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: International evidence shows that mass media campaigns are effective tobacco control interventions. However, they require substantial investment; a key question is whether their costs are justified by their benefits. The aim of this study was to systematically and comprehensively review economic evaluations of tobacco control mass media campaigns. METHODS: An electronic search of databases and grey literature was conducted to identify all published economic evaluations of tobacco control mass media campaigns. The authors reviewed studies independently and assessed the quality of studies using the Drummond 10-point checklist. A narrative synthesis was used to summarise the key features and quality of the identified studies. RESULTS: 10 studies met the inclusion criteria and were included in the review. All the studies included a cost effectiveness analysis, a cost utility analysis or both. The methods were highly heterogeneous, particularly in terms of the types of costs included. On the whole, studies were well conducted, but the interventions were often poorly described in terms of campaign content and intensity, and cost information was frequently inadequate. All studies concluded that tobacco control mass media campaigns are a cost effective public health intervention. CONCLUSIONS: The evidence on the cost effectiveness of tobacco control mass media campaigns is limited, but of acceptable quality and consistently suggests that they offer good value for money.

Time series analysis of the impact of tobacco control policies on smoking prevalence among Australian adults, 2001-2011.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the impact of tobacco control policies and mass media campaigns on smoking prevalence in Australian adults. METHODS: Data for calculating the average monthly prevalence of smoking between January 2001 and June 2011 were obtained via structured interviews of randomly sampled adults aged 18 years or older from Australia's five largest capital cities (monthly mean number of adults interviewed: 2375). The influence on smoking prevalence was estimated for increased tobacco taxes; strengthened smoke-free laws; increased monthly population exposure to televised tobacco control mass media campaigns and pharmaceutical company advertising for nicotine replacement therapy (NRT), using gross ratings points; monthly sales of NRT, bupropion and varenicline; and introduction of graphic health warnings on cigarette packs. Autoregressive integrated moving average (ARIMA) models were used to examine the influence of these interventions on smoking prevalence. FINDINGS: The mean smoking prevalence for the study period was 19.9% (standard deviation: 2.0%), with a drop from 23.6% (in January 2001) to 17.3% (in June 2011). The best-fitting model showed that stronger smoke-free laws, tobacco price increases and greater exposure to mass media campaigns independently explained 76% of the decrease in smoking prevalence from February 2002 to June 2011. CONCLUSION: Increased tobacco taxation, more comprehensive smoke-free laws and increased investment in mass media campaigns played a substantial role in reducing smoking prevalence among Australian adults between 2001 and 2011.

State medicaid coverage for tobacco cessation treatments and barriers to coverage - United States, 2008-2014.

Medicaid enrollees have a higher smoking prevalence than the general population (30.1% of adult Medicaid enrollees aged <65 years smoke, compared with 18.1% of U.S. adults of all ages), and smoking-related disease is a major contributor to increasing Medicaid costs. Evidence-based cessation treatments exist, including individual, group, and telephone counseling and seven Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved medications. A Healthy People 2020 objective (TU-8) calls for all state Medicaid programs to adopt comprehensive coverage of these treatments. However, most states do not provide such coverage. To monitor trends in state Medicaid cessation coverage, the American Lung Association collected data on coverage of all evidence-based cessation treatments except telephone counseling by state Medicaid programs (for a total of nine treatments), as well as data on barriers to accessing these treatments (such as charging copayments or limiting the number of covered quit attempts) from December 31, 2008, to January 31, 2014. As of 2014, all 50 states and the District of Columbia cover some cessation treatments for at least some Medicaid enrollees, but only seven states cover all nine treatments for all enrollees. Common barriers in 2014 include duration limits (40 states for at least some populations or plans), annual limits (37 states), prior authorization requirements (36 states), and copayments (35 states). Comparing 2008 with 2014, 33 states added treatments to coverage, and 22 states removed treatments from coverage; 26 states removed barriers to accessing treatments, and 29 states added new barriers. The evidence from previous analyses suggests that states could reduce smoking-related morbidity and health-care costs among Medicaid enrollees by providing Medicaid coverage for all evidence-based cessation treatments, removing all barriers to accessing these treatments, promoting the coverage, and monitoring its use.