Banning Smoking in Public PlacesCost benefit analysis of the.ppt

1、1,Banning Smoking in Public Places Cost benefit analysis of the proposed legislation for England,Public Expenditure Analysis 3rd May 2006Caroline Godkin Jennifer Potter Jennifer Sleppy,2,Structure of this presentation,Background and outline of the CBA Review of the costs Review of the Benefits Sensi

2、tivity Analysis Summary and Conclusions,3,1. Background,4,An analysis and critique of the case for a smoking ban in enclosed public places,Legislation in February 2006 was debated for banning smoking in all enclosed public places in England Cost benefit cases were constructed for four options: To co

3、ntinue with the voluntary approach To make all enclosed spaces smoke free To give local authorities powers to make enclosed spaces smoke free To make all enclosed spaces smoke free with exceptions The option that was passed, and that will be considered in this critique, was a ban in all spaces witho

4、ut exceptions,5,Some smoking facts about the UK,Smoking rates in Great Britain have fallen every year and are currently at about 26% of the population Cigarettes are extremely highly taxed Duty of 22% of price plus 100 per 100 Value added tax of 17.5% There are significant rates of cigarette smuggli

5、ng from Continental Europe exploiting lower taxes in other EU countries,Percent of Great Britain Population who Smoke 1974 - 2003,6,The Net Benefits for a complete ban were estimated to be c. 1.7bn for a single year,7,Smokers, smokers trying to quit and non-smokers are all given standing,The study c

6、onsidered the losses in consumer surplus for smokers who would not be able to smoke indoors both at work and in bars The consumer surplus loss of those trying to quit was not considered as it was viewed that they would be “happy to give it up” The considerable number of non-smokers were given standi

7、ng through the reduction to second hand smoke The tobacco industry as well as The Exchequer were given standing through consideration of their losses from any ban,8,The study contained few details of calculations and was inconsistent,The study used many calculations and assumptions that were not sta

8、ted in the paper Detailed research was required to be able to understand values given for costs and benefits Both sections were full of inconsistencies Reductions in smokers and amount of cigarettes smoked varied Items were double counted,9,2. Review of the costs,10,The total costs are estimated to

9、be 2bn for the first year,These are the costs that will be looked at in detail,11,Many of the costs are overstated,For employees the loss in their consumer surplus is counted as though they would stop smoking altogether you would just go outside to smoke In addition counting the production losses fr

10、om people going outside double counts the employee losses i.e. you either stop smoking or you go outside Losses to the tobacco industry are taken at a flat 10% of the tax revenue with no explanation of the basis of the calculation,12,Inconsistent assumptions are used,Employee smokers consumer surplu

11、s is considered but not that of customers Overall the predicted fall in revenue represents a 19% fall in duty for England In 2004 05 tobacco duty collected in the UK was 8.1m or 6.88m for England The suggested revenue losses for the smoking ban is 1.3m or 19% of the total revenue receipts Compare th

12、is with reduction in smoking of 6.5%,13,The cost to the health service of additional years of life is not considered,Increasing life expectancy will place an additional burden both on the health service and also on the pensions system The report states that there has been no additional value assigne

13、d to the costs of increasing health care and pensions We have considered the additional costs of healthcare after 10 years of the ban being in place,14,After the first year we have assumed the costs will reduce,Revenue losses to the Exchequer will reduce as there are fewer people giving up smoking C

14、onsumer surplus losses will be reduced as there are fewer people smoking We have assumed that the additional health and pension costs will be seen after 10 years of the ban,15,Our costs are significantly lower than the costs estimated in the study,Sources of Decreased Costs,16,3. Review of Benefits,

15、17,The study miscalculated the benefits,Health Benefits: Reduction in illness and mortality from: Lung cancer Heart disease Asthma attacks Childhood respiratory disease Sudden infant death syndrome Life expectancy gain from reduced smoking uptake as a result of the ban Life expectancy gain for smoke

16、rs who quit as a result of the banEnvironmental and Economic Benefits: Reduction in insurance costs to the Department of Health, National Health Services (NHS), from reduced smoking and exposure to secondhand smoke Reduced cost from sickness absences and productivity gains Reduced fire risk includin

17、g damage, injury, and death Reduced cleaning and maintenance costs,18,Research from other studies informed the calculations for our study,Department of Transport Value of a human life lost at 43 yrs - 1m Value of an injury at 43 yrs - 40,000 Value of an additional year of life 28,571 Scaling the res

18、earch to reflect the population of England Estimates of costs to the NHS for smokers British medical journal - death rates from SHS in public places,19,Estimate of Benefits from Smoking Ban,20,Our benefits are significantly higher than the benefits estimated in the study,Sources of Increased Benefit

19、s,21,4. Sensitivity analysis,22,Original study ignored sensitivity; we tested our assumptions,Discount Rate Original study did not discount Base Case: 6% (Treasury Green Book - standard in UK) Vary Between: O% and 15% Time Horizon Original study looked at only 1 year Base Case: 10 years Vary Between

20、: 1 year and 40 years Other Point Estimates Reduction in cigarettes smoked and people smoking them Savings from reduced illness; productivity gains Vary each around our best estimates Monte Carlo analysis,23,NPV falls but remains positive as discount rate increases,24,NPV increases as time horizon e

21、xtends,25,Focus on time benchmarks for easier assessment,26,Used excels RAND function to set up Monte Carlo analysis,Ran 5,000 iterations Recorded NPVs in data table,Descriptive Statistics,27,Monte Carlo analysis shows NPV will most likely fall between 15-30B,28,5. Summary and conclusions,29,Origina

22、l study rife with bad data and opaque analysis,Cost and benefit calculations were: Not transparent Based on inconsistent assumptions Subject to double counting in numerous instances Failed entirely to consider cost to the health service of additional years of life No discounting; involved time horiz

23、on of only one year,30,Shortcomings of study possibly explained by political realities,Some of the gap may be due to the fact the intent was to pass a less stringent restriction Wanted Option 4: partial ban smoking allowed where no food served Got Option 2: complete ban all enclosed spaces smoke free Overstating of costs to the tobacco industry could reflect significant campaign contributions Despite the poor analysis, Option 2 was passed into legislation, and the ban will be in place in 2007.,