Richard M. Peck

Cost savings associated with prohibiting smoking in U.S. subsidized housing.

BACKGROUND Tobacco smoking in multiunit housing can lead to secondhand-smoke (SHS) exposure among nonsmokers, increased maintenance costs for units where smoking is permitted, and fire risks. During 2009-2010, approximately 7.1 million individuals lived in subsidized housing in the U.S., a large proportion of which were children, elderly, or disabled. PURPOSE This study calculated the annual economic costs to society that could be averted by prohibiting smoking in all U.S. subsidized housing. METHODS Estimated annual cost savings associated with SHS-related health care, renovation of units that permit smoking, and smoking-attributable fires in U.S. subsidized housing were calculated using residency estimates from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development and previously reported national and state cost estimates for these indicators. When state estimates were used, a price deflator was applied to account for differential costs of living or pricing across states. Estimates were calculated overall and by cost type for all U.S. subsidized housing, as well as for public housing only. Data were obtained and analyzed between January and March 2011. RESULTS Prohibiting smoking in all U.S. subsidized housing would yield cost savings of approximately

National and State Cost Savings Associated With Prohibiting Smoking in Subsidized and Public Housing in the United States

521 million per year, including

Community-Based Youth Tobacco Control Interventions: Cost Effectiveness of the Full Court Press Project

341 million in SHS-related healthcare expenditures,

The inefficiency of the poll tax

108 million in renovation expenses, and

Depression, Suicide, Tobacco Control Policies, and Cigarette Smoking Among High School Students

72 million in smoking-attributable fire losses. Prohibiting smoking in U.S. public housing alone would yield cost savings of approximately

Economic Perspectives on Addiction: Hyperbolic Discounting and Internalities

154 million per year. CONCLUSIONS Efforts to prohibit smoking in all U.S. subsidized housing would protect health and generate substantial cost savings to society.

Power, majority voting, and linear income tax schedules

Introduction Despite progress in implementing smoke-free laws in indoor public places and workplaces, millions of Americans remain exposed to secondhand smoke at home. The nation’s 80 million multiunit housing residents, including the nearly 7 million who live in subsidized or public housing, are especially susceptible to secondhand smoke infiltration between units. Methods We calculated national and state costs that could have been averted in 2012 if smoking were prohibited in all US subsidized housing, including public housing: 1) secondhand smoke-related direct health care, 2) renovation of smoking-permitted units; and 3) smoking-attributable fires. Annual cost savings were calculated by using residency estimates from the Department of Housing and Urban Development and cost data reported elsewhere. Data were adjusted for inflation and variations in state costs. National and state estimates (excluding Alaska and the District of Columbia) were calculated by cost type. Results Prohibiting smoking in subsidized housing would yield annual cost savings of

Graphic Warning Labels and the Cost Savings from Reduced Smoking among Pregnant Women

496.82 million (range,

Richard M. Peck on Hugo F. Sonnenschein

258.96–

The Role of Retail Prices and Promotions in Determining Cigarette Brand Market Shares

843.50 million), including