4.3 Article

Smoking, selection, and medical care expenditures

Journal

JOURNAL OF RISK AND UNCERTAINTY
Volume 64, Issue 3, Pages 251-285

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s11166-022-09378-9

Keywords

Health care expenditures; Medicare; Smoking

Funding

  1. Johns Hopkins University Catalyst Award

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study examines the impact of cigarette smoking on medical expenditures. By constructing an economic model and conducting empirical research, the authors find that smokers generate higher prospective medical expenditures due to increased inpatient usage, but lower retrospective medical expenditures due to decreased outpatient usage. Additionally, as age increases, smokers have a lower expected value of the discounted sum of total medical expenditures.
The contribution of cigarette smoking to national health expenditures is thought to be large, but our current understanding of the effect of smoking on annual medical expenditures is limited to studies that use cross-sectional data to make comparisons of medical care expenditures between smokers and never smokers at a particular age. We develop a dynamic economic model of smoking and medical care use that highlights two forms of selection: selective mortality and non-random cessation. To test predictions from our model, we construct novel longitudinal profiles of medical expenditures of smokers and never smokers from merged National Health Interview Survey and Medicare claims information. Consistent with our theory, we find that, from a given age, smokers generate higher expenditures prospectively, because of a higher incidence in inpatient usage, and lower expenditures retrospectively, because of lower outpatient usage. Between ages 65 and 84, we find that the expected value of the discounted sum of total expenditures is lower for smokers, mainly because of excess mortality. We find no evidence that cigarette smoking is a burden on Medicare.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available