Medicaid Could Save $2.6 Billion Within a Year if Just 1 Percent of Recipients Quit Smoking
Source: University of California San Francisco
Reducing smoking, and its associated health effects, among Medicaid recipients in each state by just 1 percent would result in $2.6 billion in total Medicaid savings the following year, according to new research by UC San Francisco.
The median state would save $25 million, ranging from $630.2 million in California (if the smoking rate dropped from 15.5 percent to 14.5 percent) to $2.5 million in South Dakota (if the rate dropped from 41.3 to 40.3 percent), the research found.
The study, by Stanton A. Glantz, PhD, director of the UCSF Center for Tobacco Control Research and Education, is published April 12, 2019 in JAMA Network Open.
While 14 percent of all adults in the U.S. smoke cigarettes, 24.5 percent of adult Medicaid recipients smoke, said Glantz. This suggests that an investment in reducing smoking in this population could be associated with a reduction in Medicaid costs in the short run.
Read more: https://www.ucsf.edu/news/2019/04/413921/medicaid-could-save-26-billion-within-year-if-just-1-percent-recipients-quit
mr_lebowski
(33,643 posts)And I trust basically nothing his 'research' comes up with.
cstanleytech
(26,350 posts)people that use Medicaid?
Edit: Mind you it will not impact on me since I do neither but its simply the type of people that Repugnants are and its something they would do.
mucifer
(23,609 posts)The government puts the subsidies into meats dairy eggs and crops that feed animals that people eat.
The amount we would save if people quit eating meat would be mind boggling. The environment would be so much better off too.
Faygo Kid
(21,478 posts)35 years was too much, apparently. It's not a pleasant disease.
PeeJ52
(1,588 posts)after I got lung cancer.
AllaN01Bear
(18,745 posts)system
cstanleytech
(26,350 posts)After all if we had that then things like for example auto accidents would be alot easier and cheaper since the only thing you could sue for would be the damage to the vehicle and or lost wages you might incur due to any injury.
Businesses then could also save because they would not have to provide health insurance anymore and people would save their money and their sanity because they would not have to worry about affording dialysis for their family members for example.
We desperately need comprehensive Medicare for All.
Aristus
(66,522 posts)beachbum bob
(10,437 posts)I'm not sure we can not have rules in place like this? Offer to pay for cessation treatment
Yeehah
(4,601 posts)Why not require the cigarette companies, that made billions poisoning Americans, to pay for it?
beachbum bob
(10,437 posts)I think its immoral NOT to have limits placed on those receiving taxpayer support, whether its individuals OR corporations
Yeehah
(4,601 posts)Will you serve on the board that deems who is worthy of receiving health care?
Perhaps obese people could be denied care until they stopped eating too much and started exercising.
Of course, anyone who uses alcohol would have to be cut off from health care too.
FYI: It's = "it is."
TexasBushwhacker
(20,249 posts)Most cessation assistance like Nicorette is OTC now I believe. Like anything else, people have to want to quit though.
Rhiannon12866
(206,720 posts)TexasBushwhacker
(20,249 posts)The smoking cessation drug Zyban is just a low dose of the antidepressant Wellbutrin (bupropion). While it's ridiculous that Medicaid doesn't pay for smoking cessation aids, I'm pretty sure they cover antidepressants. So instead of 150 mg Zyban, a smart doc could prescribe a 150 mg Bupropion XL.
Jose Garcia
(2,612 posts)MadDAsHell
(2,067 posts)approaches to these types of programs. Doubt that would fly.
Jose Garcia
(2,612 posts)moriah
(8,311 posts)Poor people are more likely to smoke cigarettes than rich ones. Maybe it's stress, maybe it's peer pressure, whatever, but they're hooked now.
Many of the poorest try to avoid vice taxes by buying tobacco and tubes, and making their own cigarettes -- which have a filter, but not always the highest quality tobacco. Or they will roll their own without using a tube with a filter -- which is even worse for them.
Chantix is contraindicated in many mental health patients, and psychiatrists have known for years that mental health patients are often heavier smokers. Nicotine binds to the niacin receptor in the brain -- niacin is "nicotinic acid" and it may be that these patients are self-medicating by finding something that binds to that receptor. There have been studies done about the role of B vitamins and their receptors in the brain in mental health, but unfortunately nice little chemicals that stimulate a receptor more are going to "work" better than the thing it's supposed to bind to normally -- as in, open the channel more.
In particular, psychiatrists have *always* had issues getting schizophrenic patients to quit, and apparently there may be some reason they don't. https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/315446.php
The same "fake urine" products on the market to beat work pee tests are marketed towards employers that test for nicotine use, as nicotine is legal to use vs the other things most people are trying to keep from showing on their tox screen.
Then there's vaping, which is an option but my friends experiences have varied widely, the flavorings are untested on what they do to lungs even if the base carriers for the nicotine are safe, etc. Doctors can't in good conscience recommend it because it's untested, and the pharmaceutical alternative for people with the hand-to-mouth issue or who can't manage to absorb the right amount of nicotine to taper through gum or patches -- the Nicotrol inhaler -- is insanely expensive.
Yes, smoking is bad, so is drinking and other substance abuse. But testing and denying benefits to people who use them has not worked in the past, and cost more than it reduced people's eligibility for Food Stamps or unemployment.
Harm reduction and encouraging quitting should be the goal, not threatening denial of public benefits -- or people will lie to their doctors and use fake piss to keep their insurance. Just as women lied for decades about acne or heavy periods to get birth control covered under insurance, people will find a way, and any policy that makes a person not able to be honest with their physician is going to make whatever problems they have worse, not better.
VarryOn
(2,343 posts)No benefits of you drink. No benefits if you skydive. No benefits of you eat McDonald's. Benefits only if you go to the gym at least 3 times per week. Benefits for heart disease only if you take statins.
I certainly can understand wanting to cut off smokers, but not at the risk of a slippery slope with other unhealthy behaviors.
For smokers, I would go the incentives route. Offer economic incentives for quitting, and further incentives by staying off cigs. Maybe there's some unintended consequences I'm not considering, but I think incentives could work and save taxpayers money.
Other ideas: offer incentives for healthy weight. Supplement gym memberships. Others?
I have no doubt the US will eventually become single payer. Theere won't be enough doctors;therefore, we will need to figure out how to reduce dr's visits. Incent good behaviors, and that should reduce the demand.
Maxheader
(4,374 posts)No smoke...
Bozvotros
(786 posts)Of course we should never consider reduced harm when we have so many tried and true methods to quit smoking with high success rates. Oh wait...... http://theconversation.com/e-cigarettes-nearly-twice-as-effective-as-other-nicotine-replacement-therapies-at-helping-smokers-quit-110739
jayfish
(10,040 posts)getting haters to take a positive view on vaping is equivalent to convincing Trump voters they are marks in a long con. It's incredibly disheartening coming from a group of people (myself included) who consider themselves smarter than the average bears.
MyWorldIsBlue
(3 posts)I learned that Medicaid does not cover any kind of smoking cessation medication, otc products, or therapy to help its covered patients stop smoking when my daughter and I went to the doctor for help on this.
We had prescriptions written for Chantix but our pharmacy wanted around $300 per prescription before they could fill it for us.
karynnj
(59,510 posts)surface. It really shows that a big education effort and funding the smoking reduction stuff that someone on this thread said are not included now could have enormous savings .. and more importantly, potentially save the lives or at least improve the quality of life for the those who quit.
Adding: NPR had a report on what the various states pay for for quitting smoking. It differs significantly by state. It would be an interesting idea to use the states to see if there is any pattern that helps in terms of health or cost. https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2016/01/05/462017590/medicaid-programs-fall-short-when-it-comes-to-helping-smokers-quit (Not to mention, this is a 2016 article and it uses 2013 data!)
AKing
(511 posts)which my Medicare drug plan covered. It was the best health decision I ever made. As a result,an inhaler that I used to go through monthly at a cost of $429.00 now lasts 2 to 3 months.
madinmaryland
(64,934 posts)This is right wing libertarian bullshit.
Are you going to say the same thing about other health insurance plans? Do you think pre-existing conditions should be used to deny coverage?
Stuff like this is idiotic to be seen here on DU.
Triloon
(506 posts)Medicaid needs more billions, not fewer. And tobacco users have been paying sky high tobacco taxes for decades. Financially, the Sin of being a tobacco user has been covered. Back off on refusing care.
Maybe make an investment in reducing the profiteering of Pharma off human misery and stop dreaming up ways to punish the patients.
Well said.
MadDAsHell
(2,067 posts)raccoon
(31,131 posts)sandensea
(21,713 posts)To say nothing of Miami exiles.
mpcamb
(2,880 posts)You can do the math on what a pack a day smoker spends on his/her habit.
Sadly, many are unable to stop- bipolars, for instance have a terrible time stopping.
It's a powerful drug and the addiction is very strong.
First Amendment is or could be an impediment to banning all advertising.
Still, it'd be worth trying to make companies pay for some of the harm caused.