ArticlePDF Available

Estimating the cost of a smoking employee



Objective We attempted to estimate the excess annual costs that a US private employer may attribute to employing an individual who smokes tobacco as compared to a non-smoking employee. Design Reviewing and synthesising previous literature estimating certain discrete costs associated with smoking employees, we developed a cost estimation approach that approximates the total of such costs for US employers. We examined absenteeism, presenteesim, smoking breaks, healthcare costs and pension benefits for smokers. Results Our best estimate of the annual excess cost to employ a smoker is $5816. This estimate should be taken as a general indicator of the extent of excess costs, not as a predictive point value. Conclusions Employees who smoke impose significant excess costs on private employers. The results of this study may help inform employer decisions about tobacco-related policies.
Estimating the cost of a smoking employee
Micah Berman,
Rob Crane,
Eric Seiber,
Mehmet Munur
The Ohio State University,
College of Public Health &
Moritz College of Law,
Columbus, Ohio, USA
College of Medicine, The Ohio
State University, Columbus,
Ohio, USA
College of Public Health,
The Ohio State University,
Columbus, Ohio, USA
Tsibouris & Associates LLC,
Columbus, Ohio, USA
Correspondence to
Micah Berman,
College of Public Health &
Moritz College of Law, The
Ohio State University, Cunz
Hall, 1841 Neil Ave.,
Columbus, OH 43210, USA;
Received 15 November 2012
Accepted 25 April 2013
Published Online First
4 June 2013
To cite: Berman M,
Crane R, Seiber E, et al.Tob
Control 2014;23:428433.
Objective We attempted to estimate the excess annual
costs that a US private employer may attribute to
employing an individual who smokes tobacco as
compared to a non-smoking employee.
Design Reviewing and synthesising previous literature
estimating certain discrete costs associated with smoking
employees, we developed a cost estimation approach
that approximates the total of such costs for US
employers. We examined absenteeism, presenteesim,
smoking breaks, healthcare costs and pension benets
for smokers.
Results Our best estimate of the annual excess cost to
employ a smoker is $5816. This estimate should be
taken as a general indicator of the extent of excess
costs, not as a predictive point value.
Conclusions Employees who smoke impose signicant
excess costs on private employers. The results of this
study may help inform employer decisions about
tobacco-related policies.
Smoking by employees costs businesses money. But
just how much? Previous studies provide only very
rough (and often inaccurate) estimates of the excess
costs imposed by employeessmoking. For
example, the Centers for Disease Control (CDC)
estimates that smoking-attributable productivity
losses and medical expenditures amount to
approximately $3400 per year for each adult
The CDCs report, however, looks only at
the overall economy; its calculations of productivity
losses and medical expenditures do not distinguish
between costs borne by employers and those
absorbed by others (the smokers themselves, insur-
ance companies, taxpayers, etc.). Moreover, the
CDCs study looks only at mortality-related prod-
uctivity losses, that is, lost productivity caused by
premature smoking-related deaths. Although
smoking-attributable deaths surely reduce economic
productivity in a general sense, the lost earning
potential due to premature death is not an accurate
reection of an employerscosts. The CDCsgure
thus provides a poor estimate for employers to use
in gauging their own costs.
This paper estimates the average excess cost of a
smoking employee (over a non-smoking employee)
from a private employers perspective. Such an esti-
mate can provide important factual context to
employer decisions about tobacco-related policies.
Numerous employers have begun charging smokers
higher premiums for health insurance,
and several
large employers including Turner Broadcasting,
Alaska Airlines, Union Pacic Railroad and a number
of large hospital systems have decided to hire non-
smokers only.
Other companies, such as
Ohio-based Scotts Miracle-Gro and Michigan-based
Weyco, Inc, have gone a step further and decided that
they will no longer retain employees who do not quit
smoking within a given period of time.
With o u t a n
accurate estimate of smoking-related costs, such pol-
icies may seem arbitrary or unreasonable. A
well-reasoned estimate allows companies to more
fairly analyse the costs and benets of such tobacco-
free workforcepolicies.
Javitz et al
conducted what appears to be the most
exhaustive review of the various costs that smoking
employees impose on their employers. That review
does not, however, estimate an overall sum of these
costs. Chris Hallamore calculated such a sum for
the Conference Board of Canada, but the
Conference Board report is written for Canadian
employers (who do not pay any healthcare costs)
and ignores some of the other employer costs (such
as presenteeism) discussed by Javitz.
upon these analyses and a review of other pub-
lished research, this paper constructs a cost estima-
tion approach for the excess costs incurred by a
private-sector US employer for each employee who
smokes. It considers excess absenteeism, presentee-
ism, lost productivity due to smoking breaks,
excess healthcare costs and pension benets.
Our analysis omits several other costs that
employers may face as a result of hiring employees
who smoke, such as higher workerscompensation
costs and higher life and re insurance premiums.
We did not include these costs because they vary
widely by industry and recent studies do not
present reliable cost estimates. For example,
although Musich et al
showed that workerscom-
pensation costs were dramatically higher for
smokers than for non-smokers among Xeroxs
employees, Boyce et al
found no statistically sig-
nicant difference in workerscompensation claims
between smoking and non-smoking police ofcers
in Charlotte, North Carolina. In addition, we
excluded facilities-related costs such as the cost of
maintaining smoking hutsor installing ventilation
systems. These costs are largely within the control
of the employer, unlike the other major costs dis-
cussed in this paper, and they can be reduced or
eliminated by employer policies (or state or local
laws) requiring a smoke-free workplace. Our
approach may underestimate the relevant costs as a
result of omitting these considerations and others.
Table 1 summarises the ndings of this paper.
For each category of expense, we present our best
estimate of an employers costs, followed by a high
range and a low range. As discussed in each subse-
quent section, we arrived at our estimates by sur-
veying existing research and applying the high and
low ranges of that research, as well as what we
428 Berman M, et al.Tob Control 2014;23:428433. doi:10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2012-050888
Research paper on August 14, 2014 - Published by tobaccocontrol.bmj.comDownloaded from
considered to be best estimate(either the average of previous
research or a more conservative estimate). Where necessary, we
then used standard government statistics to convert the ndings
of previous research into a per-employee cost. In some cases,
this required an adjustment for ination. All costs have been
adjusted to 2010 levels using the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics
Consumer Price Index (CPI) ination calculator. Because
smokers are, on average, paid less than non-smokers, we have
adjusted the average wage level used in our calculations.
Following the ndings of the Medical Expenditure Panel Survey,
as reported by Cowan and Schwab,
we have discounted the
average hourly wage reported by the U.S. Bureau of Labor
Statistics by 15.6%.
Given our need to standardise and combine a range of studies
that employed different methodologies, the results should be
not taken as predictive point estimates. Rather, we believe our
paper accurately shows the general range of costs that private
employers who hire employees who smoke may bear. As dis-
cussed below, individual employers may adjust the calculations
used in our cost estimation approach in order to better estimate
their own costs.
Prior studies calculating workplace absenteeism due to smoking
have come to surprisingly similar results. Some of these studies,
while nding that smoking led to excess absenteeism, did not
translate that nding into an average number of absences per year.
For example, Robbins et al examined the records of nearly 90 000
U.S. Army personnel and concluded that current smoking was
associated with a 60% increase in risk of lost workdays among
men and a 15% increase in risk among women.
11 12
The recent
US studies that did compute average excess annual absences by
smokers are summarised in table 2.
There are also a number of non-US studies that have looked at
workplace absenteeism caused by smoking. These studies are not
directly applicable to the US context, but are instructive nonethe-
less. These studies have all found an association between smoking
and absenteeism, but have varied more widely in their calculation
of the average number of excess absences. The variation appears to
be due to national and cultural differences with regard to work-
place absenteeism in general. For example, a study in Taiwan by
Ts a i et al
found that male smokers took off an average of
4.36 days, while male non-smokers missed only 3.3 days. Female
smokers took off 4.96 days, while non-smoking women were
absent 3.75 days. Thus, Tsai found an average of 1.03 excess days
of absenteeism for male smokers and 1.21 days for female
smokers. Taiwan, however, has extremely low rates of absenteeism,
compared to the international average.
On the other end of the
spectrum, Lundborg
looked at Swedish employees and found
that smokers were absent 10.7 days more than never smokers.
After controlling for health status and other risk factors, Lundborg
concluded that smoking accounted for 7.7 days of excess absence
per year. These results matched earlier studies in Sweden that
found 7.6 days of excess absence for smokers.
Sweden, however,
has the highest rate of absences in the Organisation for Economic
Co-operation and Development countries, with an average of 25
absences per year, compared to nine in the USA.
We compute the cost of excess absenteeism by taking the
number of days of excess absenteeism for current smokers and
multiplying by the number of hours worked during the day
and the average wage and benets paid to the employee
($26.49). As noted above, the average wage is discounted by
15.6% to account for the lower average pay of current smokers
(benets are not discounted).
According to the Employee
Benet Research Institute, the average for wages and benets
paid by employers in 2010 was $29.72.
The wage portion of
that amount, $20.71, is discounted by 15.6% to reach an
average wage for an employee who smokes of $17.48. Including
benets, the average hourly amount paid to an employee who
smokes is estimated to be $26.49. Using the lowest calculation
of smoking-related absences in the USA0.9 excess days in a
dated 1991 study
the average cost would be $178.81. At the
high end of the range, using the 2.9 days of excess absence cal-
culated by Tsai et al in their US study,
the average cost would
be $576.16. In between those extremes, using an estimate of
2.6 days (the average of the recent US studies and slightly less
than the estimate of excess absenteeism produced by a recent
meta-analysis of US and international absenteeism studies
would result in an average annual per-smoker cost of $516.56
(box 1).
Table 2 Estimates of annual excess absences
Author Sample
Annual excess absences
(smokers compared to never
et al
300 airline reservation agents 2.6 (2 year average)
et al
2203 Shell Oil Company
et al
45 630 employees at 147
companies (voluntary
Box 1 Lost productivity due to excess absenteeism
=Days Lost
Worked×Compensation Cost=$516.56.
=Total annual per-employee cost due to
increased absenteeism in smoking employees.
Days Lost
=Number of additional days of absenteeism
taken by an average smoking employee compared to an
average nonsmoking employee (2.6 daysthe average of
recent US studies).
Hours Worked=Number of hours worked in a day (7.5).
Compensation Cost=Average hourly wage and benets paid
to an employee who is a current smoker ($26.49).
Table 1 Total annual excess cost of a smoking employee to a
private employer
Best estimate annual
Excess absenteeism $517 $576 $179
Presenteeism 462 1848 462
Smoking breaks 3077 4103 1641
Excess healthcare
2056 3598 899
Pension benefit (296)* 0 (296)*
Total costs $5816 $10125 $2885
*For employers with defined-benefit pension plans.
Berman M, et al.Tob Control 2014;23:428433. doi:10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2012-050888 429
Research paper on August 14, 2014 - Published by tobaccocontrol.bmj.comDownloaded from
Another cost to employers from smoking employees is present-
eeism’—lower on-the-job productivity that results from nicotine
addiction. Though all employees are occasionally unproductive
in one way or another, research suggests that smoking status
negatively impacts productivity separately and apart from lost
work time due to smoking breaks and absenteeism. This is
because nicotine is a powerfully addictive drug. Although cigar-
ettes satisfy a smokers need for nicotine, the effect wears off
quickly. Within 30 min after nishing the last inhalation, the
smoker may already be beginning to feel symptoms of both
physical and psychological withdrawal.
(Much of what
smokers perceive as the relaxing and clarifying effect of nicotine
is actually relief from their acute withdrawal symptoms.) Now
that the vast majority of workplaces are smoke-free, the repeti-
tive, prolonged withdrawals that smoking employees suffer pre-
dictably diminishes their productivity at work.
Accurately measuring lost productivity due to presenteeism,
however, is difcult. As Mattke et al
write, Conducting such
research is by no means a straightforward task, particularly in
knowledge-based occupations. Even when objective measures
are used to compare the productivity of smokers and non-
smokers, monetising the cost to the employerespecially in a
way that would be relevant to different rms or different profes-
sionsremains problematic.
But although the specic amount
of lost productivity remains difcult to determine, studies have
consistently demonstrated that employees who smoke are less
productive than employees who do not.
Studies that have tried to quantify smoking-related presentee-
ism have, despite the imprecision of the evaluation tools,
reached similar results. Bunn et al
reviewed more than 10 000
employee records from 147 US employers. They found that
mean hours of lost productivity per year due to presenteeism
were 76.5 h for a smoker compared with 42.8 h for a never
The excess presenteeism of 33.7 h/year equals
approximately 1.9% of hours worked per year. Burton et al
looked at a cohort of employees at a Midwestern nancial ser-
vices company and evaluated self-reported indicators of prod-
uctivity. They concluded that smoking was associated with a
2.8% reduction in productivity.
Other estimates of lost prod-
uctivity due to presenteeism range up to 4%.
We compute the annual cost of smoker-related presenteeism by
taking the percentage of lost productivity for current smokers and
multiplying it by the cost of compensation per hour, hours worked
per day and days worked per year. Estimates of smoker-related lost
productivity range up to 4%, which would result in an annual
per-smoker excess cost of $1847.68. Averaging the results of the
Bunn and Burton studies would result in an estimated
smoking-related productivity loss of more than 2%. Nonetheless,
due to the difculties in measuring presenteeism, the possibility
that employees may compensate for lost productivity, and the
potential for employers to adjust for such costs (eg, by paying
lower wages to less productive employees), we use a very conserva-
tive estimate of 1% for the productivity loss due to presenteeism.
This results in an average annual cost of $461.92 (box 2).
Productivity loss due to smoking breaks is by far the largest
single cost that a private employer incurs from a smoking
employee. Fortunately, it is a cost that can be completely elimi-
nated by smoking cessation (unlike healthcare costs and absen-
teeism, for which former smokers will still have higher average
costs than never smokers).
Previous studies have found that the amount of time lost to
unsanctioned smoking breaks ranges from 8 to 30 min/day.
This number may vary substantially depending upon rm policy.
As Javitz et al
state, the number of lost minutes to the
employer depends on the amount of exibility that employees
have concerning when they may smoke and when they may take
their breaks.
The Conference Board of Canada report estimated that
employees smoke a majority of their daily cigarettes outside of
work, with an average of ve cigarettes consumed in an 8-h
workdaythree of those during sanctioned breaks.
This esti-
mate is supported by studies focusing on smoking breaks that
were conducted in Canada.
Since the number of cigarettes
consumed per smoker in Canada (15.2)
and the USA (16.8)
is similar, the assumption that only two cigarettes are smoked in
non-employer sanctioned times may be applied to the USA as
well. Though the average amount of time spent by employees
on smoking breaks is debatable (the Conference Board estimated
20 min), 15 min/cigarette break is a conservative estimate that
matches employer estimates of time lost to smoking breaks.
more and more US companies adopt smoke-free campus pol-
icies, requiring employees to leave the companys property in
order to smoke, the amount of time taken to consume each cig-
arette may increase.
We calculate the annual cost of lost productivity due to
smoking breaks by taking the number of cigarettes consumed
per day outside of employer sanctioned times, multiplying it by
the amount of time it takes to consume each cigarette (adjusted
as a fraction of an hour), the cost of the compensation per
and the number of days worked. Assuming that only
two cigarettes are smoked outside of sanctioned break times
each day, and that it takes 15 min to smoke each cigarette, the
annual per-smoker cost of lost productivity due to unsanctioned
smoking breaks is $3077.24. Using an estimate of 20 min/day, as
estimated by the Conference Board of Canada, would result in a
per-smoker cost of $4102.85. Utilising the lowest available esti-
mate of 8 min/day
would result in an annual cost of $1641.14
(box 3).
Smoking by employees, whether on or off the job, also leads to
excess healthcare expenses. Estimating an average excess cost
per smoking employee, however, is complex. Even assuming
that an employer knows the smoking status of its employees, it
is no simple task to estimate the increased costs that are attribut-
able to smoking. The higher healthcare costs of smoking
employees may be in part the result of other coexisting risk
factors such as a poor diet, lack of exercise, or abuse of alcohol.
Box 2 Lost productivity due to presenteeism
=Excess Presenteeism Rate×Compensation
Cost×Hours Worked×Days Worked=$461.92.
=Annual per-employee cost due to loss of
Excess Presenteeism Rate (1%).
Hours Worked: Number of hours worked during the day
Compensation Cost: Average hourly wage and benets paid
to an employee who is a current smoker ($26.49).
Days Worked: Number of days worked per year (232.5).
430 Berman M, et al.Tob Control 2014;23:428433. doi:10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2012-050888
Research paper on August 14, 2014 - Published by tobaccocontrol.bmj.comDownloaded from
In addition, many employees pay a substantial portion of their
health insurance premium; although uncommon, employers
may be able to reduce their share of excess smoking-related
costs by requiring smoking employees (and dependents) to pay
higher healthcare premiums.
Employer costs may vary depending upon whether the
employer is self-insured or purchases private insurance. For
employers who purchase private insurance, their responsibility
for healthcare expenses ends when their share of health insur-
ance premiums is paid. At that point, smoking-related illnesses
do not produce an increase in healthcare costs for the employer.
Nonetheless, an employer with no smoking employees could
presumably obtain a discount in insurance premiums, due to the
fact that the employee pool is likely to have lower overall
healthcare costs. Correspondingly, health insurance premiums
are higher for employers when there are more smokers in the
labour force. However, there is no available data with which to
measure the amount of excess premium costs on a per-smoker
Our cost estimation approach therefore addresses only the
excess healthcare costs of smoking employees for employers
who self-insure. These businesses, which bear their own health-
care costs more directly, employ about 55% of private employ-
Although our approach may not produce as accurate an
estimate if the employer is not self-insured, usually an employ-
ers claims experience will eventually be reected in that
employers health insurance premiums.
There are many studies focusing on the overall healthcare
costs caused by smoking, although, as noted above, employers
do not bear all of these costs. Warner et al
surveyed studies
that estimated overall smoking-attributable healthcare expendi-
tures. Their survey showed that estimates of the healthcare costs
due to smoking ranged from 3.5% to 14% of all healthcare
Though the average conclusion of previous studies
was that 68% of healthcare costs were due to smoking-related
diseases, Warner et al
expressed their opinion that the correct
percentage was likely higher.
More recent studies have produced somewhat higher esti-
mates of the smoking-attributable fraction (SA%) of healthcare
costs, due in part to the fact that these studies correct for some
of the deciencies noted by Warner et al. For example, Max
et al studied the healthcare cost of smoking in California, which
totalled approximately $8.6 billion in 1999 (or $1798.74 per
They concluded that smoking-related costs
accounted for 11.4% of all healthcare costs for men and 8% of
all healthcare costs for women. It should be noted, however,
that smoking prevalence in California was (and is) lower than
the national average. Other studies have estimated
smoking-attributable costs to be signicantly higher.
29 30
We compute the annual cost ( per smoking employee) of
excess healthcare to a private employer by multiplying the total
cost of healthcare to private employers
by the SA% and then
dividing this total by the number of private employees who
smoke in the workforce.
32 33
Using an SA% of 8%, this results
in a total of $2056. At the high end of scale, using a SA% of
14% results in a per-smoker cost of $3598, while the lowest
estimate of 3.5% results in $899. Since most studies of the SA%
cluster around 68% and older studies have tended to systemat-
ically underestimate the SA%, we believe that 8% is an appro-
priate gure to use (box 4).
Some have argued that although smokers require higher average
healthcare costs while alive, they incur fewer costs overall due
to their shorter lifespan.
Though Philip Morris has played a
role in popularising this theory, it turns out to be false.
Rasmussen et al
conrmed that even though never smokers
lived longer than current smokers, their lifetime direct and
indirect healthcare costs were lower. In a separate study, they
conrmed that quitting smoking leads to substantial savings in
terms of both healthcare costs and overall economic
The more pertinent question for this analysis is whether
smokersshorter life spans end up providing employers with a
death benetbecause they receive fewer pension payments
before death. Though in some cases this may occur, it could
happen only in dened benet plans. Under such an arrange-
ment, the employer pays a set amount in pension each year, and
thus an employee with a short postemployment lifespan may
end up receiving less in benets than he paid into the fund
while employed. (By contrast, an employee with a long post-
employment lifespan may end up receiving more in benets
than he paid into the system while employed.) Thus, smokers
contributions to the companys pension fund could theoretically
end up subsidising the retirement benets of non-smokers.
More and more employers, however, are moving away from
dened benet plans into dened contribution plans (such as
In such plans, there is no potential for a death
benetbecause the employee is entitled to all of the assets in
the fundno more and no lessregardless of life span. The
employer may pay into the retirement fund during the course of
employment, but it does not make annual payments after
Nonetheless, our cost estimate incorporates a death benet
for those employers that still use dened benet pension
Box 4 Excess healthcare costs
=(Employer Healthcare Expenditures×Adjusted SA
%)/Smoking Private Employee=$2055.77.
: Cost of healthcare to self-insured private
employers for each smoking employee.
Employer Healthcare Expenditures: 2010 Total Healthcare
Expenditures by Private Employers ($534.5 billion).
Adjusted SA%: Smoking Attributable Fraction of healthcare
expenses (8%).
Smoking Private Employee: Number of employees in private
employment who smoke. (108 million×19.3%=20.8 million).
Box 3 Lost productivity due to breaks
=Annual per-employee cost due to loss of
=Average number of cigarettes smoked per day
at work during non-sanctioned break periods (2).
=Time (in hours) taken to travel to smoking area
and consume each cigarette (0.25).
Compensation=Average hourly wage and benets paid to an
employee who is a current smoker ($26.47).
Days Worked=Number of days worked per year (232.5).
Berman M, et al.Tob Control 2014;23:428433. doi:10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2012-050888 431
Research paper on August 14, 2014 - Published by tobaccocontrol.bmj.comDownloaded from
systems. Sloan et al
calculated the subsidy that smokers
provide to their employers through their use of the dened
benet plans. They found that on average, each male smoker
subsidised non-smokers pension plans by $10 123, and each
female smoker by $383 (the variation is caused by the fact that,
on average, women have lower pension wealth than men).
The Sloan study was based on self-reported data collected from
more than 10 000 subjects for the Health and Retirement Study
at the University of Michigan Institute for Social Research. Our
research did not reveal any other recent studies that considered
the impact of smoking on dened benet plans in the USA.
Using Sloansnumbers,weestimatethedeath benetper
smoker participating in a benet plan by calculating the individual
contributions of male and female
workers in the private sector
to the subsidy, adjusting for ination for 2010, and then annualis-
ing it by dividing the total over 24 years (the average number of
years of employment
) for a total of $295.50. Since, the amounts
were already discounted by Sloan et al, no discounting was per-
formed on these results. Again, it should be noted that only 21%
of all private employers use dened benet pension plans,
an employer who does not have a dened contribution will not
benet from such a subsidy (box 5).
This paper examines only the excess costs of an employer hiring
a smoker under the employers existing benets structure.
However, these costs may be partially offset if smokers are paid
lower average wages, as some research suggests that they are.
Cowan and Schwab, for example, found that of workers with
equivalent experience and occupation, a smoker enrolled with
employer sponsored health insurance will earn less than the
equivalent non-smoking worker insured through their employer,
averaging $1.72 less per hour or over $3400 per year in lower
wage income.
Our cost estimate suggests, however, that even
if employers pay lower wages at the levels suggested by Cowan
and Schwab to adjust for the cost of smoking employees, the
lower wages will not fully compensate for the additional costs
Building upon the work of Javitz et al, the Conference Board of
Canada, and other previous studies, we have estimated that
employers face an annual excess cost of approximately $5816
for each employee who smokes. As noted above, this estimate
assumes that the employer is self-insured and maintains a
dened benet pension system. When these assumptions are
incorrect, employers can adjust our cost estimate approach to
more accurately predict their own costs (eg, by ignoring the
excess cost for health insurance if they are not self-insured). We
caution, however, that our review does not include all possible
smoking-related costs. For example, employers may face higher
maintenance costs as a result of permitting smoking on the
premises. In addition, allowing smoking in the workplace may
lead to legal claims by employees exposed to secondhand
Our cost estimate is built around several assumptions about
average costs. Average costs are just thataverages. For any
given particular employer, costs may be higher or lower due to
the makeup of employees or a variety of costs that vary by
industry. Our calculations can, however, be easily modied
where employers are aware of their costs. For example, employ-
ers could better estimate their own costs by using their com-
panys average per-hour wage in place of the national average.
It should also be noted that for some variables (such as absen-
teeism and healthcare costs), former smokers still impose higher
costs than never smokers. (Indeed, some evidence suggests that
the number of absences increases in the short term when an
employee quits smoking, though the level of absences drops in
the long run.
) In addition, effective smoking cessation pro-
grammes are not free. Thus, eliminating all costs described in
this paper may not be an obtainable goal. Nonetheless, employ-
ers can signicantly reduce long-term costs by implementing
smoking cessation programmes.
Employers with the largest
numbers of smoking employees have the most potential to
benet from helping employees to quit smoking, and Halpern
et al
estimate that the benets of a worksite cessation pro-
gramme are likely to outweigh the costs to employers in
approximately 4 years.
As suggested above, employers may also consider reducing
smoking-related excess costs by hiring only non-smokers or
increasing healthcare premiums for non-smokers. The ethical
and legal implications of such policies have been extensively dis-
cussed elsewhere,
including by two authors of this paper.
The purpose of this paper is to provide needed factual context
to discussions about worksite tobacco policies, not to add to the
debate on the normative value of such policies. What seems
clear, however, is that this evidence does not simply relate to a
dispute about whether an employer has a moral or legal right to
regulate behaviour that occurs away from the workplace. These
substantial costs detailed in this paper suggest that the employee
brings his or her addiction to work even if the act of smoking
occurs elsewhere. This is not unexpected, as smoked nicotine is
a powerful modulator of important neurotransmitters and its
effects persist well beyond the time spent with a cigarette. Just
as employers may reasonably address the behavioural side
effects of alcohol abuse or legal use of prescribed narcotics, they
may have a valid interest in the workplace effects of legal
tobacco use that occurs off-premises. Of course other counter-
vailing concerns, such as the potential of smoker-free work-
forcepolicies to further exacerbate existing health disparities,
must also be considered.
44 48
In addition, it should be noted
that employer policies to hire only non-smokers are not legal in
all states.
Finally, we need to point out two obvious, yet often over-
looked facts. First, it is important to remember that the costs
imposed by tobacco use are not simply nancial costs. It is not
possible to put a price on the lost lives and the human suffering
caused by smoking. The desire to help ones employees lead
Box 5 Death benet
Subsidy=((Subsidy Male×Percent Male) + (Subsidy
Female×Percent Female))×Ination/Years Worked=$295.50.
Subsidy: Benet offered by smoker to a private
dened-benet plan offering employer.
Subsidy Male: Subsidy of male a smoker ($10 123).
Percent Male: percent of male workers in the private
industry (53.4%).
Subsidy Female: Subsidy of female smoker ($383).
Percent Female: Percent of female workers in the private
industry (46.6%).
Ination adjustment: Adjustment for ination from 2000.
Years Worked: Average number of years the smoker
contributes the subsidy (24).
432 Berman M, et al.Tob Control 2014;23:428433. doi:10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2012-050888
Research paper on August 14, 2014 - Published by tobaccocontrol.bmj.comDownloaded from
healthier and longer lives should provide an additional impetus
for employers to work towards eliminating tobacco from the
workplace. Second, many current smokers are addicted in large
part because of the tobacco industrys aggressive advertising of a
deadly product and because of the industrys decades-long cam-
paign to hide and distort the truth about the dangers of
smoking. The need for private action to eliminate smoking from
the workplace should not detract from efforts to implement
public policy changes (such a smoke-free workplace laws, higher
cigarette taxes, and increased funding for counter-marketing
programmes) that will counteract the industrys advertising and
reduce smoking prevalence in the next generation.
What this paper adds
Numerous studies have demonstrated that employees who
smoke tobacco have higher levels of absenteeism,
presenteeism and healthcare costs, in comparison to
employees who do not smoke.
No previous US studies have aggregated these costs to
quantify the excess costs that employees who smoke
tobacco impose on their employers.
By analysing previous studies, we estimate that US
businesses incur excess costs in the range of $5816 per year
for each employee who smokes.
Such information may help inform employer decisions about
tobacco-related policies.
Contributors MLB and RC conceived the article and drafted the initial manuscript.
MM provided supporting research, helped design the cost estimation approach, and
reviewed drafts. ES reviewed drafts and contributed to the analysis.
Competing interests None.
Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.
Data sharing statement No additional data are available.
1 Adhikari B, Kahende J, Malarcher A, et al. Annual smoking-attributable mortality,
years of potential life lost, and productivity lossesUnited States, 20002004.
MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 2008;57:12268.
2 Valleau C. If youre smoking youre red: how tobacco could be dangerous to more
than just your health. DePaul J Health Care Law 2007;10:45792.
3 Berman M. Hiring only nonsmokers is legal and benecial. Columbus Dispatch
2007 July 12: 9A.
4 Afzal S. Smokers need not apply; is hiring ban trend of the future? Christ Sci
Monitor [newspaper on the Internet] 2010: Nov. 21.
5 Robinson J. Light up, lose your job. Los Angeles Times 2006 Feb. 19: M3.
6 Javitz HS, Zbikowski SM, Swan GE, et al. Financial burden of tobacco use: an
employers perspective. Clin Occup Environ Med 2006;5:929.
7 Hallamore C. Smoking and the bottom line: updating the costs of smoking in the
workplace. Ottawa, Canada: Conference Board of Canada 2006. http://www.
8 Musich S, Napier D, Edington DW. The association of health risks with workers
compensation costs. J Occup Environ Med 2001;43:53441.
9 Boyce RW, Perko MA, Jones GR, et al. Physical tness, absenteeism and workers
compensation in smoking and non-smoking police ofcers. J Occup Environ Med
10 Cowan B, Schwab B. The incidence of the healthcare costs of smoking. J Health
Econ 2011;30:1094102.
11 Robbins AS, Fonseca VP, Chao SY, et al. Short term effects of cigarette smoking on
hospitalization and associated lost workdays. Tob Control 2000;9:38996.
12 Max W, Rice DP, Sung HY, et al. The economic burden of smoking in California.
Tob Control 2004;13:2647.
13 Tsai SP, Wen CP, et al. Workplace smoking related absenteeism and productivity
costs in Taiwan. Tob Control 2005;14:i337.
14 Lundborg P. Does smoking increase sick leave? Evidence using register data on
Swedish workers. Tob Control 2007;16:11418.
15 United States Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics. American Time Use
Survey Summary [Internet]. 2011 [updated June 22].
16 Employee Benet Research Institute. EBRI Databook on Employee Benets
[Internet]. 2011: Table 3.1c [updated June 2011].
17 Bertera L. The effects of behavioural risks on absenteeism and health-care costs in
the workplace. J Occup Med 1991;33:111924.
18 Tsai SP, Wendt JK, Cardarelli MK, et al. A mortality and morbidity study of
petroleum workers in Louisiana. Occup Environ Med 2003;60:62733.
19 Weng SF, Ali S, Leonardi-Bee J. Smoking and absence from work: systematic review
and meta-analysis of occupational studies. Addiction 2013;108:30719.
20 Benowitz NL. Pharmacology of nicotine: addiction and therapeutics. Annu Rev
Pharmacol Toxicol 1996;36:597613.
21 Mattke S, Balakrishnan A, Bergamo G, et al. A review of methods to measure
health-related productivity loss. Am J Manag Care 2007;13:21117.
22 Halpern MT, Shikiar R, Rentz AM, et al. Impact of smoking status on workplace
absenteeism and productivity. Tob Control 2001;10:2338.
23 Bunn WB 3rd, Stave GM, Downs KE, et al. Effect of smoking status on productivity
loss. J Occup Environ Med 2006;48:1099108.
24 Burton WN, Chen CY, Conti DJ, et al. The association of health risks with
on-the-job productivity. J Occup Environ Med 2005;47:76977.
25 Shikiar R, Halpern MT, Rentz AM, et al. Development of the health and work
questionnaire (HWQ): an instrument for assessing workplace productivity in relation
to worker health. Work 2004;22:21929.
26 Borland R, Cappiello M, Owen N. Leaving work to smoke. Addiction 1997;92:13618.
27 U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Cigarette smoking among adults
United States, 2004. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 2005;54:11214.
28 Warner KE, Hodgson TA, Carroll CE. Medical costs of smoking in the United States:
estimates, their validity, and their implications. Tob Control 1999;8:290300.
29 Williams AF, Franklin J. Annual economic costs attributable to cigarette smoking in
Texas. Tex Med 1993;89:5660.
30 Chudy N, Remington PL, Yoast R. The increasing health and economic burden from
cigarette smoking in Wisconsin. Wis Med J 1992;91:6336.
31 U.S. Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. National health expenditures from
Centers for Medicare and Medicaid [Internet]. 2012 [updated Apr 11]: Table 6.
32 U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics. Top picks: employment,
hours, and earnings [Internet]. 2010 [last visited Jan 31, 2012].
33 King B, Dube S, Kaufmann R, et al. Current cigarette smoking among adults aged
18 yearsUnited States, 20052010. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep
34 Barendregt JJ, Bonneux L, van der Maas PJ. The health care costs of smoking. N
Engl J Med 1997;337:10527.
35 Rasmussen SR, Prescott E, Sørensen TI, et al. The total lifetime costs of smoking.
Eur J Public Health 2004;14:95100.
36 Rasmussen SR, Prescott E, Sørensen TI, et al. The total lifetime health cost savings
of smoking cessation to society. Eur J Public Health 2005;15:6016.
37 Wyatt E. Pension change puts the burden on the worker. NY Times 2002 Apr 5: A1.
38 Sloan FA, Ostermann J, Conover C, et al.The price of smoking. Cambridge, MA:
MIT Press, 2005: 178.
39 U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics. Employment status of the
civilian population by sex and age [Internet].
40 Costo SL. Trends in retirement plan coverage over the last decade. Mon Labor Rev
41 Zellers L, Thomas MA, Ashe M. Legal risks to employers who allow smoking in the
workplace. Am J Public Health 2007;97:137682.
42 Levy DE. Employer-sponsored insurance coverage of smoking cessation treatments.
Am J Manag Care 2006;12:55362.
43 Halpern MT, Dirana R, Schmier JK. Impacts of a smoking cessation benet among
employed populations. J Occup Environ Med 2007;49:1121.
44 Voigt K. Nonsmoker and nonnicotine hiring policies: the implications of employment
restrictions for tobacco control.Am J Public Health 2012;102:201318.
45 Houle B, Siegel M. Smoker-free workplace policies: developing a model of public
health consequences of workplace policies barring employment to smokers. Tob
Control 2009;18:649.
46 Gray NJ. The case for smoker-free workplaces. Tob Control 2005;14:1434.
47 Champan S. The smoker-free workplace: the case against. Tob Control 2005;14:144.
48 Schmidt S, Voigt K, Emanuel EJ. The ethics of not hiring smokers. N Engl J Med
49 Asch DA, Muller RW, Volpp KG. Conicts and compromises in not hiring smokers.
N Engl J Med 2013;368:137173.
50 Berman M, Crane R. Mandating a tobacco-free workforce: a conuence of business
and public health interests. William Mitchell Law Rev 2008;34:165174.
Berman M, et al.Tob Control 2014;23:428433. doi:10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2012-050888 433
Research paper on August 14, 2014 - Published by tobaccocontrol.bmj.comDownloaded from
doi: 10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2012-050888
2014 23: 428-433 originally published online June 3, 2013Tob Control
Micah Berman, Rob Crane, Eric Seiber, et al.
Estimating the cost of a smoking employee
Updated information and services can be found at:
These include:
Data Supplement
"Press release"
This article cites 37 articles, 12 of which can be accessed free at:
Email alerting the box at the top right corner of the online article.
Receive free email alerts when new articles cite this article. Sign up in
(28 articles)Press releases
Articles on similar topics can be found in the following collections
To request permissions go to:
To order reprints go to:
To subscribe to BMJ go to: on August 14, 2014 - Published by tobaccocontrol.bmj.comDownloaded from
... [16,20] More specifically, the present study found that heavy smoking and high-risk alcohol drinking were related to presenteeism. Many employees had health issues that significantly affected presenteeism, [19,21] including psychological distress and mental health problems [14,19,21] ; in recent studies, smoking [5,19,23] and alcohol consumption problems [6,7,19] were considered factors related to presenteeism. Though all employees can occasionally be unproductive, research suggests that smoking alone negatively impacts productivity due to loss of work time smoke breaks. ...
... Though all employees can occasionally be unproductive, research suggests that smoking alone negatively impacts productivity due to loss of work time smoke breaks. [5] It can be assumed that presenteeism might occur when employees take more frequent smoking breaks and face decreased concentration due to craving and withdrawal symptoms related to smoking even if they are at work. High-risk drinking and alcohol dependency are not equivalent dimensions of alcohol use, and most heavy drinkers are not dependent or addicted. ...
... [6] Similar to results of previous studies, [6,7,38] the present study found associations between heavy smoking and alcohol drinking with presenteeism, even after adjusting for physical illnesses, which implies high costs to employers. Research suggests that high costs are incurred due to smokers' absenteeism, presenteeism, smoke breaks, healthcare costs, and pension benefits, [5] and heavy drinking increases absenteeism and leads to declines in productivity, which can be more harmful to the company than absenteeism. [39] However, in this study, we did not analyze the relationship between heavy smoking and high-risk alcohol drinking and absenteeism; we found instead that absenteeism related to presenteeism. ...
Full-text available
Presenteeism refers to the practice of going to work despite poor health, resulting in subpar performance. This study aimed to explore the impacts of smoking and alcohol consumption on workplace presenteeism based on demographic, health-related, and employment variables.The study adopted a cross sectional design with 60,051 wage workers from the database of the second and third Korean Working Conditions Surveys in 2010 and 2011, respectively. A total of 41,404 workers aged 19 years and older, who had worked for at least 1 hour in the previous week, answered the survey questions. Chi-square test as well as univariate and multiple logistic regression analyses were conducted using SPSS, version 18.0, to determine the impacts of smoking and alcohol consumption on workplace presenteeism.Of the 41,404 Korean workers, 8512 (20.6%) had experienced presenteeism in the past 12 months. There were significant differences among gender, age, educational status, income, health problems, absenteeism, shift work, night shift, weekly working hours, exposure to secondhand smoke at work, and satisfaction with the workplace environment. Based on the results of multiple regression analysis, heavy smoking (adjusted odds ratio = 1.38, 95% confidence intervals [1.11, 1.72]) and high-risk drinking (adjusted odds ratio = 1.19, 95% confidence intervals [1.08, 1.31]) were significantly related to presenteeism among workers.The results of our study confirmed that smoking and alcohol drinking were related to presenteeism even after controlling other variables (demographic, health-related, and employment variables) that affect presenteeism. Smoking and alcohol drinking are associated with and potentially influence presenteeism; in particular, heavy smoking and high-risk drinking contributed to presenteeism. Companies that encourage employees to receive treatments for reduction of smoking or alcohol consumption may benefit from greater productivity. Hence, we should consider the impact of smoking and alcohol consumption in the workplace and build appropriate strategies and programs to help reduce these behaviors.
... Total costs of a smoker per year is the sum of lost productivity due to smoking breaks, and absenteeism and presenteeism costs attributable to cigarette use. This method was based on the human capital approach used to calculate lost productivity in statistical modeling by Berman et al. 22 . ...
... Economic models were adopted from similar previously published studies 1,22 . Lost productivity attributable to tobacco use among police officers was calculated using the annual-cost approach (i.e. ...
... Under this approach, cost of smoking per year was projected using crosssectional data. We used cost analysis to assume that factors, apart from smoking, influenced both smokers and non-smokers equally 22,25 . ...
INTRODUCTION Studies in several countries indicate that being a police officer is a risk factor for tobacco use. Currently, no such studies have been performed among police officers in Uganda, or in Africa generally. The aim of this study is to assess prevalence and costs of smoking among Ugandan police officers. METHODS A multistage survey model was employed to sample police officers (n=349) that included an observational cross-sectional survey and an annual cost-analysis approach. The study setting was confined to Nsambya Police Barracks, in Kampala city. RESULTS Police officers smoke 4.8 times higher than the general public (25.5% vs 5.3%). Risk factors included lower age, higher education and working in guard and general duties units. The findings show that the annual cost of smoking due to productivity loss could be up to US$5.521 million and US$57.316 million for excess healthcare costs. These costs represent 45.
... According to two systematic reviews, smoking is associated with an increase in sickness absence rates (Troelstra et al. 2020;Weng et al. 2013). Smoking is also associated with a decrease in work productivity (Berman et al. 2014;Bunn et al. 2006;Halpern et al. 2001;Sherman and Lynch 2013). Most studies found negative associations between smoking and work ability [i.e., self-assessed work ability in relation to an individual's resources and job demands (Van den Berg et al. 2009)] (Airila et al. 2012;Augusto et al. 2015;Mohammadi et al. 2014;Tuomi et al. 1991), while one study did not find an association (Fischer and Martinez 2013). ...
... Furthermore, smoking is associated with a risk of early exit from work (Bengtsson and Nilsson 2018;Husemoen et al. 2004). Few studies have compared the association between smoking and different work-related outcomes (Berman et al. 2014;Bunn et al. 2006;Halpern et al. 2001;Sherman and Lynch 2013;Tsai et al. 2005), and to our knowledge, no study has included sickness absence, work productivity, and work ability. ...
... These results correspond with one study on the relation between smoking status and work ability (Tuomi et al. 2001), but are in contrast to several other studies on this relation (Kaleta et al. 2006;Tuomi et al. 1991). Furthermore, our findings are in contrast to several studies on the association between smoking status and work productivity (Berman et al. 2014;Bunn et al. 2006;Halpern et al. 2001;Sherman and Lynch 2013). ...
Full-text available
Purpose The aim of this study was to assess the association between sustained smoking and quitting with work-related outcomes among older workers. Methods We categorized a sample of older employees into non-smokers, sustained smokers and quitters. Multivariable regression models were used to test longitudinal associations of sustained smoking and smoking cessation with sickness absence, productivity loss and work ability. Results We included 3612 non-smokers, 673 sustained smokers and 246 quitters. Comparing sustained smokers to non-smokers, we found higher (but not statistically significant) sickness absence for sustained smokers [1.01, 95% confidence interval (CI) − 0.16–2.17]. We did not find differences in productivity loss (OR 0.82, 95% CI 0.60–1.13) and work ability (0.05, 95% CI −0.05–0.15). For employees with a relatively high physical health at baseline, comparing quitters to sustained smokers, we found higher (but not statistically significant) productivity loss for quitters (OR 2.23, 95% CI 0.94–5.31), and no difference in sickness absence (0.10, 95% CI − 2.67–2.87), and work ability (− 0.10, 95% CI − 0.36–0.16). For employees with a relatively low physical health at baseline, comparing quitters to sustained smokers, we found a statistically significant lower work ability (− 0.31, 95% CI − 0.57–0.05), and no difference in sickness absence (2.53, 95% CI − 1.29–6.34) and productivity loss (OR 1.26, 95% CI 0.66–2.39). Conclusions We found no evidence that sustained smokers have less favorable work-related outcomes than non-smokers or that quitters have more favorable work-related outcomes than sustained smokers. The benefits of smoking cessation for employers might take a longer time to develop.
... These new forms of use, marketed as being safer or non-hazardous, have attracted not only former smokers, but also a new generation of consumers [51][52][53]. Despite the growing tendency of these new forms of tobacco use, cigarettes are still the most prevalent form, and are still responsible for a large number of deaths and diseases, professional absenteeism, and a heavy burden for healthcare systems [54,55]. ...
Full-text available
Periodontal disease consists in highly prevalent wide-ranging inflammatory conditions that affect the supporting apparatus of teeth. Tobacco use is the most important risk factor for periodontal disease as it increases disease severity and periodontal surgery complications. Tobacco use is harmful for the vasculature by causing microvascular dysfunction, which is known to negatively affect periodontal disease. To the author’s knowledge this paper is the first comprehensive review on the mechanisms by which tobacco use affects oral microcirculation and impacts the pathophysiology of periodontal disease. In healthy subjects, acute nicotine administration or tobacco use (smoking/smokeless forms) increases the blood flow in the oral mucosa due to local irritation and increased blood pressure, which overcome neural- and endocrine-mediated vasoconstriction. Chronic tobacco smokers display an increased gingival microvascular density, which is attributed to an increased capillary recruitment, however, these microcirculatory units show higher tortuosity and lower caliber. These morphological changes, together with the repetitive vasoconstrictive insults, contribute to lower gingival perfusion in chronic smokers and do not completely regress upon smoking cessation. In periodontal disease there is considerable gingival inflammation and angiogenesis in non-smokers which, in chronic smokers, are considerably suppressed, in part due to local immune suppression and oxidative stress. Tobacco exposure, irrespective of the form of use, causes long-term microvascular dysfunction that increases the risk of complications due to the natural disease course or secondary therapeutic strategies.
... Smokers take more breaks during working hours than a non-smoking employee, disrupting the working procedures. Additionally, loss of productivity due to these breaks, presenteeism, absenteeism, and health insurance costs are higher for a smoker (Berman et al., 2014) (Baker et al., 2017) (Halpern et al., 2001). ...
Full-text available
Biometric characteristics such as fingerprints, palmprints, iris, or face recognition have been used at organizations to identify an individual, grant access to physical or digital facilities, and to control employees' time and attendance. Nowadays, employers recognize the importance of workers' health. For this reason, wellness programs are gaining popularity among enterprises. As part of these programs, other biometric traits such as height, weight, blood samples are acquired at biometric screening events. Their main objective is to promote healthy habits within the workforce via early prevention and timely interventions of diseases. The present work goes beyond the biometric screenings' health benefits that are broadly reported and analyzes the implication of the screenings over occupational safety and health For this purpose, a literature review was carried out. Literature research and analysis conveyed relevant information regarding the application of biometrics in the workplace via biometric screenings. The revision of pertinent scientific documents showed that biometric characteristics acquired in a biometric screening event and the subsequent results’ analysis can aid in the identification of unconventional hazards that can affect occupational safety and health. Furthermore, the present study describes different examples on how a biometric screening results can be associated with occupational hazards and consequently affect occupational safety and health.
... 40 In one study of unemployed job seekers, people who smoke were found to be less likely to be reemployed after 1 year than those who did not smoke and were paid less when they were rehired. 39 The cost of hiring someone who smokes is estimated at nearly $6000 more than the cost of hiring a nonsmoker, 41 meaning that some employers simply refuse to hire people who smoke. 42 Those who are living in poverty, are unemployed, and have less formal education are more likely to use tobacco. ...
Fourteen percent of US adults use tobacco products. Because many of those who use tobacco are parents and/or caregivers, children are disproportionately exposed to tobacco smoke. People who use tobacco products often become addicted to nicotine, resulting in tobacco dependence, a chronic, relapsing disease. Tobacco use and exposure are more likely to occur in vulnerable and marginalized groups, including those living in poverty. Although some view tobacco use as a personal choice, evidence suggests that structural forces play an important role in tobacco uptake, subsequent nicotine addiction, and perpetuation of use. Viewing tobacco use and tobacco dependence through a structural competency lens promotes recognition of the larger systemic forces perpetuating tobacco use, including deliberate targeting of groups by the tobacco industry, lack of enforcement of age-for-sale laws, inferior access to health insurance and health care, poor access to cessation resources, and economic stress. Each of these forces perpetuates tobacco initiation and use; in turn, tobacco use perpetuates the user's adverse health and economic conditions. Pediatricians are urged to view family tobacco use as a social determinant of health. In addition to screening adolescents for tobacco use and providing resources and treatment of tobacco dependence, pediatricians are encouraged to systematically screen children for secondhand smoke exposure and support family members who smoke with tobacco cessation. Additionally, pediatricians can address the structural issues perpetuating tobacco use by becoming involved in policy and advocacy initiatives.
There is a fierce debate about nonsmokers-only hiring policies, also referred to as no-nicotine hiring policies and “tobacco free” hiring policies. The favorable outcomes of no-nicotine hiring policies include reduced health costs, improved worker productivity, enhanced organizational image, and symbolic messaging. The unfavorable consequences of such policies include violating personal liberty, risking a “slippery slope” to other health-compromising behaviors, exacerbating socio-economic disparities, and discriminating against smokers. No-nicotine hiring policies have not been adequately evaluated and a new approach is warranted. The new conditional employment policy for smokers is described with stipulations for the probationary period. Autonomy and fairness are frequently cited as ethical principles to analyze no-nicotine hiring policies. An analysis of ethical principles is presented for no-nicotine hiring policies and the new conditional employment policy. The ethical principle of fairness is rooted in the effectiveness of any policy. Therefore, an evaluation plan is described for the conditional employment policy to assess effectiveness and efficiency. The proposed policy provides a powerful incentive to overcome smoking addictions, preserve the ethical principles of autonomy and fairness, as well as bridge the divide between personal liberty and personal responsibility.
Cigarette smokers earn significantly less than nonsmokers, but the magnitude of the smoking wage gap and the pathways by which it originates are unclear. Proposed mechanisms often focus on spot differences in employee productivity or employer preferences, neglecting the dynamic nature of human capital development and addiction. In this paper, we formulate a dynamic model of young workers as they transition from schooling to the labor market, a period in which the lifetime trajectory of wages is being developed. We estimate the model with data from the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth, 1997 Cohort, and we simulate the model under counterfactual scenarios that isolate the contemporaneous effects of smoking from dynamic differences in human capital accumulation and occupational selection. Results from our preferred model, which accounts for unobserved heterogeneity in the joint determination of smoking, human capital, labor supply, and wages, suggest that continued heavy smoking in young adulthood results in a wage penalty at age 30 of 15.9% and 15.2% for women and men, respectively. These differences are much smaller than the raw difference in means in wages at age 30. We show that the contemporaneous effect of heavy smoking net of any life-cycle effects explains 62.9% of the female smoking wage gap but only 20.4% of the male smoking wage gap.
Full-text available
Introduction: Policymakers may sometimes be reluctant to develop policies for smoke-free outdoor spaces due to concerns about public reaction. In this study, we investigated the support for a smoke-free campus before and after the campus of a Dutch research institute became smoke-free. Methods: We conducted two surveys among employees to measure the level of support for a smoke-free campus. The first survey (n=129) was conducted 3 months before and the second 13 months after the implementation of a smoke-free campus policy (n=134). Results: More employees supported the smoke-free campus after (82.1%) than before (64.3%) implementation (OR=2.55; 95% CI: 1.39-4.70; p=0.003). In addition, more employees (75.4%) employees believed it is important to have a smoke-free campus than was the situation before (56.6%) the implementation (OR=2.28; 95% CI: 1.31-3.97; p=0.004). Conclusions: This case study adds to the knowledge that support for a smoke-free campus increases after implementation of a smoke-free policy. This may encourage other organizations or local governments to create policies for smoke-free outdoor spaces.
Full-text available
Tobacco use is responsible for approximately 440,000 deaths in the United States each year - about one death out of every five. This number is more than the annual number of deaths caused by HIV infection, illegal drug use, alcohol use, motor vehicle injuries, suicides, and murders combined(1) and more than the number of American servicemen who died during World War II. A small but increasing number of employers - including health care systems such as the Cleveland Clinic, Geisinger, Baylor, and the University of Pennsylvania Health System - have established policies of no longer hiring tobacco users. These employers . . .
Nicotine maintains tobacco addiction and has therapeutic utility to aid smoking cessation and possibly to treat other medical diseases. Nicotine acts on nicotinic cholinergic receptors, which demonstrate diversity in subunit structure, function, and distribution within the nervous system, presumably mediating the complex actions of nicotine described in tobacco users. The effects of nicotine in people are influenced by the rate and route of dosing and by the development of tolerance. The metabolism of nicotine is now well characterized in humans. A few individuals with deficient C-oxidation of nicotine, unusually slow metabolism of nicotine, and little generation of cotinine have been described. Nicotine affects most organ systems in the body, although its contribution to smoking-related disease is still unclear. Nicotine as a medication is currently available as a gum, a transdermal delivery device, and a nasal spray, all of which are used for smoking cessation. Nicotine is also being investigated for therapy of ulcerative colitis, Alzheimer's disease, Parkinson's disease, Tourette's syndrome, sleep apnea, and attention deficit disorder.
From 1992-93 to 2005, there was an overall drop in retirement coverage; participation in defined contribution plans eclipsed that in defined benefit plans, and the features of retirement plans changed in tandem with the declining participation.
Background: Tobacco use remains the leading cause of preventable morbidity and mortality in the United States. Methods: The 2005--2010 National Health Interview Surveys and the 2010 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System survey were used to estimate national and state adult smoking prevalence, respectively. Current cigarette smokers were defined as adults aged ≥18 years who reported having smoked ≥100 cigarettes during their lifetime and who now smoke every day or some days. Results: In 2010, 19.3% of U.S. adults were current cigarette smokers. Higher smoking prevalence was observed in the Midwest (21.8%) and South (21.0%). From 2005 to 2010, the proportion of smokers declined from 20.9% to 19.3% (p<0.05 for trend), representing approximately 3 million fewer smokers in 2010 than would have existed had prevalence not declined since 2005. The proportion of daily smokers who smoked one to nine cigarettes per day (CPD) increased from 16.4% to 21.8% during 2005--2010 (p<0.05 for trend), whereas the proportion who smoked ≥30 CPD decreased from 12.7% to 8.3% (p<0.05 for trend). Conclusions: During 2005--2010, an overall decrease was observed in the prevalence of cigarette smoking among adults; however, the amount and direction of change has not been consistent year-to-year.
Finding employment is becoming increasingly difficult for smokers. Twenty-nine U.S. states have passed legislation prohibiting employers from refusing to hire job candidates because they smoke, but 21 states have no such restrictions. Many health care organizations, such as the Cleveland Clinic and Baylor Health Care System, and some large non-health care employers, including Scotts Miracle-Gro, Union Pacific Railroad, and Alaska Airlines, now have a policy of not hiring smokers - a practice opposed by 65% of Americans, according to a 2012 poll by Harris International. We agree with those polled, believing that categorically refusing to hire smokers is unethical: it . . .