ArticlePDF Available

The health effects of smoking bans: Evidence from German hospitalization data

Authors:

Abstract and Figures

This paper studies the short‐term impact of public smoking bans on hospitalizations in Germany. It exploits the staggered implementation of smoking bans over time and across the 16 federal states along with the universe of hospitalizations from 2000 to 2008 and daily county‐level weather and pollution data. Smoking bans in bars and restaurants have been effective in preventing 1.9 hospital admissions (−2.1%) due to cardiovascular diseases per day, per 1 million population. We also find a decrease by 0.5 admissions (−6.5%) due to asthma per day, per 1 million population. The health prevention effects are more pronounced on sunny days and days with higher ambient pollution levels.
Content may be subject to copyright.
DISCUSSION PAPER SERIES
IZA DP No. 11631
Michael Kvasnicka
Thomas Siedler
Nicolas R. Ziebarth
The Health Effects of Smoking Bans:
Evidence from German Hospitalization Data
JUNE 2018
Any opinions expressed in this paper are those of the author(s) and not those of IZA. Research published in this series may
include views on policy, but IZA takes no institutional policy positions. The IZA research network is committed to the IZA
Guiding Principles of Research Integrity.
The IZA Institute of Labor Economics is an independent economic research institute that conducts research in labor economics
and offers evidence-based policy advice on labor market issues. Supported by the Deutsche Post Foundation, IZA runs the
world’s largest network of economists, whose research aims to provide answers to the global labor market challenges of our
time. Our key objective is to build bridges between academic research, policymakers and society.
IZA Discussion Papers often represent preliminary work and are circulated to encourage discussion. Citation of such a paper
should account for its provisional character. A revised version may be available directly from the author.
Schaumburg-Lippe-Straße 5–9
53113 Bonn, Germany
Phone: +49-228-3894-0
Email: publications@iza.org www.iza.org
IZA – Institute of Labor Economics
DISCUSSION PAPER SERIES
IZA DP No. 11631
The Health Effects of Smoking Bans:
Evidence from German Hospitalization Data
JUNE 2018
Michael Kvasnicka
Otto-von-Guericke-University Magdeburg, RWI and IZA
Thomas Siedler
University of Hamburg and IZA
Nicolas R. Ziebarth
Cornell University, DIW Berlin and IZA
ABSTRACT
IZA DP No. 11631 JUNE 2018
The Health Effects of Smoking Bans:
Evidence from German Hospitalization Data*
This paper studies the short-term impact of public smoking bans on hospitalizations in
Germany. It exploits the staggered implementation of smoking bans over time and across
the 16 federal states along with the universe of hospitalizations from 2000-2008 and
daily county-level weather and pollution data. Smoking bans in bars and restaurants have
been effective in preventing 1.9 hospital admissions (-2.1%) due to cardiovascular diseases
per day, per 1 million population. We also find a decrease by 0.5 admissions (-6.5%)
due to asthma per day, per 1 million population. The health prevention effects are more
pronounced on sunny days and days with higher ambient pollution levels.
JEL Classification: D12, H19, I12, I18
Keywords: smoking bans, health effects, hospital admissions,
second-hand smoke
Corresponding author:
Thomas Siedler
University of Hamburg
Esplanade 36
20354 Hamburg
Germany
E-mail: Thomas.Siedler@wiso.uni-hamburg.de
* We thank seminar participants at the 2015 Meeting of the American Economic Association (AEA) and the 2014
Meeting of the European Society for Population Economics (ESPE). We also thank the research data centre (RDC)
of the Federal Statistical Office and Statistical Offices of the Länder, the German Meteorological Service (Deutscher
Wetterdienst (DWD)) and the German Federal Environmental Office (Umweltbundesamt (UBA)) for providing
administrative data access. We also thank Jörg Blankenback, Maike Schmitt and Martin Karlsson for valuable support
in extrapolating the weather and pollution measures. Excellent research assistance by Peter Eibich, Phillip Susser and
Beining Niu is gratefully acknowledged. We take responsibility for all remaining errors and shortcomings of the article.
The research reported in this paper is not the result of a for-pay consulting relationship. Our employers do not have a
financial interest in the topic of the paper which might constitute a conflict of interest.
1. Introduction
In a recent report on trends in smoking prevalence, the World Health Organization (WHO)
estimates that tobacco use is responsible for the death of around six million people worldwide
each year (World Health Organization, 2015a). This includes about 600,000 people who are
estimated to die each year due to exposure to second-hand smoke. Reducing smoking
prevalence and exposure to environmental tobacco smoke is one of the key public health
priorities of the WHO and many governments around the world.
This paper extends previous work on the causal health effects of smoke-free legislation in
several important ways. First, we exploit variation in smoke-free laws across states and over
time in Germany along with exceptionally rich high-quality register data to investigate the
effects on hospital admissions. Our data cover the universe of more than 160 million
hospitalizations between 2000 and 2008 in Germany. It enable us to separate time effects,
state effects, and smoke-free legislation effects which makes it less likely that unobserved
factors (coinciding with the introduction of public smoking bans) confound the estimates.
Second, we control more comprehensively than most existing studies for potentially
important environmental factors that are likely to affect hospitalizations, such as local weather
and local pollution conditions. To the best of our knowledge, our paper is one of the first to
study potential interaction effects between these environmental factors and the effectiveness
of public smoking bans. Accounting for such environmental interactions is important as the
combination of smoking and exposure to second-hand smoke with, for example, high pollution
levels might result in more hospitalizations due to cardiovascular diseases.
Third, we investigate objective health outcome measures (i.e., cardiovascular hospital
admissions, asthma admissions) using high-frequency register data.1 Most previous studies in
1 A comprehensive literature documents the direct link between smoking, smoking intensity, exposure to second-
hand smoke and cardiovascular events (see, for example, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2006,
2014; Mons et al., 2015, and references therein).
2
the economics literature investigate changes in smoking behavior using survey data.2 The
findings of these studies are mixed. Whereas some studies find a reduction in tobacco
consumption following smoke-free laws (e.g. Evans et al., 1999 for the US and workplace
smoking bans), others report no or only very small changes (Adda and Cornaglia, 2010 for the
US; Anger et al., 2011 for Germany; Carpenter et al., 2011 for Canada; Jones et al. 2015 for the
UK). Kuehnle and Wunder (2017) report improvements in self-assessed health among non-
smokers following the introduction of smoking bans in Germany, but no effects among
smokers. Exploiting variation over time and 40 European countries, Odermatt and Stutzer
(2015) find that smoking bans increase the happiness of smokers who would like to quit. A
similar finding has been reported by Gruber and Mullainathan (2005) who exploit cigarette tax
variation in the US. More generally, our paper contributes to the rich reduced-form literature
evaluating the causal effects of tobacco policies (mostly cigarette taxes) on smoking behavior
(Gruber, 2001; DeCicca et al., 2002, 2008, 2013; Gruber et al., 2003; Gruber and Koszegi, 2004;
Gruber and Frakes, 2006; Avery et al., 2007; Carpenter and Cook, 2008; Lovenheim, 2008;
Courtemache, 2009; Goolsbee et al., 2010; Shetty et al., 2011; Wehby and Courtemanche,
2012; Kvasnicka and Tauchmann, 2012; Lillard et al., 2013; Callison and Kaestner, 2014;
Friedman, 2015; Rozema and Ziebarth, 2017; Hansen et al., 2017).
Fourth, we study the consequences of smoking bans in a high-income country with a high
smoking prevalence. The estimated age-standardized WHO prevalence rate among those aged
15 years and more is 31% in Germany, compared to 18% in the United States, 20% in the United
Kingdom and Northern Ireland, and 13% in Australia (World Health Organization, 2015b).
However, the latter countries have been researched most extensively in the literature (Cutler
and Glaeser, 2009; World Health Organization, 2015b).
Finally, our setting provides a potential explanation for why it is so difficult to identify
(objective) health effects following smoking bans. Even in a country like Germany with 82
million residents, a relatively high smoking prevalence, a high population density, low access
barriers to the hospital infrastructure (universal insurance coverage and no provider networks),
2 Shetty at al. (2011) is one exception and estimates the effects of US smoking bans on hospitalizations.
3
state-year variation in smoking bans, and data on the universe of around 17 million annual
hospital admissions, we operate in a setting where statistical power becomes an issue. For
example, our -0.19 point estimate for the largest disease category cardiovascular admissions
per 100,000 population is still precisely estimatedeven though the effect size is only two
percent of the mean. However, trying to assess the effects for a subset of this disease
categorysuch as heart attacks or deaths after cardiovascular admissionsis technically very
challenging due to power issues. In Germany with about 15 heart attacks per day and 1 million
residents, heart attacks are still a relatively rare event and small changes in these rates are very
hard to identify when using rich sets of time and region fixed effects, even with register data.
Our findings show that, in the short run, cardiovascular admissions decreased by 1.9 cases
per 1 million population (-2.1%) because of state-level smoking bans in Germany between 2007
and 2008. We also find a significant short-run reduction in hospital admissions due to asthma
(-6.5%). Many countries around the world have not yet banned smoking in public. Our results
suggest that these countries could achieve health improvements by banning public smoking.
Our findings also suggest that health improvements can be expected even if countries are
unable or unwilling to impose 100% smoke-free laws. Public smoking bans in Germany are not
very strict. Exemptions exist (e.g., smoking bars and separate smoking rooms in some premises)
and the bans are not always strictly enforced. On the other hand, in the only published
economics paper that uses hospitalizations as an outcome, Shetty et al. (2011) do not find
evidence for significant decreases in hospitalizations in the US. Bitler et al. (2010) study state-
level clear indoor air laws in the U.S. and find evidence that these laws were strongly enforced
in bars, but not in restaurants, private workplaces, schools, or government buildings.
This paper also enriches the previous literature by showing that the reduction in
cardiovascular admissions is reinforced on sunny days. We discuss several potential
mechanisms for these findings. Our estimates suggest that smoking bans are more effective
under adverse environmental conditions (unrelated to tobacco smoke) that negatively affect
the human body, such as high pollution levels.
4
The next section briefly describes the staggered implementation of the smoking bans in
Germany. Section 3 describes the datasets, Section 4 discusses the empirical strategy, and
Section 5 presents and discusses our findings. Section 6 concludes.
2. Smoking Bans in Germany
At a meeting in March 2007, the 16 state health ministers decided to ban smoking in bars
and restaurants in all 16 German federal states. Shortly after, smoke-free policies were
introduced over a time period of just 13 months (August 2007 to August 2008). Our empirical
analysis exploits this state-time variation across the sixteen federal states. We distinguish states
by the exact month when smoking bans in bars and restaurants were legally implemented. As
Table 1 and Figure 1 show, the south-western state of Baden-Wuerttemberg was the first to
introduce smoke-free legislation in August 2007. By the end of August 2008, all states in
Germany had introduced public smoking bans (see Table 1).
[Insert Table 1 and Figure 1 about here]
The German bans were less comprehensive than in other countries and allowed for
exemptions. All states except Bavaria allowed smoking in separate “smoking rooms” in bars and
restaurants and some states made additional exceptions. In practice, because of the
bureaucratic regulations for separate smoking rooms, one can summarize that the ban was very
effective in banning smoking in restaurants (see, for example, Baxmann and Eckoldt, 2007;
NRauchSchG SH, 2007; LNRSchG, 2007). It was also effective in banning smoking in bigger and
popular (tourist) bars. However, basically each state allowed small pubs to self-declare as
“smoker pubs” where people could still smoke inside. In practice, almost every German city still
had a small number of such “smoker pubs” that were typically attended by a large share of
(local) smokers who also tend to drink heavily. 3 Germany does not have a general closing time
3 Note that there exist no official figures for the number of “smoker pubs” in Germany.
5
for bars and that it was not unusual that such smoker bars were open 24/7. Moreover, smoking
outside of bars and restaurants is not prohibited and still common in Germany.
Although tobacco control measures increased both in number and strictness since the early
2000s in Germany (for a review, see Göhlmann and Schmidt, 2008), their overall effectiveness
remained low in comparison to other European countries (Joossen et al., 2011). Landmark
policy initiatives include a federal law that made the protection of non-smokers in the
workplace mandatory in 2002, and the introduction of a nation-wide smoking ban in federal
public buildings and transportation in September 2007 as well as the concurrent increase of the
minimum smoking age from 16 to 18. Note that our econometric models include month-year
fixed effects which net out common time effects among all German states.
More detailed information on the smoke-free legislation in Germany can be found in Anger
et al. (2011), Brüderl and Ludwig (2011), and Kuehnle and Wunder (2017). In particular, Anger
et al. (2011) examine whether the timing of the implementation of the smoke-free German
legislation is associated with various pre-ban characteristics at the state level. The authors do
not find statistically significant associations with (i) the percentage of smokers in a state’s
population, (ii) whether the state government is conservative, (iii) the average age of the state
residents, (iv) the proportion of university graduates, (v) the proportion of singles in the state’s
population, or (vi) the state’s GDP per capita. Hence, the variation in smoke-free legislation in
Germany over time and states likely provides plausible exogenous variation to study the causal
effects of public smoking bans.
3. Datasets
We make use of high-quality register data. We use the census of all German hospital
admissions from 2000 to 2008 and link these data with weather measures, pollution measures,
as well as socioeconomic background information at the county level. Being able to identify all
health shocks that require inpatient treatment, this dataset allows us to study serious objective
health effects of smoking (bans).
6
3.1 German Hospital Admissions Census (2000-2008)
The German Hospital Admission Census (Krankenhausstatistik Diagnosedaten, 2000-2008),
includes all hospital admissions from 2000 to 2008. By law, German hospitals are required to
submit depersonalized information on every single hospital admission. The 16 German states
collect this information and the research data centre (RDC) of the Federal Statistical Office and
Statistical Offices of the Länder (FDZ der Statistischen Ämter des Bundes und der Länder)
provides restricted data access for researchers. Germany has about 82 million inhabitants and
registers about 17 million hospital admissions per year. We observe every single hospital
admission from 2000 to 2008, i.e., a total of about 160 million hospitalizations.4 In this data,
hospital admissions include admissions requiring an overnight stay. It is not possible to
separately track emergency room admissions; the data do not contain information on the
admission route (i.e., ambulance, self-admitted). However, we observe the main diagnosis and
the number of nights that the patient spent in the hospital.
To obtain our working dataset, we aggregate the individual-level admission data on the
daily county level and normalize admissions per 100,000 or 1,000,000 population. As seen in
the Appendix, besides others, we have information on age and gender, the day of admission,
the county of residence, as well as the diagnosis in form of the 10th revision of the International
Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems (ICD-10) code. The total
number of county-day observations in our main models is 1,429,196.5
Construction of Main Dependent Variables
Using the ICD information on the primary diagnosis, we generate the following dependent
variables: (a) Aggregating over the total admissions on a given day in a given county, we obtain
admissions representing the overall admission rate. (b) By extracting the ICD-10 codes I00-I99
diseases of the circulatory systemwe generate cardiovascular admissions. (c) Extracting the
4 This excludes military hospitals and hospitals in prisons.
5 If we had a stable set of 430 counties over all years, we would have 430*365*9 = 1,412,550 observations.
However, due to county mergers, the number of counties decreased over time and varies from 442 (2000) to 413
(2008).
7
codes I20 and I21, we generate a third dependent variable, heart attacks. (d) A fourth variable
measures hospital admissions due to asthma (ICD-10 code J45). Cardiovascular admissions and
asthma admissions are our main dependent variables because tobacco smoke mainly triggers
diseases of the circulatory system and asthma (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services,
2006, 2014). Admissions due to cardiovascular diseases are also the single most important
subgroup of admissions (16% of all admissions).
Smoking bans change people’s going out behavior to bars and restaurants (Anger et al.,
2011) and might therefore influence (excessive) drinking behavior, hospital admissions due to
alcohol intoxication, and traffic injuries. Adams and Cotti (2008), for instance, find an increase
in fatal accidents involving alcohol following smoking bans in the U.S. because smokers drive
longer distances to bars without smoking restrictions. Therefore, we also study (e) alcohol
poising (code T51) and (f) injuries (codes V01-X59). Finally, we conduct falsification exercises
and report estimates for the placebo outcomes (g) drug overdosing (ICD-10 code T40) and (h)
suicide attempts (code T14).
Summary statistics for all dependent variables are provided in the Appendix. On a given day,
we observe about 57.9 hospital admissions per 100,000 population in Germany.6 On average,
there are 9.1 cardiovascular admissions and 0.9 asthma admissions per 100,000 population.
3.2 Merging Hospital Data with Weather, Pollution and Socioeconomic Data
We merge the German Hospital Admission Census with official daily weather and pollution
data to exploit additional exogenous variation in weather and pollution conditions. This allows
us to study the effectiveness of smoking bans under specific environmental conditions.
Weather Data. The weather data are provided by the German Meteorological Service
(Deutscher Wetterdienst (DWD)). The DWD is a publicly funded federal institution and collects
information from hundreds of ambient weather stations which are distributed across Germany.
We have information on the minimum, average, and maximum temperature, as well as rainfall
6 Note that German data protection laws prohibit us from reporting minimum and maximum values.
8
and hours of sunshine from up to 1,044 monitors and the years 2000 to 2008 (see Appendix for
summary statistics). We extrapolate the point measures of the ambient weather stations into
space using inverse distance weighting. This means that we use the measures for every county
and day as the inverse distance weighted average of all ambient monitors within a radius of 60
km (37.5 miles) of the county centroid (Hanigan et al., 2006).
Pollution Data. The pollution data are provided by the GERMAN FEDERAL ENVIRONMENTAL OFFICE
(Umweltbundesamt (UBA)). The UBA is a publicly funded federal agency that collects daily
information on ambient air pollution. As for the weather data, we use data for 2000 to 2008
from up to 1,314 ambient monitors. As with our weather measures, we extrapolate the point
measures into the county space on a daily basis. The Appendix shows all summary statistics.
Socioeconomic Background Data. Because the hospital data only contain gender and age
information, we collect administrative data on the unemployment rate, the number of hospitals
in a county, as well as the number of hospital beds per 10,000 population (see Appendix). Our
empirical models control for these county-level characteristics. For example, Dehejia and
Lleras-Muny (2004) find that smoking changes with the business cycle, and Ruhm (2007)
reports a negative relationship between unemployment and deaths from coronary heart
disease.7
4. Empirical Strategy
4.1 Empirical Model
To estimate the causal effect of smoking bans on hospitalizations, we estimate several
variants of the following econometric difference-in-differences (DD) model:
(1)
where
cd
y
stands for one of our dependent variables (normalized hospital admissions) and
7 Similarly, Ruhm and Black (2002) and Ruhm (2005) report that smoking, drinking and excess weight decline in
times of economic downturns.
cd
cd
ststmwsmtcd
ZXBany
εθγνδφϕββ
++++++++=
''
10
9
varies at the daily (d) county (c) level. The binary
smt
Ban
indicator is our main variable of
interest. It indicates whether a bar/restaurant smoking ban was in effect in state s in month m
of year t. To net out persistent differences across states, we incorporate a set of state dummy
variables
s
ν
. To control for seasonal and other time shocks, we additionally include sets of year
(
), month (
m
φ
), and week-of-year (
w
ϕ
) fixed effects. In the most saturated models employed,
we replace the state, year and month fixed effects with month-year (
tm
δφ
×
) and state-year (
ts
δν
×
) fixed effects. Note that one could easily rewrite the variable of interest in this DD
model,
smt
SmokingBan
, as an interaction term between binary time-invariant state indicators
and time variables that indicate when the ban became effective in each state.
cd
Z
stands for a vector of controls that we generated from the individual-level hospital
admission data; we aggregated those controls at the daily county level. For example, in the
German Hospital Admission Census, we have information on patients’ gender and age (reported
in 17 different age groups).
Finally, we include a set of annual county-level covariates Xst that control for differences in
the unemployment rate, the number of hospitals in the county, and the number of hospital beds
per 10,000 population (see Appendix). The standard errors are clustered at the state level
(Bertrand et al., 2004).
4.2. Identification
It is plausible to assume that the implementation of the German smoking bans across the 16
German states over time was exogenous to individual smoking behavior. Particularly helpful
features of our setting are (i) that all German states eventually introduced smoking bans, (ii)
that it all happened between August 2007 and August 2008, i.e., within only 13 months, and (iii)
that we can exploit temporal variation in the implementation that ranges across all seasons of a
year. Finally, Anger et al., 2011 have shown (iv) that the timing of the implementation across
states shows no systematic relationship with a rich set of pre-ban state, among them the
percentage of smokers in a state.
10
Our preferred specification in equation (1) does not only control for socio-demographic
characteristics and the health care infrastructure at the county level, but also nets out week
and month-year fixed effects and controls for persistent differences across states by including
state-year effects. Such a rich specification does not leave much space for unobservables that
could affect changes in admission rates which could be systematically correlated with the
introduction of a smoking ban, but were not caused by it.
A general identification issuebut common to virtually all smoking ban papers (Adda and
Cornaglia, 2006, 2010 being notable exceptions)—is that individual-level exposure to tobacco
smoke is unknown. This means that smoking ban papers typically estimate a reduced-form
effect of a smoking ban on the outcome variables of interest. Even if actual individual-level
cigarette consumption could be measured without error, it is unclear whether (and if so, by
how much) the actual consumption intensity changed (cf. Adda and Cornaglia, 2006).
Thus, the smoking ban-related change in individual-level exposure to environmental
tobacco smokefor smokers and non-smokersis determined by (a) the population share of
smokers and (their smoking intensity), (b) the (cultural) habits of smokers in terms of where
they preferably smoke, (c) the details of the law banning smoking in certain locations, as well as
(d) the specific implementation and enforcement of the law.
With respect to (a) to (d) above, one can summarize that (a) in the German population, the
share of smokers is roughly one third across all cohorts, which is considerably larger than in the
US (Cutler and Glaeser, 2009). (b) At least before the smoking ban, smoking was still to a large
degree a social activity and not necessarily associated with a stigma as in the US. (c+d) The
smoking bans mostly apply to indoor smoking in pubs and restaurants. Almost no exceptions
exist for restaurants. However, as discussed in Section 2, in almost all states during the
observation period, it was still possible to smoke in dive bars that self-declared as “smoker
pubs.” On the other hand, the majority of pubs, particularly popular and touristic pubs, entirely
banned indoor smoking.
11
5. Results
5.1 Main Estimates
Table 2 shows the results from regression models as in equation (1). Every column
represents one model. The dependent variable in the first two columns is all-cause admissions
per 100,000 population. Columns (3) and (4) use cardiovascular admissions per 100,000
population, columns (5) and (6) heart attacks per 100,000 population, and the final two
columns report estimates for the dependent variable asthma admissions per 100,000
population. All models in the odd-numbered columns control for state, week, month, and year
effects. All models in the even-numbered columns control for week, month-year, and state-year
effects and control for socio-demographics.
[Insert Table 2 about here]
We learn the following from Table 2: First, following the implementation of a smoking ban,
the all-cause admission rate decreased significantly by about 10 admissions per 1 million
population, or 1.6% (column (2)). According to our preferred specification in column (4), the
cardiovascular admission rate decreased significantly by 1.9 per 1 million population or by 2.1%.
This is a small, but highly significant, effect. For the entire German population with its 82 million
residents, 1.9 fewer people admitted due to heart problems per 1 million population translates
into 156 fewer hospital admissions per day or about 56,867 fewer cardiovascular admissions
per year. Applying the average health care costs of one hospital day of about €500, just these
avoided cardiovascular admissions would yield a resource savings estimate worth78 thousand
per day (Gesundheitsberichterstattung des Bundes, 2012). For a comprehensive welfare loss
estimate, one would need to add the patients’ quality of life lost during hospital stays and the
welfare loss of lost working days.
Could it be that the reduction in cardiovascular admissions is mainly driven by fewer
hospitalization of employees in establishments that are newly smoke free (e.g., bartenders and
waitresses)? According to the Federal Statistical Office, around 1.1 million worked in cafes,
12
pubs, and bars in 2016 (Destatis, 2017). A decline by 1.9 cardiovascular hospital admissions per
1 million population per day among employees in these smoke-free venues would result in
around 730 fewer admissions per year. This simple back-of-the-envelope calculation suggests
that the reduction in cardiovascular admissions is very likely due to lower population exposure
rather than a decline only among employees in venues directly affected by the smoke free laws.
Because our data contain information on whether people died in the hospital after having
been admitted, we experiment with an additional outcome death after cardiovascular
admission but do not find significant effects. The reason is likely that only 0.45 people per
100,000 population die after being hospitalized due to heart problems. This number only
represents five percent of all cardiovascular admissions. Even with our high-frequency register
data counting 17 million admissions per year, we operate in an underpowered setting. This
illustrates a general structural issue for researchers trying to identify specific objective
population health effects of anti-tobacco policies. If the death after cardiovascular admission
effect was symmetric to the general cardiovascular admission effect, one would need to
identify a 0.007 point estimate which is hardly possible even with register data.
Our next two models with the outcome heart attack admission rate (a subset of the overall
cardiovascular admission rate) illustrates this point as well. Although we find consistently
reductions in the heart attack rate in our specifications, only the estimate of the
“parsimonious” DD model, with only state, week, month and year fixed effects in column (5) of
Table 2 yields a marginally significant -0.05 point estimate, translating into a reduction in the
heart attack rate of -3.1%. Our preferred saturated model estimate in column (6) is just -0.02
and not statistically significant any more. Relative to the mean of 1.48 heart attack admissions
per 100,000 population and day, the estimate translates into a decrease of only 0.1%. This
illustrates why many studies that intend to identify health effect estimates following smoking
bans cannot provide precise estimates: even in a densely populated country with a very good
health care infrastructure, short distances to the next hospital as well as a relatively high
smoking prevalence, heart attacks are still a relatively rare event and small changes in the rates
are very hard to identify, even with register data. It is also important to point out that the
13
reduction in heart attack admissions in Germany is considerably smaller than what has been
found in the study by Pell et al. (2008) following smoke-free legislation in Scotland. The authors
report a reduction in acute coronary syndromes by 17%. However, methodologically Pell et al.
(2008) compare hospitalizations before and after the smoke-free legislation was implemented
in Scotland. Consequently, their findings are not directly comparable to our differences-in-
differences model, which considers rich sets of time and regional fixed effects which net out
seasonal as well spatial confounding factors.
The last two columns of Table 2 present the results for asthma admissions. In our preferred
specification in column (8), we find a statistically significant decrease by around 0.06 fewer
asthma admissions per 100,000 population and day. This is a considerable reduction as it
implies a decline of nearly seven percent at the mean.
In unreported regressions (available upon request), we also estimate the smoking ban
effects on cardiovascular admissions and asthma admissions separately by age group.
Specifically, we ran our preferred model in columns (4) and column (8) of Table 2 for nine
different age groups.8 Furthermore, we explored potential heterogeneity in the treatment
effect by gender. Overall, we did not find any significant differential impacts of public smoking
bans on cardiovascular or asthma admissions by age group or gender.
[Insert Table 3 about here]
Table 3 presents the results for alcohol poisoning, injuries, and for the placebo outcomes
drug overdosing and suicide attempts. Smoking bans might alter where people smoke and
drink. They may drive longer distances by car to venues without smoking restrictions, increasing
the risk of accidents and fatalities (Adams and Cotti, 2008). However, our results in Table 3 do
not suggest a significant decline of alcohol poisonings or an increase in the number of injuries as
a result of more car accidents. However, keep in mind that low means per 1 million population
and that we may not have enough power to identify small changes, e.g., the point estimates for
alcohol poisonings are consistently negative and between 2 and 7% of the mean.
8 Ages 0-10, 11-20, 21-30, 31-40, 41-50, 51-60, 61-65, 66-75, and 75+.
14
Finally, columns (5) to (8) show the results for the falsification outcomes drug overdosing
and suicide attempts. The estimates do not show consistent signs, are relatively close to zero
and not statistically significantly different at conventional levels.
5.2 Robustness Checks
Table 4 provides a series of robustness checks for cardiovascular admissions. The first
column is our preferred estimate from column (4) of Table 2 and serves as comparison. Column
(2) clusters standard errors at the county level, which barely changes the standard errors.
Column (3) includes 467 county fixed effects. As a result, the size of the coefficient decreases
to -0.08 but remains significant. Excluding the three early adopting states that implemented the
ban in the second half of 2007 increases the estimate only slightly (column 4). In column (5), we
run a placebo test and assume that the ban was implemented exactly one calendar year earlier
than it actually was implemented. As seen, the point estimate is very small, positive, and not
statistically significant. Finally, the regression in the last column in Table 4 excludes all counties
that border Germany’s neighboring countries Switzerland, Austria, Czech Republic, Poland, the
Netherlands, Belgium, Denmark, Luxembourg or France. The point estimate of -0.183 is very
close to the standard estimate suggesting that potential cross-border effects are unlikely to play
a major role.
[Insert Table 4 about here]
5.3 Event Studies
Next, we present event study graphs for our main outcome variables cardiovascular
admissions and asthma admissions. We estimate our preferred saturated version of equation
(1) with state-year, week, and month-year fixed effects, but interact Bansmt with an indicator
that counts the 12 months before and after the smoking ban implementation. Figures 2 and 3
plot the coefficient estimates of this indicator along with their 95% confidence intervals. The
event studies illustrate how changes in admission rates evolve in the months before and after
the smoking bans have been implemented.
[Insert Figure 2 about here]
15
Figure 2 displays the event study for cardiovascular admissions. The pre-ban estimates are
relatively flat and fluctuate around the zero line (8 positive, 3 negative point estimates); except
for one, all confidence intervals include the zero line. In contrast, in post-ban months, we
observe a smooth slight decrease in cardiovascular admission rates. Although most monthly
point estimates are imprecisely estimated, all post-reform point estimates are negative. This
pattern is suggestive of a persistent, albeit hard to quantify negative effect of smoking bans on
cardiovascular admissions. In terms of relative size, the post-ban estimates lie between 0.7%
and 3.8% of the mean with most estimates lying between -1% and -2%, which explains why it is
hard to estimates these coefficients precisely.
[Insert Figure 3 about here]
Figure 3 shows the event study for asthma admissions. Similar to the results for
cardiovascular admissions, the pre-ban point estimates fluctuate around zero (6 positive and 5
negative) and only one is statistically significant. In contrast, almost all post-ban estimates are
negative (but imprecisely estimated). Although imprecisely estimated, Figure 3 suggests a
short-term reduction in asthma admissions particularly in the first months after the ban. When
estimating the event study using the basic model in equation (1) with separate week, state,
month and year fixed effects, this suggestive evidence of a short-term effect is reinforced: In
this specification, the four post-ban months estimates t=0 to t=3 all carry relatively large
negative signs with effect sizes of almost 10% and all are statistically different from zero.
However, for asthma admissions, there appears to be a rebound to the zero line after
significant reductions in the first post-ban months. Further research on the longer-term health
effects of smoking bans would be highly warranted.
5.4 Effectiveness of Bans by Weather Conditions
We now exploit exogenous variation in our weather data and use continuous measures of
rainfall quantities, hours of sunshine, and temperature to stratify the estimates by weather
conditions. Methodologically, we interact Bansmt with the weather variable of interest (and its
16
square), and also add the weather variable in levels and squares to the model. Table 5 reports
our effect heterogeneity estimates by weather conditions.
[Insert Table 5 about here]
Whereas we do not find evidence that smoking ban laws are more or less effective with
respect to the average temperature, there is evidence that for every additional hour of sunshine
on a given day, admission rates additionally decrease by 0.068 (-0.7%) per 100,000 population.
Similarly, with each additional hour of rain on a given day, cardiovascular admission rates
increase by around 0.02 (+0.2%) per 100,000 population (ignoring the squared coefficient). This
decrease (increase) in admissions on sunny (rainy) days could be due to several factors. For
example, one could hypothesize that people spend more time outside when the sun shines.
Because smoking bans only apply to places outside individuals’ homes, this could explain the
effect.
Note that the sunshine effect cannot be explained by the correlation between hours of
sunshine and temperaturei.e., this is a true sunshine effectbecause the estimate remains
unchanged when we add temperature to the model. However, when creating an indicator of
hot days with maximum temperatures of more than 30°C (86°F) instead of using the continuous
temperature indicator (not shown), we also find a reinforcement of the health promotion
effect, in line with the arguments above.
5.5 Effectiveness of Bans by Ambient Air Pollution
Table 6 analyzes whether high pollution levels reinforce or attenuate the smoking ban
health effects. Again we add the pollutant of interest and its square to our baseline model in
levels and in interaction with the Bansmt indicator. Like hot days (cf. Karlsson and Ziebarth 2017;
Deschênes and Moretti 2009), elevated ambient air pollution potentially induces stress for the
human body and can trigger negative health effects. Tobacco smoke could reinforce this effect.
Thus one could hypothesize that the health promoting effect of smoking bans should be
reinforced under adverse environmental conditions.
17
[Insert Table 6 about here]
The findings for O3 and NO2 are in line with this conjecture. First, the highly significant Ban*
O3 indicator in the first two columns implies that, on average, an additional 5 cardiovascular
admissions per 10 million population are avoided by the German smoking bans when ozone
levels are 10μ/m3 higher (relative to a mean O3 concentration of 46μ/m3, see Appendix).
Second, the sign of the estimates for NO2 also suggest that the health promotion effects of
smoke-free legislation are reinforced under adverse environmental conditions. However, even
though the point estimates are relatively large, they are not statistically significant. In an
alternative specification (available upon request), we generate pollution alert indicator
variables that are one when the NO2 concentration exceeds EU alert threshold levels. Replacing
the continuous NO2 measures with this dummy yields a highly significant -0.0088*** interaction
term, suggestion that health effects of smoking bans are larger when pollution levels are
critical. Finally, the main interaction terms for PM10 are not statistically significant.
6. Conclusion
Reducing smoking prevalence and exposure to environmental tobacco smoke remains a key
public health priority of international health organizations and governments worldwide. Public
smoking bans have become particularly popular in many countries in the last decade. Evidence
on the effects of such bans on health outcomes, however, is still inconclusive. A lack of natural
tempo-spatial variation and suitable treatment-control group designs—in combination with
limited data availability to achieve enough statistical power and to control for potential
confoundersadditionally complicates identification.
This paper studies the short-run effects of the staggered implementation of state-level
public smoking bans on hospital admissions in Germany. We contribute to the literature (i) by
exploiting both time and regional variation in smoke free legislation in a high smoking
prevalence country, (ii) by focusing on objective health measures and (iii) by using high-
frequency administrative data in combination with auxiliary weather, pollution and socio-
economic county data. This setting allows us to control more comprehensively than many
18
existing studies for potentially important confounders. For example, in addition to being able to
net out important seasonal confounders by employing rich sets of week, month-year, and state-
year fixed effects, we also study the role of environmental pollution and weather effects.
We find that daily cardiovascular admissions decreased by about 1.9 per 1 million
population (or by 2.1%) after the introduction of state-level smoking bans in Germany between
2007 and 2008. This translates into 57 thousand fewer cardiovascular admissions per year for
the whole of Germany. Our findings hence suggests that sizable health gains can be achieved
from such an anti-smoking policyeven if the law allows for exemptions and enforcement is
imperfect.
19
Literature
Adams, S.; Cotti, C. (2008): “Drunk driving after the passage of smoking bans in bars”, Journal of
Public Economics, 92(5), 1288-1305.
Adda, J.; Cornaglia, F. (2006): Taxes, cigarette consumption, and smoking intensity”, American
Economic Review, 96(4): 1013-1028.
Adda, J.; Cornaglia, F. (2010): The effect of bans and taxes on passive smoking”, American
Economic Journal: Applied Economics, 2(1): 1-32.
Anger, S.; Kvasnicka, M.; Siedler, T. (2011): One last puff? Public smoking bans and smoking
behavior, Journal of Health Economics, 30(3): 591-601.
Avery, R.; Kenkel, D.; Lillard, D. R.; Mathios, A. (2007): “Private profits and public health: Does
advertising of smoking cessation products encourage smokers to quit?Journal of Political
Economy, 115(3): 447-481.
Baxmann, M.; Eckoldt, M. (2007): “Typisch deutsch? Nicht-Rauchen in Deutschland?“,
Deutschlandfunk Kultur. Beitrag vom 23.02.2017.
Bertrand, M.; Duflo, E.; Mullainathan, S. (2004): “How much should we trust differences-in-
differences estimates?Quarterly Journal of Economics, 119(1): 249-275.
Bitler, M. P.; Christopher S. C.; Zavodny, M. (2010): “Effects of venue-specific state clean indoor
air laws on smoking-related outcomes“, Health Economics, 19(12): 142540.
Brüderl, J.; Ludwig, V. (2011): “Does a smoking ban reduce smoking? Evidence from Germany”,
Schmollers Jahrbuch, 131(2): 419-429.
Callison, K.; Kaestner, R. (2014): “Do higher tobacco taxes reduce adult smoking? New evidence
of the effect of recent cigarette tax increases on adult smoking”, Economic Inquiry, 52(1): 155-
172.
Carpenter, C.; Cook, P. J. (2008): “Cigarette taxes and youth smoking: New evidence from
national, state, and local Youth Risk Behavior Surveys”, Journal of Health Economics, 27(2): 287-
299.
Carpenter, C.; Postolek, S.; Warman, C. (2011): Public-place smoking laws and exposure to
environmental tobacco smoke (ETS)”, American Economic Journal: Economic Policy, 3(3): 35-61.
Courtemanche, C. (2009):Rising cigarette prices and rising obesity: Coincidence or unintended
consequence?” Journal of Health Economics, 28(4): 781-798.
Cutler, D. M.; Glaeser, E. L. (2009): Why do Europeans smoke more than Americans?NBER
Chapters, in: Developments in the Economics of Aging: 255-282.
20
DeCicca, P.; Kenkel, D.; Liu, F. (2013): “Excise tax avoidance: The case of state cigarette taxes”,
Journal of Health Economics, 32(6): 11301141.
DeCicca, P.; Kenkel, D.; Mathios, A. (2002): “Putting out the fires: Will higher taxes reduce the
onset of youth smoking?Journal of Political Economy, 110(1): 144169.
DeCicca, P.; Kenkel, D.; Mathios, A. (2008): “Cigarette taxes and the transition from youth to
adult smoking: Smoking initiation, cessation, and participation”, Journal of Health Economics,
27(4): 904917.
Dehejia, R.; Lleras-Muny, A. (2004): “Booms, busts, and babies’ health”, Quarterly Journal of
Economics, 119(3): 1091-1130.
DEHOGA (2008): Nichtraucherschutzgesetze in den Bundesländern. Synopse zu den
Landesgesetzen, Deutscher Hotel- und Gaststättenverband (DEHOGA), Berlin, Germany.
Deschênes, O.; Moretti, E. (2009): Extreme weather events, mortality, and migration”, The
Review of Economics and Statistics, 91(4): 659-681.
Destatis (2017): “Unternehmen, Beschäftigte, Umsatz, Warenbezüge, Wareneinsatz, Rohertrag
im Gastgewerbe 1995 - 2008”, GENESIS-Online.
European Environment Agency (2012): Air quality in Europe2011 report,
http://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/air-quality-in-europe-2011, last accessed on
November 24, 2012.
Evans, W. N.; Farrelly, M. C.; Montgomery, E. (1999): “Do workplace smoking bans reduce
smoking?” American Economic Review, 89(4): 728-747.
Friedman, A. S. (2015): “How does electronic cigarette access affect adolescent
smoking?Journal of Health Economics, 44: 300-308.
Gesundheitsberichterstattung des Bundes (2012), www.gbe-bund.de, last accessed on June 20,
2012.
Goolsbee, A.; Lovenheim, M.; Slemrod, J. (2010): “Playing with fire: Cigarettes, taxes, and
competition from the internet”, American Economic Journal: Economic Policy, 2(1): 131154.
Göhlmann, S.; Schmidt, C. M. (2008):“Smoking in Germany: Stylized Facts, behavioral models,
and health policy”, Ruhr Economic Papers, #64.
Gruber, J. (2001): “Tobacco at the crossroads: The past and future of smoking regulation in the
United States”, Journal of Economic Perspectives, 15(2): 193-212.
Gruber, J.; Anindya, S.; Stabile, M. (2003): “Estimating price elasticities when there is smuggling:
the sensitivity of smoking to price in Canada”, Journal of Health Economics, 22(5): 821-842.
21
Gruber, J.; Frakes, M. (2006): “Does falling smoking lead to rising obesity?” Journal of Health
Economics, 25(2): 183-197.
Gruber, J.; Koszegi, B. (2004): “Tax incidence when individuals are time-inconsistent: the case of
cigarette excise taxes”, Journal of Public Economics, 88(9-10): 1959-1987.
Gruber, J. H; Mullainathan, S. (2005): “Do cigarette taxes make smokers happier”, The B.E.
Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy, 5(1): 1-45.
Hanigan, I.; Hall, G.; Dear, K. B.G. (2006): “A comparison of methods for calculating population
exposure estimates of daily weather for health research”, International Journal of Health
Geographics, 5(38): 1-6.
Hansen, B.; Sabia, J.; Rees, D. (2017): “Have cigarette taxes lost their bite: New estimates of the
relationship between cigarette taxes and youth smoking, American Journal of Health
Economics, 3(1): 60-75.
Jones, A. M.; Laporte, A.; Rice, N.; Zucchelli, E. (2015): “Do public smoking bans have an impact
on active smoking? Evidence from the UK”, Health Economics, 24(2): 175-192.
Joossens L.; Raw M. (2011): The Tobacco Control Scale 2010 in Europe. Association of European
Cancer Leagues; Brussels, http://www.europeancancerleagues.org/tobacco-control/ectoh/219-
tobacco-control-scale-2010.html, retrieved September 15, 2017.
Karlsson, M.; Ziebarth, N.R. (2017): “Population health effects and health-related costs of
health events: Comprehensive evidence from Germany”, http://www.nicolasziebarth.com,
retrieved August 14, 2017.
Kuehnle, D.; Wunder, C. (2017): “The effects of smoking bans on self-assessed health: Evidence
from Germany”, Health Economics, 26(3): 321-337.
Kvasnicka, M.; Tauchmann, H. (2012): “Much ado about nothing? Smoking bans and Germany's
hospitality industry”, Applied Economics, 44(35): 4539-4551.
Lillard, D. R.; Molloy, E.; Sfekas, A. (2013): “Smoking initiation and the iron law of demand”,
Journal of Health Economics, 32(1): 114127.
LNRSchG (2007): “Landesnichtraucherschutzgesetz (LNRSchG)” vom 25. Juli 2007. Landesrecht
Baden-Württemberg.
Lovenheim, M. (2008): “How far to the border? The extent and impact of cross-border casual
cigarette smuggling”, National Tax Journal, 61(1): 7–33.
Mons, U.; Müezzinler,A.; Gellert, C.; Schöttker, B.; Abnet, C. C.; Bobak, M., de Groot, L. u. a.
(2015): “Impact of smoking and smoking cessation on cardiovascular events and mortality
22
among older adults: meta-analysis of individual participant data from prospective cohort
studies of the CHANCES consortium“, British Medical Journal, 350(April): 1-12.
NRauchSchG SH (2007): Gesetz zum Schutz vor den Gefahren des Passivrauchens. 10.
Dezember 2007. Gesetz- und Verordnungsblatt 2007, 20, 473-560. Schleswig-Holsteinischer
Landtag.
Odermatt, R.; Stutzer, A. (2015): “Smoking bans, cigarette prices and life satisfaction”, Journal
of Health Economics, 44: 176-194.
Pell, J. P.; Haw, S.; Cobbe, S.; Newby, D. E..; Pell, A. C. H.; Fischbacher, C.; McConnachie, A.;
Pringle, S.; Murdoch, D.; Dunn, F.; Oldroyd, K.; MacIntyre, P.; O’Rourke, B.; Borland, W. (2008):
“Smoke-free legislation and hospitalizations for acute coronary syndrome”, The New England
Journal of Medicine, 359(5): 482-491.
Rozema, K.; Ziebarth, N. R. (2017): “Taxing consumption and the take-up of public assistance:
The case of cigarette taxes and food stamps," Journal of Law and Economics, 60(1): 1-27.
Ruhm, C. J. (2005): “Healthy living in hard times”, Journal of Health Economics, 24(2): 341-363.
Ruhm, C. J. (2007): “A healthy economy can break your heart”, Demography, 44(4): 829-848.
Ruhm, C. J.; Black, W. E. (2002): “Does drinking really decrease in bad times”, Journal of Health
Economics, 21(4): 659-678.
Shetty, K. D.; DeLeire, T.; White, C.; Bhattacharya, J. (2011): “Changes in U.S. hospitalization and
mortality rates following smoking bans”, Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 30(1): 6-
28.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (2006). The health consequences of involuntary
exposure to tobacco smoke: a report of the surgeon general. Atlanta, GA: Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention, Coordinating Center for Health Promotion, National Center for Chronic
Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Office on Smoking and Health,
https://www.surgeongeneral.gov/library/reports/secondhandsmoke/fullreport.pdf, retrieved
September 15, 2017.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (2014). The health consequences of smoking: 50
years of progress. A report of the surgeon general. Atlanta, GA, Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Office on
Smoking and Health. https://www.surgeongeneral.gov/library/reports/50-years-of-
progress/index.html, retrieved September 15, 2017.
Wehby, G. L.; Courtemanche, C. J. (2012): “The heterogeneity of the cigarette price effect on
body mass index”, Journal of Health Economics, 31(5): 719-729.
23
World Health Organization (2015a): WHO global report on trends in prevalence of tobacco
smoking 2015, Geneva, http://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/156262, retrieved September
15, 2017.
World Health Organization (2015b): WHO report on the global tobacco epidemic, 2015: Raising
taxes on tobacco, Geneva, http://www.who.int/tobacco/global_report/2015/report/en/,
retrieved September 15, 2017.
24
Figures and Tables
Figure 1: Dates of Enforcement of State Smoking Bans in Germany
Notes: For further information, see notes to Table 1.
25
Figure 2: Event StudySmoking Ban Effect on Cardiovascular Admissions per 100K pop.
Note: German Hospital Admission Census; Y-axis displays the mean change in ppt and x-
axis the months before and after the smoking ban implementation. The solid black line
represents the point estimates and the dotted line 95% confidence intervals. Regression
is based on the saturated version of equation (1) and includes week, state-year and
month-year fixed effects. Cardiovascular admissions are generated by extracting the
ICD-10 codes I00-I99.
-2
-1,5
-1
-0,5
0
0,5
1
1,5
2
Month t-12
Month t-11
Month t-10
Month t-9
Month t-8
Month t-7
Month t-6
Month t-5
Month t-4
Month t-3
Month t-2
Month t-1
Month t=0
Month t=1
Month t=2
Month t=3
Month t=4
Month t=5
Month t=6
Month t=7
Month t=8
Month t=9
Month t=10
Month t=11
Month t=12
26
Figure 3: Event StudySmoking Ban Effect on Asthma Admissions
Note: German Hospital Admission Census; Y-axis displays the mean change in ppt and x-
axis the months before and after the smoking ban implementation. The solid black line
represents the point estimates and the dotted line 95% confidence intervals. Regression
is based on the saturated version of equation (1) and includes week, state-year and
month-year fixed effects. Asthma admissions are defined according to ICD-10 code J45.
-0,5
-0,4
-0,3
-0,2
-0,1
0
0,1
0,2
0,3
0,4
0,5
Month t-12
Month t-11
Month t-10
Month t-9
Month t-8
Month t-7
Month t-6
Month t-5
Month t-4
Month t-3
Month t-2
Month t-1
Month t=0
Month t=1
Month t=2
Month t=3
Month t=4
Month t=5
Month t=6
Month t=7
Month t=8
Month t=9
Month t=10
Month t=11
Month t=12
27
Table 1:
Dates of Enforcement of State Smoking Bans in Germany
Federal State Enforcement of State Smoking Ban
Baden-Wuerttemberg
August 2007
Bavaria
January 2008
Berlin
July 2008
Brandenburg
July 2008
Bremen
July 2008
Hamburg
January 2008
Hesse
October 2007
Lower Saxony
November 2007
Mecklenburg-West Pomerania
August 2008
North Rhine-Westphalia
July 2008
Rhineland-Palatinate
February 2008
Saarland
June 2008
Saxony
February 2008
Saxony-Anhalt
July 2008
Schleswig-Holstein
January 2008
Thuringia
July 2008
Notes: All smoking bans were enforced at the start of the month with the
exception of Rhineland-
Palatinate, which introduced the smoking ban on
February 15, 2008. Information on individual states was
compiled from original
law texts and from a survey of state-
level smoking ban legislation by the
German Hotels and Restaurants Federation (DEHOGA, 2008).
28
Table 2: Main Estimates
Bar and Restaurant Smoking Ban Effect on Hospital Admission Rates
All-Cause Admissions
Cardiovascular
Admissions
a Heart Attacksb Asthma Admissionsc
(per 100,000 pop.) (per 100,000 pop.) (per 100,000 pop.) (per 100,000 pop.)
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
Ban
-1.0499**
-0.9565***
-0.0954
-0.1870***
-0.0453*
-0.0190
-0.0078
-0.0574***
(0.4850)
(0.2248)
(0.1137)
(0.0434)
(0.0258)
(0.0203)
(0.0460)
(0.0183)
Mean of outcome variable
57.99
57.99
9.11
9.11
1.48
1.48
0.88
0.88
Change in %
-1.8
-1.6
-1.0
-2.1
-3.1
-1.3
-0.9
-6.5
State Fixed Effects
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Week Fixed Effects
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Month Fixed Effects
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Year Fixed Effects
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Month-Year Fixed Effects
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
State-Year Fixed Effects
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
Socio-demographic daily controls
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
Annual county-level controls
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
0.1132
0.4132
0.1150
0.3834
0.0684
0.1532
0.0085
0.0123
Notes: a ICD-10 codes I00-I99. b ICD-10 code I20 and I21. c ICD-10 code J45. * p<0.1, ** p<0.05, *** p<0.01; standard errors are in parentheses and
clustered at the state level. All models are variants of equation (1). All models have 1,429,196 county-day observations. The column headers
indicate the dependent variable. The even and odd-numbered columns only differ by the sets of covariates included. Ban is the main variable of
interest and varies at the month-year-state level. This dummy is one for states and months with a smoking ban in bars and restaurant and zero else.
Sources: RDC of the Federal Statistical Office and Statistical Offices of the Länder, [Krankenhausstatistik Diagnosedaten 2000-2008], own
calculations. The “German Hospital Admission Census” is administrative county-level data, daily weather data from the German Meteorological
Service, daily pollution data from the German Federal Environmental Office, unbalanced panel at daily county level; see Section 3 for more details.
29
Table 3: Main Estimates II
Bar and Restaurant Smoking Ban Effect on Selected Further Hospital Admissions Rates
Alcohol Poisoning
a
Injuries
b
Drug Overdosing
c
Suicide Attempts
d
(per 1 million pop.)
(per 1 million pop.)
(per 1 million pop.)
(per 1 million pop.)
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8)
Ban
-0.0127
-0.0036
1.0493**
-0.3787
0.0045
-0.0016
-0.0126
-0.0039
(0.0152)
(0.0145)
(0.4527)
(0.3209)
(0.0047)
(0.0055)
(0.0207)
(0.0161)
Mean of outcome variable
0.18
0.18
58.94
58.94
0.09
0.09
0.31
0.31
Change in %
-7.0
-2.0
1.8
-0.6
5.0
-1.8
-4.1
-1.3
State Fixed Effects
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Week Fixed Effects
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Month Fixed Effects
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Year Fixed Effects
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Month-Year Fixed Effects
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
State-Year Fixed Effects
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
Socio-demographic daily controls
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
Annual county-level controls
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
0.0042
0.0093
0.0835
0.1477
0.0008
0.0017
0.0196
0.022
Notes: a ICD-10 code T51. b ICD-10 codes V01-X59. c ICD-10 code T40. d ICD-10 code T14. * p<0.1, ** p<0.05, *** p<0.01; standard errors are in
parentheses and clustered at the state level. All models are variants of equation (1). All models have 1,429,196 county-day observations. The
column headers indicate the dependent variable used. The even and odd-numbered columns only differ by the sets of covariates included. Ban is
the main variable of interest and varies at the month-year-state level. This dummy is one for states and months with a smoking ban in bars and
restaurant and zero else.
Sources: RDC of the Federal Statistical Office and Statistical Offices of the Länder, [Krankenhausstatistik Diagnosedaten 2000-2008], own
calculations. The “German Hospital Admission Census” is administrative county-level data, daily weather data from the German Meteorological
Service, daily pollution data from the German Federal Environmental Office, unbalanced panel at daily county level; see Section 3 and Appendix
for more details.
30
Table 4: Robustness Checks for the Outcome Variable Cardiovascular Admissions
Standard
Estimate
Cluster at
County Level
County-Level
FE
No Early
Implementing
States
Placebo
Treatment One
Year Before
No Border
Counties
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
Ban
-0.1870***
-0.1870***
-0.0765**
-0.2135**
0.0087
-0.1831***
(0.0434)
(0.0442)
(0.0353)
(0.0967)
(0.0815)
(0.0489)
State-Year Fixed Effects
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Week Fixed Effects
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Month-Year Fixed Effects
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Daily and annual county controls
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
0.3834
0.3828
0.3460
0.3666
0.3804
N
1,429,196
1,429,196
1,429,196
1,048,268
1,429,196
1,249,505
Notes: * p<0.1, ** p<0.05, *** p<0.01; standard errors are in parentheses and clustered at the state level (except for column (2)). All models are
models as in equation (1) but using state-year and month-year instead of separate state, year, and month fixed effects. Ban varies at the month-
year-state level and is one for states and months with a smoking ban in bars and restaurant and zero else. Column (1) equals column (4) in Table
2. Column (2) clusters the standard estimate at the county instead of the state level. Column (3) uses 467 county-level fixed effects. Column (4)
excludes the three states that implemented the ban in 2007 (Baden-
Wurttemberg, Lower Saxony, Hesse). Column (5) is a placebo check and
assumes that the bans were implemented exactly one year earlier than they were actually implemented. Column (6) excludes the 67 counties
that border a the neighboring country of Germany.
Sources: RDC of the Federal Statistical Office and Statistical Offices of the Länder, [Krankenhausstatistik Diagnosedaten 2000-2008], own
calculations. The “German Hospital Admission Census” is administrative county-level data, daily weather data from the German Meteorological
Service, daily pollution data from the German Federal Environmental Office, unbalanced panel at daily county level; see Section 3 and Appendix
for more details.
31
Table 5: Effect Heterogeneity, Weather Conditions
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
Ban*Rain
0.0205**
0.0199**
(0.0093)
(0.0092)
Ban*Rain2
-0.0011**
-0.0010**
(0.0005)
(0.0004)
Ban*Sunshine
-0.0684**
-0.0685**
(0.0247)
(0.0243)
Ban*Sunshine2
0.0028
0.0029
(0.0023)
(0.0023)
Ban*Temperature
0.0035
0.0012
(0.0121)
(0.0114)
Ban*Temperature2
0.0000
0.0001
(0.0004)
(0.0004)
State-Year Fixed Effects
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Week Fixed Effects
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Month-Year Fixed Effects
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Daily and annual county controls
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Weather and pollution controls
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
0.3828
0.3831
0.3829
0.3832
0.3831
0.3833
N
1,429,196
1,429,196
1,429,196
1,429,196
1,429,196
1,429,196
Notes: * p<0.1, ** p<0.05, *** p<0.01; standard errors are in parentheses and clustered at the state level. Each cell represents one model
similar to Column (4) of Table 2. The dependent variable is always cardiovascular admissions per 100,000 population. The only difference
to Column (4) of Table 2 is that we add interaction terms of the Ban indicator and our variable of interest (in levels and in squares) as
indicated in the rows. In addition, we add the variable of interest (and its square) in levels. We do not report the level estimates for the
sake of saving space.
Sources: RDC of the Federal Statistical Office and Statistical Offices of the Länder, [Krankenhausstatistik Diagnosedaten 2000-2008], own
calculations. The “German Hospital Admission Census” is administrative county-level data, daily weather data
from the German
Meteorological Service, daily pollution data from the German Federal Environmental Office, unbalanced panel at daily county level; see
Section 3 for more details.
32
Table 6: Effect Heterogeneity, Ambient Air Pollution
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
Ban*O3
-0.0047***
-0.0046***
(0.0011)
(0.0012)
Ban*O32
0.0000***
0.0000***
(0.0000)
(0.0000)
Ban*NO2
-0.0107
-0.0163
(0.0119)
(0.0134)
Ban*NO22
0.0000
0.0001
(0.0001)
(0.0001)
Ban*PM10
0.0308*
0.0185
(0.0172)
(0.0149)
Ban*PM102
-0.0008*
-0.0006*
(0.0004)
(0.0003)
State-Year Fixe Effects
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Week Fixed Effects
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Month-Year Fixed Effects
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Daily and annual county controls
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Weather and pollution controls
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
0.3836
0.3929
0.3913
0.3941
0.3833
0.3919
Notes: * p<0.1, ** p<0.05, *** p<0.01; standard errors are in parentheses and clustered at the state level. Each cell represents
one model similar to Column (4) of Table 2. All models have 1,429,196 county-day observations. The dependent variable is
always cardiovascular admissions per 100,000 population. Each specification adds interaction terms of the Ban indicator and
the pollution variable of interest (in levels and in squares) to the model in column (4) of Table 2, as indicated by the rows. The
pollution variable of interest and its square is also added in levels. We do not report the level estimates to save space.
Sources: RDC of the Federal Statistical Office and Statistical Offices of the Länder, [Krankenhausstatistik Diagnosedaten 2000-
2008], own calculations. The “German Hospital Admission Census” is administrative county-level data, daily weather data from
the German Meteorological Service, daily pollution data from the German Federal Environmental Office, unbalanced panel at
daily county level; see Section 3 for more details.
33
Appendix: Hospital Admission Data, Merged with Weather & Pollution Data
Mean
Std. Dev.
Min.
Max.
Obs.
Outcome Variables
All cause admissions per 100K pop.
57.987
25.709
N/A
N/A
1,429,196
Cardiovascular admissions per 100K pop.
9.112
4.922
N/A
N/A
1,429,196
Heart attack admissions per 100K pop.
1.481
1.362
N/A
N/A
1,429,196
Asthma admissions per 100K pop.
0.877
2.916
N/A
N/A
1,429,196
Alcohol poisoning per 1M pop.
0.1800
1.283
N/A
N/A
1,429,196
Injuries per 1M pop.
58.943
28.073
N/A
N/A
1,429,196
Drug overdosing per 1M pop.
0.0921
0.8743
N/A
N/A
1,429,196
Suicide Attempts per 1M pop.
0.3121
1.650
N/A
N/A
1,429,196
Daily County-Level Controls
Female
0.539
0.0714
0
1
1,429,196
Age Group 0-2 years
0.062
0.043
0
1
1,429,196
….
1,429,196
Age Group above 74 years
0.003
0.008
0
1
1,429,196
Annual County-Level Controls
Unemployment rate
10.465
5.277
1.6
29.3
1,429,196
Hospital beds per 10,000 pop.
1,208
1,586
0
24,170
1,429,196
Hospitals per county
4.828
5.472
0
79
1,429,196
Daily Weather & Pollution Controls
Rainfall
2.225
4.215
0
144.98
1,429,196
Hours of sunshine
4.625
4.237
0
16.7
1,429,196
Temperature
9.557
7.305
-19
30.6
1,429,196
O3 in μ/m3
45.98
22.04
0.86
135.79
1,429,196
NO2 in μ/m3
26.89
10.63
0.31
80.31
1,429,196
PM10 in μ/m3
24.31
11.46
2.06
64.63
1,429,196
Sources: RDC of the Federal Statistical Office and Statistical Offices of the Länder, [Krankenhausstatistik
Diagnosedaten 2000-2008], own calculations. The “German Hospital Admission Census is administrative county-
level data, daily weather data from the German Meteorological Service, daily pollution data from the German
Federal Environmental Office, unbalanced panel at daily county level; see Section 3 for more details. N/A means
not available due to legal restrictions and German data protection laws.
34
... Pfeifer et al. (2020) provide evidence that school smoking bans reduce smoking in adult life. Regarding health, Kvasnicka et al. (2018) report a reduction in hospital admissions due to cardiovascular diseases and asthma if smoking bans are in force. Using SOEP data, Kuehnle and Wunder (2017) find significant health benefits especially for nonsmokers living in households with smokers. ...
... However, the health benefits may only hold in the short term, asShetty et al. (2010) find no association between smoking bans and declines in mortality or hospital admissions.Kvasnicka et al. (2018) on the other hand do find a reduction in hospital admissions due to cardiovascular diseases and asthma when smoking bans are enforced. The authors show that the reduction in hospital admissions lasts for up to a year.2 Agee and Crocker (2007) also suggest that increased tobacco smoke exposures of children in their homes may be due to pu ...
Article
Full-text available
During 2007 and 2008 smoking bans were gradually implemented in all of Germany’s sixteen federal states to prohibit smoking in bars, restaurants, and dance clubs. Aimed at reducing smoking and improving health, tobacco control policies are often controversially discussed as they entail potential side effects. We exploit regional variation to identify effects of smoking bans on life satisfaction and leisure time satisfaction. Difference-in-differences estimates reveal that predicted smokers who used to visit bars regularly are less satisfied with life and leisure time, following the enforcement of a smoking ban. We show that changes in use of leisure time likely explain these findings. On the contrary, predicted non-smokers who did not visit bars and restaurants frequently benefit from the smoking bans, as their satisfaction with leisure time increases. They show an increase in hours spent on free-time activities and are more likely to go out with smoking bans in effect.
... Finally, our study relates to the literature that is concerned with public health consequences from externalities of individual behavior-for instance on presenteeism, that is, working sick (Pichler et al., 2021;Pichler & Ziebarth, 2017), speeding (Ang et al., 2020;van Benthem, 2015) or smoking (Kvasnicka et al., 2018;Ward et al., 2013). We contribute to this literature by documenting that individual opposition to adopt containment strategies in an ongoing pandemic imposes negative externalities to others and the public health sector in general. ...
Article
Full-text available
This study analyzes the impact of large anti‐lockdown protests on the spread of SARS‐CoV‐2 in Germany. Since protesters at such large gatherings are very mobile and largely neglect SARS‐CoV‐2 containment strategies, they may contribute to the regional transmission of the coronavirus. Employing novel data on bus connections of travel companies specialized in driving protesters to these gatherings, and exploiting the timing of two large‐scale demonstrations in November 2020, we estimate the causal impact of these protests on the spread of SARS‐CoV‐2 using an event study framework. Our findings imply sizable increases in infection rates in protesters' origin regions after these demonstrations. A month after the protests, treated areas face a relative increase in infection rates up to 35% compared to non‐treated areas. Our results shed light on public health consequences of behavior that ignores potential externalities for the society during a pandemic.
... By analyzing cotinine levels to indicate exposure to cigarette smoke, they found that young children experienced greater exposure to ETS after the implementation of the public smoking ban. Perhaps related to secondhand smoke exposure, Kvasnicka et al. (2018) find that smoking bans in bars and restaurants in Germany reduced hospital admissions associated with cardiovascular health and asthma. ...
Article
Full-text available
This paper examines the immediate and long‐term effects of public smoking bans on smoking prevalence, smoking regularity, smoking intensity, and secondhand tobacco smoke exposure. We supplement the extensive literature on the effects of various types of tobacco control legislation on smoking behavior in developed countries by studying the provincial smoking bans and more recent national ban of a middle‐income country, Argentina. We focus on the difference between full and partial smoking bans, and take advantage of the time and province variation in ban implementation in order to determine the causal effects of each type of ban. We find that full bans reduce national smoking prevalence over time, especially among younger demographic groups, but have no significant impact on intensity of smoking among smokers. Full bans also benefit nonsmokers, as they are associated with a significant reduction in environmental tobacco smoke exposure. Partial bans do not significantly impact smoking prevalence, and are found to increase smoking intensity among individuals who smoke every day. These findings provide support for ratification of full bans by all provinces according to the National Tobacco Control Law of 2011.
... preterm births and child asthma admissions (Been, Nurmatov, Nawrot, van Schayck, & Cheikh, 2014). A recent study of smoking ban in bars and restaurants from Germany showed that state-level smoking bans resulted in short-run reductions in cardiovascular admissions (−2.1%) and asthma admissions (−6.5%; Kvasnicka, Siedler, & Ziebarth, 2018). ...
Article
Full-text available
To address exposure to secondhand smoke, which is highly prevalent in Korea, local governments have implemented smoking bans at open public places (parks, bus stops, and school zones) since 2011. Exploiting temporal and spatial variation in the implementation dates of these bans, this study estimates their causal effects on individual smoking behavior. The individual‐level longitudinal data from the 2009–2017 Korean Labor and Income Panel Study are linked to the smoking ban legislation information from the National Law Information Center. I find robust evidence that outdoor smoking bans increased the probability of making a quit attempt by 16%. This effect appears immediately after a ban goes into effect and lasts for three or more years. People who spend more time outdoors are more likely to change smoking behavior. I also find heterogeneity in effects across the amount of monetary penalty. Whereas the policy change did not affect the prevalence of smoking overall, higher penalties had stronger impacts on reducing the intensity of smoking and increasing the propensity to try to quit.
... Mazzonna and Salari (2018) estimate a decrease in the incidence of acute myocardial infarction by about 8% in the short run after the implementation of the law in Switzerland and highlight a large heterogeneity across gender and age groups. Kvasnicka, Siedler, and Ziebarth (2018) exploit the introduction of smoking bans over time and across federal states in Germany and estimate a positive effect on preventing hospital admissions related to cardiovascular diseases and asthma. They also show more pronounced effects on sunny days and days under adverse environmental pollution conditions. ...
Article
The evidence about the effectiveness of anti‐smoking legislation on smoking behavior is mixed. We provide new estimates for Italy using unexplored data drawn from the Household Budget Survey. We show that the smoking ban introduced in 2005 has a significant effect on smoking incidence. According to our baseline specification, the ban reduces household‐based smoking prevalence by 1.3 percentage points. Results are robust to the various empirical strategies proposed in the literature, even accounting for seasonality.
Article
Full-text available
Objective To assess whether the introduction of comprehensive smoke-free legislation affected tourism in four Caribbean Community (CARICOM) countries – Barbados, Guyana, Jamaica, and Trinidad and Tobago. Methods We compared the evolution of three tourism variables – tourist arrivals, tourist expenditure, and average length of stay – in a country implementing smoke-free environments (treated country) with the evolution of these variables in the same country if smoke-free legislation had not been implemented. We used a synthetic control method to recreate this counterfactual scenario by constructing a synthetic country using a weighted average of several donor-pool CARICOM countries that did not introduce legislation on smoke-free environments during the period analyzed. We quantified the effect of the smoke-free environments on tourism as the difference between tourism variables in the treated and synthetic country. To assess whether the estimated effect of the smoke-free environments was the result of chance, we compared the effects of legislation in the treated country to placebo effects in the donor pool by assuming comprehensive smoke-free legislation was introduced in the same year as in the treated country. Results Implementing smoke-free environments did not affect the arrival of tourists, tourism expenditure, or the average length of stay in the four countries. Conclusions Our findings provide strong evidence that public policies banning smoking in public places do not affect hospitality and tourism businesses. Given the economic significance of this industry in the Caribbean, the local evidence provided by this study will help to effectively counteract interference by the tobacco industry and advance towards a smoke-free Caribbean.
Article
Tobacco regulation has been a major component of health policy in the developed world since the UK Royal College of Physicians’ and the US Surgeon General’s reports in the 1960s. Such regulation, which has intensified in the past two decades, includes cigarette taxation, place-based smoking bans in areas ranging from bars and restaurants to workplaces, and regulations designed to make tobacco products less desirable. More recently, the availability of alternative products, most notably e-cigarettes, has increased dramatically, and these products are just starting to be regulated. Despite an extensive body of research on tobacco regulations, there remains substantial debate regarding their effectiveness, and ultimately, their impact on economic welfare. We provide the first comprehensive review of the state of research in the economics of tobacco regulation in two decades. (JEL D62, H25, H26, I12, K32, L51, L66)
Article
Objectives Given the growing interest worldwide in applying public policies to improve human health, we undertook a systematic review of studies investigating whether public policies targeting unhealthy products could reduce cardiovascular diseases. Study design This study was a systematic review of the literature. Methods We searched research studies published in 2000–2020 from major databases, including MEDLINE and Embase. We followed Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines and narratively synthesized the studies based on vote counting and direction of the intervention effect. Results Ninety-eight studies, mostly from high-income countries, met the inclusion criteria. Most studies were on public policies targeting sugar-sweetened beverages and tobacco, followed by alcohol, sugar, salt, and junk foods. Overall, many reported that several fiscal, regulatory, and educational policies generated beneficial effects of reducing the diseases. Those studies that reported no or limited effects highlighted several sociodemographic and health risk characteristics and design and implementation aspects of the policy interventions as factors limiting the policy effects; most of these are modifiable with appropriate policy interventions. For instance, low magnitude of tax, substitution with other unhealthy products, firms’ competitive response strategies, pre-existence of smoking bans, incremental enactment of smoking regulations, degree of enforcement, and various sociocultural factors minimized the effects of the policies. Conclusion The literature supports a growing consensus on the beneficial effects of public policy for improving human health. The design and implementation of public policies must address various impeding factors and incorporate appropriate remedial measures. Further research is needed from low- and middle-income countries and on whether and how multiple policy instruments work in tandem.
Chapter
Smoking—and increasingly, vaping—is accused of imposing unnecessary healthcare costs on society that justify a tobacco tax. But tobacco’s societal impact is more complicated than what the conventional wisdom dictates. Many of the health risks from tobacco use are overstated. While they have undeniably shorter life expectancies, tobacco users save governments money—a lot of it. Research is also clear that tobacco taxes have little to no effect on smoking. But thanks to experts and interest groups, tobacco taxes aren’t likely going away. Too many government programs cannot afford fewer smokers, nor can experts and special interest groups funded with grants from tobacco tax revenue.
Article
Full-text available
This study assesses the short and medium-term impact of extreme temperatures on population health and health-related costs in Germany. For 1999 to 2008, we link the universe of 170 million hospital admissions and all 8 million deaths with weather and pollution data at the day-county level. Extreme heat significantly and immediately increases hospitalizations and deaths. This finding holds irrespective of whether we employ econometric models that are standard in economics or models that are standard in epidemiology; we compare and discuss both approaches. We find evidence for partial “harvesting.” At the end of a 30-day window, the immediate health effects are, on average, one quarter lower, but this reduction is primarily evident for cardiovascular and neoplastic diseases. Moreover, aggregating at the yearly level reduces the effect size by more than 90 percent. The health-related economic costs accumulate up to €5 million per 10 million population per hot day with maximum temperatures above 30 °C (86 °F).
Article
Full-text available
We exploit cigarette tax variation across US states from 2001 to 2012 to show how taxing inelastic consumption goods can induce low-income households to enroll in public assistance programs. Using a novel household panel of monthly food stamp enrollment from the Current Population Survey, we enrich standard cigarette tax difference-in-differences models with an additional control group: non-smoking households. Smoking households are ``treated'' with higher taxes while non-smoking households are not. Marginal smoking households respond to increases in cigarette taxes by taking-up food stamps at rates higher than smoking households in other states and non-smoking households in the same state.
Article
Full-text available
This paper analyses the compensatory behavior of smokers. Exploiting data on cotinine concentration—a metabolite of nicotine—measured in a large population of smokers over time, we show that smokers compensate for tax hikes by extracting more nicotine per cigarette. Our study makes two important contributions. First, as smoking a given cigarette more intensively is detrimental to health, our results question the usefulness of tax increases. Second, we develop a model of rational addiction where agents can also adjust their intensity of smoking, and we show that the previous empirical results suffer from estimation biases.
Article
Full-text available
To investigate the impact of smoking and smoking cessation on cardiovascular mortality, acute coronary events, and stroke events in people aged 60 and older, and to calculate and report risk advancement periods for cardiovascular mortality in addition to traditional epidemiological relative risk measures. Individual participant meta-analysis using data from 25 cohorts participating in the CHANCES consortium. Data were harmonised, analysed separately employing Cox proportional hazard regression models, and combined by meta-analysis. Overall, 503 905 participants aged 60 and older were included in this study, of whom 37 952 died from cardiovascular disease. Random effects meta-analysis of the association of smoking status with cardiovascular mortality yielded a summary hazard ratio of 2.07 (95% CI 1.82 to 2.36) for current smokers and 1.37 (1.25 to 1.49) for former smokers compared with never smokers. Corresponding summary estimates for risk advancement periods were 5.50 years (4.25 to 6.75) for current smokers and 2.16 years (1.38 to 2.39) for former smokers. The excess risk in smokers increased with cigarette consumption in a dose-response manner, and decreased continuously with time since smoking cessation in former smokers. Relative risk estimates for acute coronary events and for stroke events were somewhat lower than for cardiovascular mortality, but patterns were similar. Our study corroborates and expands evidence from previous studies in showing that smoking is a strong independent risk factor of cardiovascular events and mortality even at older age, advancing cardiovascular mortality by more than five years, and demonstrating that smoking cessation in these age groups is still beneficial in reducing the excess risk. © Mons et al 2015.
Article
We examine the effects of smoking bans on self-assessed health in Germany taking into account heterogeneities by smoking status, gender and age. We exploit regional variation in the dates of enactment and dates of enforcement across German federal states. Using data from the German Socio-Economic Panel, our difference-in-differences estimates show that non-smokers' health improves, whereas smokers report no or even adverse health effects in response to bans. We find statistically significant health improvements especially for non-smokers living in households with at least one smoker. Non smokers' health improvements materialise largely with the enactment of smoking bans. Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Article
Using data from the state and national Youth Risk Behavior Surveys for the period 1991–2005, Carpenter and Cook (2008) find a strong, negative relationship between cigarette taxes and youth smoking. We revisit this relationship using four extra waves of YRBS data (from 2007, 2009, 2011, and 2013). Our results suggest that youths have become much less responsive to cigarette taxes since 2005. In fact, we find little evidence of a negative relationship between cigarette taxes and youth smoking when we restrict our attention to the period 2007–13. We conclude that policy makers interested in reducing youth smoking may have to adopt alternative strategies.
Article
Understanding electronic cigarettes’ effect on tobacco smoking is a central economic and policy issue. This paper examines the causal impact of e-cigarette access on conventional cigarette use by adolescents. Regression analyses consider how state bans on e-cigarette sales to minors influence smoking rates among 12 to 17 year olds. Such bans yield a statistically significant 0.9 percentage point increase in recent smoking in this age group, relative to states without such bans. Results are robust to multiple specifications as well as several falsification and placebo checks. This effect is both consistent with e-cigarette access reducing smoking among minors, and large: banning electronic cigarette sales to minors counteracts 70 percent of the downward pre-trend in teen cigarette smoking in the states that implemented such bans.