Budgetary impact from multiple perspectives of sustained antitobacco national media campaigns to reduce the harms of cigarette smoking

BackgroundHigh-intensity antitobacco media campaigns are a proven strategy to reduce the harms of cigarette smoking. While buy-in from multiple stakeholders is needed to launch meaningful health policy, the budgetary impact of sustained media campaigns from multiple payer perspectives is unknown.MethodsWe estimated the budgetary impact and time to breakeven from societal, all-payer, Medicare, Medicaid and private insurer perspectives of national antitobacco media campaigns in the USA. Campaigns of 1, 5 and 10 years of durations were assessed in a microsimulation model to estimate the 10 and 20-year health and budgetary impact. Simulation model inputs were obtained from literature and both pubic use and proprietary data sets.ResultsThe microsimulation predicts that a 10-year national smoking cessation campaign would produce net savings of $10.4, $5.1, $1.4, $3.6 and $0.2 billion from the societal, all-payer, Medicare, Medicaid and private insurer perspectives, respectively. National antitobacco media campaigns of 1, 5 and 10-year durations could produce net savings for Medicaid and Medicare within 2 years, and for private insurers within 6–9 years. A 10-year campaign would reduce adult cigarette smoking prevalence by 1.2 percentage points, prevent 23 500 smoking-attributable deaths over the first 10 years. In sensitivity analysis, media campaign costs would be offset by reductions in medical care spending of smoking among all payers combined within 6 years in all tested scenarios.Conclusions1, 5 and 10-year antitobacco media campaigns all yield net savings within 10 years from all perspectives. Multiyear campaigns yield substantially higher savings than a 1-year campaign.

No Significant Association between Anesthesia Group Concentration and Private Insurer Payments in the United States

Background: Markets for physician services are becoming increasingly concentrated, with many areas being dominated by a few groups. Antitrust authorities are concerned that increasing concentration will lead to inappropriately high payments for physician services from private insurers. The authors examined the association between market concentration and private insurer payments for anesthesia services. Methods: The authors obtained data on average payments from private insurers for five commonly used anesthesia Current Procedure Terminology codes for physicians located in 229 counties in the United States between 2002 and 2010. The authors calculated a measure of market concentration (the Herfindahl–Hirschman Index [HHI]) for anesthesiologists in each county using Medicare claims data. The authors then estimated the association between market concentration and private insurer payments using a difference-in-differences approach to minimize confounding. Results: Private insurer payments to anesthesiologists in more concentrated markets were not significantly different from payments in less concentrated markets. Compared with the 25% of counties with the least concentration (counties with an HHI in the 0th to 25th percentile), payments in counties in the 25th to 50th percentile of HHI were approximately 0.51% less (95% CI, −2.3 to 1.3%, P = 0.95), whereas payments in counties in the 50th to 75th percentile of HHI were approximately 2.8% less (95% CI, −6.7 to 1.4%, P = 0.41) and payments in counties in the 75th to 100th percentile were approximately 3.1% less (95% CI, −8.1 to 1.2%, P = 0.32). Conclusion: Increasing market concentration of anesthesia groups is not associated with significantly greater payments from private insurers.