Suppr超能文献

国家用于烟草控制项目和烟草和解协议的支出。

State expenditures for tobacco-control programs and the tobacco settlement.

作者信息

Gross Cary P, Soffer Benny, Bach Peter B, Rajkumar Rahul, Forman Howard P

机构信息

Department of Medicine, Yale University School of Medicine, Primary Care Center, New Haven, Conn 06520, USA.

出版信息

N Engl J Med. 2002 Oct 3;347(14):1080-6. doi: 10.1056/NEJMsa012743.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Despite controversy surrounding the use of funds arising from settlement agreements with the tobacco industry, little is known about the role of these funds in expenditures for state tobacco-control programs.

METHODS

We evaluated state expenditures for tobacco-control programs in fiscal year 2001 in the context of the amount of tobacco-settlement funds received and allocated to tobacco-control programs and in the context of other state-level economic and health data.

RESULTS

In 2001 the average state received $28.35 per capita from the tobacco settlement but allocated approximately 6 percent of these funds to tobacco-control programs. The average state dedicated $3.49 per capita (range, $0.10 to $15.47) to tobacco-control programs. The proportion of settlement funds allocated to tobacco-control programs varied from 0 to 100 percent and was strongly related to levels of tobacco-control funding (P<0.001). States with higher smoking rates tended to invest less per capita in tobacco-control programs (P=0.007), as did tobacco-producing states (the mean per capita expenditure was $1.20, as compared with $3.81 in non-tobacco-producing states; P<0.008). In a multivariate analysis, the proportion of the settlement revenue allocated to tobacco-control programs was the primary determinant of the level of total funding; the state tobacco-related health burden was unrelated to program funding.

CONCLUSIONS

State health needs appear to have little effect on the funding of state tobacco-control programs. Because only a very small proportion of the tobacco settlement is being used for tobacco-control programs, the settlement represents an unrealized opportunity to reduce morbidity and mortality from smoking.

摘要

背景

尽管围绕与烟草行业和解协议所产生资金的使用存在争议,但对于这些资金在州烟草控制项目支出中所起的作用却知之甚少。

方法

我们在2001财年的背景下,评估了州烟草控制项目的支出情况,该背景包括收到并分配给烟草控制项目的烟草和解资金数额,以及其他州级经济和健康数据。

结果

2001年,各州人均从烟草和解中获得28.35美元,但仅将这些资金的约6%分配给烟草控制项目。各州人均用于烟草控制项目的资金为3.49美元(范围为0.10美元至15.47美元)。分配给烟草控制项目的和解资金比例从0%到100%不等,且与烟草控制资金水平密切相关(P<0.001)。吸烟率较高的州往往在烟草控制项目上的人均投资较少(P=0.007),烟草生产州也是如此(人均支出均值为1.20美元,而非烟草生产州为3.81美元;P<0.008)。在多变量分析中,分配给烟草控制项目的和解收入比例是总资金水平的主要决定因素;州与烟草相关的健康负担与项目资金无关。

结论

州健康需求似乎对州烟草控制项目的资金投入影响甚微。由于烟草和解资金中仅有极小一部分用于烟草控制项目,因此该和解协议是减少吸烟所致发病率和死亡率的一个未实现的机会。

相似文献

3
State expenditures for tobacco-control programs and the tobacco settlement.国家用于烟草控制项目和烟草和解协议的支出。
N Engl J Med. 2003 Feb 13;348(7):663-4; author reply 663-4. doi: 10.1056/NEJM200302133480719.
7
Sustaining tobacco control coalitions amid declining resources.在资源不断减少的情况下维持烟草控制联盟。
Health Promot Pract. 2007 Jul;8(3):292-8. doi: 10.1177/1524839906289820. Epub 2006 Nov 14.
8
Conflicting dispatches from the tobacco wars.烟草战争中相互矛盾的报道。
N Engl J Med. 2002 Oct 3;347(14):1106-9. doi: 10.1056/NEJMe020099.

引用本文的文献

6
The effects of Arkansas master settlement spending on disparities in smoking.阿肯色州和解协议支出对吸烟差异的影响。
Am J Public Health. 2012 Apr;102(4):732-8. doi: 10.2105/AJPH.2011.300294. Epub 2011 Nov 28.
7
Postmarketing surveillance for "modified-risk" tobacco products.“改良风险”烟草产品的上市后监测。
Nicotine Tob Res. 2012 Jan;14(1):29-42. doi: 10.1093/ntr/ntq243. Epub 2011 Jan 20.

本文引用的文献

2
Beyond the tobacco settlement.超越烟草和解协议。
N Engl J Med. 2001 Aug 16;345(7):535-7. doi: 10.1056/NEJM200108163450710.
8
The potential for using excise taxes to reduce smoking.利用消费税来减少吸烟的可能性。
J Health Econ. 1982 Aug;1(2):121-45. doi: 10.1016/0167-6296(82)90011-x.

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验