The state last month eliminated smoking cessation treatment for nearly all Medicaid, or MaineCare, patients despite overwhelming evidence that it saves lives and money. At a time when most states are working to help smokers quit, Maine is going against the tide. Maine now has the dubious distinction of joining Alabama and Georgia as one of only three states to not cover all Medicaid patients for smoking cessation medications.
Eliminating the treatments is sure to have financial consequences the administration will feel for years to come, to say nothing about the thousands of Maine people who are likely to experience the long-term health consequences of tobacco use.
Nearly a quarter of a million Mainers smoke. Unfortunately, those who receive MaineCare are nearly twice as likely to smoke than the general population. According to the CDC, 10.6 percent of MaineCare health care expenditures — equivalent to $216 million — are attributed to tobacco use. Put a face to those numbers, and it means a mother, a father, a friend or a child getting sick with cancer or another tobacco-related (and preventable) illness.
People who have health coverage for cessation services are more likely to quit smoking successfully. Two recent studies point to the cost savings associated with smoking cessation benefits. A study conducted out of George Washington University found that for our neighbor, Massachusetts, every dollar spent on anti-smoking programs for low income people saved $3 in medical costs. Extrapolate those results to Maine, and we are sure to see significant savings.
In fact, a study done by Penn State researchers found that when you add direct health care expenditures, workplace productivity losses and premature death, smoking costs Maine more than a billion and a half dollars every year. Put another way: while the average retail price of a pack of cigarettes in Maine is $6.46, the real price to society and to the state’s economy is more than $26 per pack. The state could surely find other uses for that money.
As state officials and lawmakers look for ways to save money, they should consider that, according to the same study, funding smoking cessation treatments can save Maine more than $5 million every year. That happens to be almost the total amount of savings the recently created MaineCare Redesign Taskforce is trying to find in the MaineCare program. But, as anyone who works in medicine can tell you, the hardest “sell” is prevention. Ironically, it is much easier to obtain money for a fancy new machine for treatment of some illness than it is to invest money to prevent the illness in the first place.
The LePage administration has made its mark. Undoing the damage before patients and the state feel the full impact of its decision is the right — and fiscally smart — thing to do.
Dr. Lani Graham is a family physician and the co-chairman of the Maine Medical Association Public Health Committee. She is the former director of the Maine Bureau of Health (now the Maine Center for Disease Control and Prevention).
NRT Failure Rate Soars to 98.4%
New revelations confirm that Nicotine Replacement Therapy (NRT) has a documented long term failure rate of 98.4%.
PRLog (Press Release) – Apr 03, 2009 – New revelations confirm that Nicotine Replacement Therapy (NRT) has a documented long term failure rate of 98.4%.
NRT is the Government’s recommended treatment for its smoking cessation programmes and is heavily funded by the tax-payer.
Pro-choice group Freedom2choose are alarmed at these revelations and the obvious waste of tax-payers’ funds. Colin Grainger, vice chairman of the group states, “NRT products are obviously unfit for the purpose for which they are sold. This is fraud, wrong and immoral.”
Freedom2choose have previously highlighted alternative ways to successfully quit smoking, including the Allen Carr method, with a documented success rate of 58% for those choosing to give up. The Allen Carr method even promises a money back guarantee to those that don’t successfully quit.
“More worryingly,” continues Colin Grainger “is the shock that the scientists who put the study together even work for the manufacturers of NRT. This clearly shows how the Big Pharmaceutical companies influence the outcome of studies.”
The revelations were originally made public by long-term anti-smoking campaigner Professor Michael Siegel who states “With a long-term smoking cessation percentage of only 1.6%, one can hardly call NRT treatment an “effective” intervention. In fact, the logical conclusion from this paper is that NRT was a dismal intervention.”
Reference: NRT Failure Rate 98.4% – http://www.tobaccoanalysis.blogspot.com/
http://www.prlog.org/10211087-nrt-failure-rate-soars-to-984.html
Friday, July 27, 2012Pharmaceutical Nicotine and Chantix: 93% Failure Rate Reconfirmed
A study published in the European Journal of Internal Medicine indicates that pharmaceutical nicotine and Chantix (varenicline) had 93% failure rates at two inner city academic health center clinics with predominantly Medicaid patients (abstract here).
http://rodutobaccotruth.blogspot.com/2012/07/pharmaceutical-nicotine-and-chantix-93.html
Addicted anyone?
Looks like cutting funding to a failed agenda and to quit drugs produced by big pharma is the answer of good stewardship.. Lets not forget its big pharma that has produced the junk science while financing much of the smoking bans nationwide thru its robert woods johnson foundation. Tobacco free kids is a 501c3 and 501c4 non-profit created by the RWJF/johnson and johnson to push for smoking bans nation wide who created even more housed in orginizations to its dirty work like the acs,ala,aha who 99 million dollars to start the lobbying process. Today we call such lobbying rent seeking legislation! Or simpler terms laws created to make an artificial market for their products aka Nicotine Replacement Therapy drugs and its been a avalanche in the billions of profits for big pharma namely from states who buy the useless drugs to force on prisoners and citizens alike……..
Conspiracy anyone? Do you also have swampland and bridges to sell?
Its time Maine along with all states with smoking bans to repeal such totalitarian laws and get back to a more humane treatment of any states goldmine for revenue; Its smokers who contribute nearly 500 billion dollars a year to the national economy and fund the Federal schip taxes for poor children. Its a sad day when grandma would get tossed in jail for smoking around her grandkids as this is where such laws as smoking bans lead to and its all so rediculous:
A little on the “slippery slope” that apparently – according to the antismoking fanatics – doesn’t exist.
The first demand for a smoking ban was in the late-1980s concerning short-haul flights in the USA of less than 2 hours. At the time, the antismokers were asked if this was a “slippery slope” – where would it end? They ridiculed anyone suggesting such because this ban was ALL that they were after.
Then they ONLY wanted smoking bans on all flights.Then the antismokers ONLY wanted nonsmoking sections in restaurants, bars, etc., and ensuring that this was ALL they wanted.Then the antismokers ONLY wanted complete bans indoors. That was all they wanted. At the time, no-one was complaining about having to “endure” wisps of smoke outdoors.
While they pursued indoor bans, the antismokers were happy for smokers to be exiled to the outdoors.
Having bulldozed their way into indoor bans, the antismokers then went to work on the outdoors, now declaring that momentary exposure to remnants of dilute smoke in doorways or a whiff outdoors was a “hazard”, more than poor, “innocent” nonsmokers should have to “endure”.Then they ONLY wanted bans within 10 feet of entranceways.Then they ONLY wanted bans within 20 feet of entranceways.Then they ONLY wanted bans in entire outdoor dining areas.Then they ONLY wanted bans for entire university and hospital campuses, and parks and beaches.Then they ONLY wanted bans for apartment balconies.Then they ONLY wanted bans for entire apartment (including individual apartments) complexes.Then they ONLY wanted bans in backyards.
How do you really feel about that? Wannabe Martyr?
Everyone already knows that smoking is bad for you, so we don’t need to waste taxpayer dollars reminding us.
You should quit smoking because smoking causes diseases and kills??????
Some facts for all smokers.
A number by itself has no meaning. To have meaning there must be another number for comparison.
Here(see the table):http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5745a3.htm
We find the basis for the claim that, in America, smoking causes 400,000 smokers’ deaths(SAM’S) per year from the smoking ’caused’ diseases.
However, we are given no number to be used for comparison.
The 400,000 smokers’ deaths are only a percentage of the smokers’ total number of deaths.Let’s call that number of deaths “X” deaths.
A valid number for comparison is the number of never-smoker deaths from the diseases caused by smoking out of “X” number of total never-smoker deaths.
Doll’s 50 year study of British doctors’ mortality shows us that 85% of the total smokers’ deaths were from the diseases caused by smoking and 84% of the never-smokers total deaths were from those same diseases.
84 is 99% of 85.
99% of 400,000 = 396,000
Now we can say:
“Out of a given number of total deaths, smokers will have 400,000 deaths from the diseases caused by smoking and never-smokers will have 396,000 deaths from those same diseases.”
Compared to never-smokers, smokers have a 1% increased risk of dying from the diseases claimed to be ’caused’ by smoking!!!!
Now, those 400,000 deaths do not seem to be so great a number.
Thanks to garyk
Shady data to see the least. Concentrating on deaths ignore the adverse effects on the health of the living. And earlier deaths for smokers are statistically high. If you want to roll the dice, go ahead but don’t involve me.
Incidentally, who do you work for? Which tobacco company?
Obviously, not everyone does. Check the other responses (by experts, I’m sure).
This is a bunch of bull. Obviously a special interest looking to gain government funding for there own personal political views and maybe even gain. If your so concerned about welfare cases smoking then support a bill that forbids anybody that smokes from receiving assistance and promote a urine test for cigarettes and other drugs.
Now..If they would please remove the extra taxes!
Why? One method to reduce smoking.