Tonight:
4°c
Fewer smokers quit despite record £51m spend by NHS
Anna Davis16 Apr 2009
THE number of people giving up smoking has dropped sharply despite the NHS spending more than ever on helping them quit.
Almost 415,000 people tried to give up last year, compared with 490,000 the year before — a drop of 15 per cent. Over the same period the amount of money the NHS spent increased by 26 per cent, from £41 million in 2007 to £51 million last year.
The NHS now spends £249 on every smoker who tries to quit. Last year the figure was £165.
A Department of Health spokesman said there was a big rise in people quitting in 2007 when smoking in public places was banned, so it was unfair to compare those with last year's figures.
The NHS Information Centre figures show in London last year 59,000 people attempted to give up smoking with just over 28,000 successful after four weeks.
The spokesman added: “NHS Stop Smoking Services remain extremely cost-effective, despite increases in the costs reported
per quitter.”
Smoking-related diseases cost the NHS £2.7 billion a year.
Reader views (13)
Does anyone know why they waste OUR money on this lunacy, It is possible to stop smoking if you want to, most smokers dont & wont. this anti smokers policy is a complete disaster,there are more young smokers than there was before the ban. as for the 2.7 billion that goes on 'smoking related diseases' (As most smokers dont get lung cancer anymore only 1 in 5 they had to change the criteria 'fudge the figures') 12million smokers, £4.00per day tax.= £48mill per day x 365days = £17.52billion per year & rising
the bigest problem in this country & it starts from the government is that they think that we cant count.
the amount of smokers has remained pretty constant for the past 20 years, it is irrelivent what the government does. 12million of our own people are forbiden to enjoy life as others in the rest of the world do, with NO gain to society. more than one third of the electorate!!! the government must be insane
surly they could spend OUR money on something more worth while perhaps something benifcial to society even dare i say it 'CURE THE SICK', government is supposed to do what the electorate wants, not follow some extreme right wing dogma based on lies, we expect more from these people, common sence & democracy would be a big change, but it would be a beginning but i dont think that there is any of that in the house of commons.
- Jonathan Kenney, birmingham england, 30/04/2009 23:05
Report abuse
The greatest drop in smoking occurred in the late 1960s and early 1970s--back when you could smoke anywhere, even on airplanes. Coercive measures like smoking bans are counterproductive. See results from from Scotland, Ireland, Italy and Hong Kong, where smoking has actually gone up since the introduction of a ban.
- Chris, New York, USA, 21/04/2009 22:30
Report abuse
Quitting smoking is a personal decision. The government and NHS would do far better redirecting the money they are wasting on this, cleaning up MRSA on hospital wards. The quit smoking helpline is displayed on cigarette packets and displays.Everyone is aware of the real health dangers of smoking which may be addictive but is also an adult lifestyle choice. NRT products have a 98.4% failure rate and are a pointless waste of money.
I think its blatantly wrong for more money from the public purse to be thrown at this. Smokers feel very persecuted under the Health act 2006 smoking ban; standing up for your rights is more of a priority, than giving up. More at freedom2choose.info (pro choice not pro smoking)
- James, birmingham, 19/04/2009 01:32
Report abuse
A recent British Medical Journal published a study paid for by the manufacturers of Nicorette which produced a conclusion that the success rate for their product was 1.4% after one year. This is a 98.6% failure rate. Has anyone in the government read this report.
The link to the study is below.
http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/338/apr02_3/b1024
- James Maclochlainn, Derry Ireland, 17/04/2009 14:42
Report abuse
The £2.7billion claimed cost to the NHS of smoking related diseases comes from a report by ASH, the anti-tobacco pressure group, who provide no detailed explanation of how this figure is arrived at. One serious error their report admits to is to attribute the excess health costs incurred by smokers to their smoking habits. As smoking is highly correlated with poverty and low education, both of which are associated with bad health, this methodology is invalid. All the serious academic studies of health costs conclude that smokers incur the least through their lifetimes, whereas the healthy incur the most; more, also, than the obese. This may seem odd until you realise that most health costs are incurred in old age, and the healthy live longest. It should also be noted that if, as claimed, smokers live on average 10 years less than non-smokers, they will claim only 3 years of the state old-age pension, rather than the average 13. Furthermore, the typical smoker pays £1500 a year in tobacco duty - equal to the average annual amount of healthcare consumed by each person in the UK. There may be plenty of things wrong with smoking, but consuming taxpayers money is not one of them.
- Jon, manchester,UK, 17/04/2009 14:05
Report abuse
Has this anything to do with the Governments policy on smoking cessation. Who supplies the NRT products used by the NHS?
Pfizer's annual UK R&D investment is more than GBP550 million - more than GBP10 million a week.
In the UK, Pfizer has its European R&D headquarters at Sandwich and its UK business headquarters in Surrey, and is the major supplier of medicines to the NHS.
http://www.aegis.com/news/PR/2009/PR090109.html
- Whistleblower, Edinburgh, Scotland, 17/04/2009 13:55
Report abuse
Maybe this has something to do with the Governments obsession about smoking cessation.
"Pfizer's annual UK R&D investment is more than GBP550 million - more than GBP10 million a week.
In the UK, Pfizer has its European R&D headquarters at Sandwich and its UK business headquarters in Surrey, and is the major supplier of medicines to the NHS."
http://www.aegis.com/news/PR/2009/PR090109.html
- Whistleblower, Scotland, 17/04/2009 13:38
Report abuse
"The spokesman added: “NHS Stop Smoking Services remain extremely cost-effective, despite increases in the costs reported per quitter."
Total proof that these spokespeople can talk utter rubbish and get paid for the priviledge of doing so! How on earth can a 15% drop in success with a 26% increase in cost be "cost effective"? That's like saying your only getting 7 slices of bread in a loaf but it's going to cost 35p more than a standard loaf!
Are they going to declare that even if only one smoker gives up in a year yet the cost for this wondrous action has hit £100million taht this is "a marvellous result and worth every penny-I mean, God Almighty, we cured a smoker!"
Spokespeople from the Ministry of Bilge should not be paid at all-now that would be a great saving on public expenditure.
- Phil Johnson, Leicester, 17/04/2009 13:28
Report abuse
The success rate for nicotine gum and patches is 1.6% of which most if not all would hve given up on 'cold-turkey'. An utter waste of tax payers money.
- Chas, Little Britain, 17/04/2009 10:28
Report abuse
I hope this increased spend for the decreased success isn't going to continue.
What an utter waste of money when the NHS is in great need of front-line staff.
Smokers who decide to give up smoking will do so anyway. They have been for the last few decades. Why the need for all this money being spent now when it could be better spent elsewhere.
- Helen, Lancs, 17/04/2009 01:25
Report abuse
Yes the number is still falling. The first are always the easiest. It is good they probably give patches or something.
- Ali B, cleveland,usa, 16/04/2009 22:59
Report abuse
Time for keith price, luton to put his brain into gear.
- Reuben Camara, Morecambe UK, 16/04/2009 16:18
Report abuse
But the really good news is that the number of actual smokers in Britain is falling, and for that, the Government needs to be congratulated. After all, the percentage fall always drops, the lower the remaining number of participants who are left doing any activity.
- keith price, Luton, England, 16/04/2009 15:08
Report abuse
