Burning a hole in the budget: tobacco spending and its crowd-out of other goods.

Smoking is an expensive habit. Smoking households spend, on average, more than $US1000 annually on cigarettes. When a family member quits, in addition to the former smoker's improved long-term health, families benefit because savings from reduced cigarette expenditures can be allocated to other goods. For households in which some members continue to smoke, smoking expenditures crowd-out other purchases, which may affect other household members, as well as the smoker. We empirically analyse how expenditures on tobacco crowd-out consumption of other goods, estimating the patterns of substitution and complementarity between tobacco products and other categories of household expenditure. We use the Consumer Expenditure Survey data for the years 1995-2001, which we complement with regional price data and state cigarette prices. We estimate a consumer demand system that includes several main expenditure categories (cigarettes, food, alcohol, housing, apparel, transportation, medical care) and controls for socioeconomic variables and other sources of observable heterogeneity. Descriptive data indicate that, comparing smokers to nonsmokers, smokers spend less on housing. Results from the demand system indicate that as the price of cigarettes rises, households increase the quantity of food purchased, and, in some samples, reduce the quantity of apparel and housing purchased.

Pairing QuantiFERON gold in-tube with opt-out HIV testing in a tuberculosis contact investigation in the Southeastern United States.

Knowing one's HIV status is particularly important in the setting of recent tuberculosis (TB) exposure. Blood tests for assessment of tuberculosis infection, such as the QuantiFERON Gold in-tube test (QFT; Cellestis Limited, Carnegie, Victoria, Australia), offer the possibility of simultaneous screening for TB and HIV with a single blood draw. We performed a cross-sectional analysis of all contacts to a highly infectious TB case in a large meatpacking factory. Twenty-two percent were foreign-born and 73% were black. Contacts were tested with both tuberculin skin testing (TST) and QFT. HIV testing was offered on an opt-out basis. Persons with TST >or=10 mm, positive QFT, and/or positive HIV test were offered latent TB treatment. Three hundred twenty-six contacts were screened: TST results were available for 266 people and an additional 24 reported a prior positive TST for a total of 290 persons with any TST result (89.0%). Adequate QFT specimens were obtained for 312 (95.7%) of persons. Thirty-two persons had QFT results but did not return for TST reading. Twenty-two percent met the criteria for latent TB infection. Eighty-eight percent accepted HIV testing. Two (0.7%) were HIV seropositive; both individuals were already aware of their HIV status, but one had stopped care a year previously. None of the HIV-seropositive persons had latent TB, but all were offered latent TB treatment per standard guidelines. This demonstrates that opt-out HIV testing combined with QFT in a large TB contact investigation was feasible and useful. HIV testing was also widely accepted. Pairing QFT with opt-out HIV testing should be strongly considered when possible.

Analysis of educational materials and destruction/opt-out initiatives for storage and use of residual newborn screening samples.

In recent years, the storage and use of residual newborn screening (NBS) samples has gained attention. To inform ongoing policy discussions, this article provides an update of previous work on new policies, educational materials, and parental options regarding the storage and use of residual NBS samples. A review of state NBS Web sites was conducted for information related to the storage and use of residual NBS samples in January 2010. In addition, a review of current statutes and bills introduced between 2005 and 2009 regarding storage and/or use of residual NBS samples was conducted. Fourteen states currently provide information about the storage and/or use of residual NBS samples. Nine states provide parents the option to request destruction of the residual NBS sample after the required storage period or the option to exclude the sample for research uses. In the coming years, it is anticipated that more states will consider policies to address parental concerns about the storage and use of residual NBS samples. Development of new policies regarding storage and use of residual NBS samples will require careful consideration of impact on NBS programs, parent and provider educational materials, and respect for parents among other issues.

Differential mechanisms of morphine antinociceptive tolerance revealed in (beta)arrestin-2 knock-out mice.

Morphine induces antinociception by activating mu opioid receptors (muORs) in spinal and supraspinal regions of the CNS. (Beta)arrestin-2 (beta)arr2), a G-protein-coupled receptor-regulating protein, regulates the muOR in vivo. We have shown previously that mice lacking (beta)arr2 experience enhanced morphine-induced analgesia and do not become tolerant to morphine as determined in the hot-plate test, a paradigm that primarily assesses supraspinal pain responsiveness. To determine the general applicability of the (beta)arr2-muOR interaction in other neuronal systems, we have, in the present study, tested (beta)arr2 knock-out ((beta)arr2-KO) mice using the warm water tail-immersion paradigm, which primarily assesses spinal reflexes to painful thermal stimuli. In this test, the (beta)arr2-KO mice have greater basal nociceptive thresholds and markedly enhanced sensitivity to morphine. Interestingly, however, after a delayed onset, they do ultimately develop morphine tolerance, although to a lesser degree than the wild-type (WT) controls. In the (beta)arr2-KO but not WT mice, morphine tolerance can be completely reversed with a low dose of the classical protein kinase C (PKC) inhibitor chelerythrine. These findings provide in vivo evidence that the muOR is differentially regulated in diverse regions of the CNS. Furthermore, although (beta)arr2 appears to be the most prominent and proximal determinant of muOR desensitization and morphine tolerance, in the absence of this mechanism, the contributions of a PKC-dependent regulatory system become readily apparent.

Enhanced rewarding properties of morphine, but not cocaine, in beta(arrestin)-2 knock-out mice.

The reinforcing and psychomotor effects of morphine involve opiate stimulation of the dopaminergic system via activation of mu-opioid receptors (muOR). Both mu-opioid and dopamine receptors are members of the G-protein-coupled receptor (GPCR) family of proteins. GPCRs are known to undergo desensitization involving phosphorylation of the receptor and the subsequent binding of beta(arrestins), which prevents further receptor-G-protein coupling. Mice lacking beta(arrestin)-2 (beta(arr2)) display enhanced sensitivity to morphine in tests of pain perception attributable to impaired desensitization of muOR. However, whether abrogating muOR desensitization affects the reinforcing and psychomotor properties of morphine has remained unexplored. In the present study, we examined this question by assessing the effects of morphine and cocaine on locomotor activity, behavioral sensitization, conditioned place preference, and striatal dopamine release in beta(arr2) knock-out (beta(arr2)-KO) mice and their wild-type (WT) controls. Cocaine treatment resulted in very similar neurochemical and behavioral responses between the genotypes. However, in the beta(arr2)-KO mice, morphine induced more pronounced increases in striatal extracellular dopamine than in WT mice. Moreover, the rewarding properties of morphine in the conditioned place preference test were greater in the beta(arr2)-KO mice when compared with the WT mice. Thus, beta(arr2) appears to play a more important role in the dopaminergic effects mediated by morphine than those induced by cocaine.

Where does energy R&D come from? Examining crowding out from energy R&D

Recent efforts to endogenize technological change in climate policy models demonstrate the importance of accounting for the opportunity cost of climate R&D investments. Because the social returns to R&D investments are typically higher than the social returns to other types of investment, any new climate mitigation R&D that comes at the expense of other R&D investment may dampen the overall gains from induced technological change. Unfortunately, there has been little empirical work to guide modelers as to the potential magnitude of such crowding out effects. This paper considers both the private and social opportunity costs of climate R&D. Addressing private costs, we ask whether an increase in climate R&D represents new R&D spending, or whether some (or all) of the additional climate R&D comes at the expense of other R&D. Addressing social costs, we use patent citations to compare the social value of alternative energy research to other types of R&D that may be crowded out. Beginning at the industry level, we find no evidence of crowding out across sectors-that is, increases in energy R&D do not draw R&D resources away from sectors that do not perform R&D. Given this, we proceed with a detailed look at alternative energy R&D. Linking patent data and financial data by firm, we ask whether an increase in alternative energy patents leads to a decrease in other types of patenting activity. While we find that increases in alternative energy patents do result in fewer patents of other types, the evidence suggests that this is due to profit-maximizing changes in research effort, rather than financial constraints that limit the total amount of R&D possible. Finally, we use patent citation data to compare the social value of alternative energy patents to other patents by these firms. Alternative energy patents are cited more frequently, and by a wider range of other technologies, than other patents by these firms, suggesting that their social value is higher. © 2011 Elsevier B.V.