Cost of tobacco-related diseases, including passive smoking, in Hong Kong

Background: Costs of tobacco-related disease can be useful evidence to support tobacco control. In Hong Kong we now have locally derived data on the risks of smoking, including passive smoking. Aim: To estimate the health-related costs of tobacco from both active and passive smoking. Methods: Using local data, we estimated active and passive smoking-attributable mortality, hospital admissions, outpatient, emergency and general practitioner visits for adults and children, use of nursing homes and domestic help, time lost from work due to illness and premature mortality in the productive years. Morbidity risk data were used where possible but otherwise estimates based on mortality risks were used. Utilisation was valued at unit costs or from survey data. Work time lost was valued at the median wage and an additional costing included a value of US$1.3 million for a life lost. Results: In the Hong Kong population of 6.5 million in 1998, the annual value of direct medical costs, long term care and productivity loss was US$532 million for active smoking and US$156 million for passive smoking; passive smoking accounted for 23% of the total costs. Adding the value of attributable lives lost brought the annual cost to US$9.4 billion. Conclusion: The health costs of tobacco use are high and represent a net loss to society. Passive smoking increases these costs by at least a quarter. This quantification of the costs of tobacco provides strong motivation for legislative action on smoke-free areas in the Asia Pacific Region and elsewhere.

Strengthening cardiac rehabilitation and secondary prevention for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples

This article summarises the findings of a project funded and supported by a principal committee of the National Health and Medical Research Council, the Health Advisory Committee, chaired by Professor Adele Green.

General practice in Australia 2020: "robust and ready" or "rudderless and reeling"?

The future role and structure of Australian general practice remains uncertain, despite a decade of seemingly constant change following the release of the National Health Strategy papers. Some of the suggested change strategies (such as rural Practice Incentive Payments and practice accreditation) have been implemented; others (such as general practitioner involvement with area health authorities in delivering national goals and targets for communities) still await attention. An overarching vision for our health care system in 2020 and general practice's role within it are still to be clearly enunciated. Australia is at variance with other Western countries, such as the United Kingdom, Canada and New Zealand, which have spent significant time refocusing their health systems to deal with an ageing population with an increased burden of chronic disease. Health bureaucrats and governments need to invest strategically in operational primary care now. This will require the active commitment of general practice's national bodies to articulate and actively promote a shared vision for Australian general practice.