THE EVALUATION OF PUBLIC HEALTH COMPONENTS OF INTERNATIONAL DISASTER RELIEF OPERATIONS: INDOCHINESE REFUGEES IN THAILAND, 1979-1982

Refugee populations suffer poor health status and yet the activities of refugee relief agencies in the public health sector have not been subjected previously to comprehensive evaluation. The purpose of this study was to examine the effectiveness and cost of the major public health service inputs of the international relief operation for Indochinese refugees in Thailand coordinated by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR). The investigator collected data from surveillance reports and agency records pertaining to 11 old refugee camps administered by the Government of Thailand Ministry of Interior (MOI) since an earlier refugee influx, and five new Khmer holding centers administered directly by UNHCR, from November, 1979, to March, 1982.^ Generous international funding permitted UNHCR to maintain a higher level of public health service inputs than refugees usually enjoyed in their countries of origin or than Thais around them enjoyed. Annual per capita expenditure for public health inputs averaged approximately US$151. Indochinese refugees in Thailand, for the most part, had access to adequate general food rations, to supplementary feeding programs, and to preventive health measures, and enjoyed high-quality medical services. Old refugee camps administered by MOI consistently received public health inputs of lower quantity and quality compared with new UNHCR-administered holding centers, despite comparable per capita expenditure after both types of camps had stabilized (static phase).^ Mortality and morbidity rates among new Khmer refugees were catastrophic during the emergency and transition phases of camp development. Health status in the refugee population during the static phase, however, was similar to, or better than, health status in the refugees' countries of origin or the Thai communities surrounding the camps. During the static phase, mortality and morbidity generally remained stable at roughly the same low levels in both types of camps.^ Furthermore, the results of multiple regression analyses demonstrated that combined public health inputs accounted for from one to 23 per cent of the variation in refugee mortality and morbidity. The direction of associations between some public health inputs and specific health outcome variables demonstrated no clear pattern. ^

Investigating the effects of the 2007 Texas tobacco tax increase on the smoking behavior of adults

Smoking is major cause of premature mortality and morbidity in the United States. The health consequences of tobacco usage are increasingly concentrated in minority and lower socioeconomic groups. One of the most effective means of deterring tobacco consumption and generating revenue to fund prevention activities is the levying of excise taxes. In 2007 the state of Texas increased the excise tax on cigarettes by $1.00 per pack. This study sought to determine if there was a significant effect on smoking prevalence in the state by examining Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS) data for two years leading up to the tax increase-2005 and 2006- and two years post tax increase -2007 and 2008. Results were compared against a chi square distribution and three multiple logistic regression models were created to adjust for race/ethnicity, age, education and income. Results from this study show that there was not a significant decrease in smoking prevalence for most of the groups stratified by age, income and ethnicity. There was not a significant decrease in the younger adults aged 18-34 by income, ethnicity, or education. Smoking prevalence increased for some groups, e.g., Hispanic females. In the regression models, the tax effect was not significant. While overall prevalence decreased by 9%, there were not significant reductions among non-White or Hispanic survey participants. Taxed sales dropped by approximately 17% according to the Texas Comptroller. Without BRFSS data measuring daily cigarette consumption among current smokers, now not assessed, it is impossible to determine whether the discrepancy in reported prevalence and taxes sales is attributable to consumption of fewer cigarettes among smokers or tax avoidance.^