English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Background : In India, about one million deaths occur every year due to smoking. Tobacco taxation is the most effective intervention in reducing smoking. In this paper, we examine the impact of a one-time large cigarette price increase, through an increase in excise tax, on health and financing outcomes in four Indian states.    Methods : We used extended cost-effectiveness analysis to estimate, across income quintiles, the life-years gained, treatment cost averted, number of men avoiding catastrophic health expenditures and extreme poverty, additional tax revenue collected, and savings to the Ayushman Bharat Pradhan Mantri Jan Arogya Yojana (AB-PMJAY) with a cigarette price increase to Indian Rupees (INR) 10 plus 10%  ad valorem  in four Indian states.    Results : With the price increase, about 1.5 million men would quit smoking across the four states, with the bottom income group having 7.4 times as many quitters as the top income group (485,725 vs 65,762). As a result of quitting, about 665,000 deaths would be averted. This would yield about 11.9 million life-years, with the bottom income group gaining 7.3 times more than the top income group. Of the INR 1,729 crore in treatment cost averted, the bottom income group would avert 7.4 times more than the top income group. About 454,000 men would avoid catastrophic health expenditures and 75,000 men would avoid falling into extreme poverty. The treatment cost and impoverishment averted would save about INR 672 crore in AB-PMJAY. The tax increase would in turn, generate an additional tax revenue of about INR 4,385 crore. In contrast to the distribution of health benefits, the extra revenue generated from the top income group would be about 3.1 times that from the bottom income group.    Conclusions : Cigarette tax increase can provide significant health and economic gains and is a pro-poor policy for India.

Impact of cigarette tax increase on health and financing outcomes in four Indian states