ShareThis Page
Health

Smoking at record low in U.S., but benefits aren't shared equally

| Monday, Jan. 7, 2019, 1:06 p.m.
PxHere

Cigarette smoking is at an all-time low in the United States, but the benefits of this public health achievement are not being shared equally by all Americans.

A new analysis of health data from the nation’s 500 largest cities shows that the people who live in neighborhoods with the highest smoking rates are more likely to be poor, less likely to be white, and more likely to have chronic heart or lung diseases.

“The degree of inequity was surprising,” said study leader Eric Leas, who conducted the work as a postdoctoral scholar at the Stanford Prevention Research Center.

Smoking may be a choice, but if you want to live a long and healthy life, it’s a bad one. In the U.S., life expectancy is at least 10 years lower for smokers than for nonsmokers, and smoking is responsible for roughly 20 percent of deaths each year, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

The U.S. surgeon general says smoking can be blamed for more than 80 percent of deaths due to lung cancer (the deadliest type of cancer in the U.S.) and about 80 percent of deaths due to chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (the country’s third-leading cause of death). Smokers also face increased risks of heart disease, stroke, asthma, diabetes, and at least 10 other kinds of cancer.

In 1965, when the National Center for Health Statistics began tracking tobacco use, 42 percent of U.S. adults were cigarette smokers. By 2017, that figure had declined to 14 percent.

Leas and his former colleagues from Stanford wondered how the resulting health gains were spread across the country. To find out, they examined data from the 500 Cities Project, a joint effort of the CDC and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation that gauges health risk factors in 27,204 census tracts in America’s largest cities.

They found that smoking was more popular in some census tracts than others — and that there were certain things these census tracts had in common.

For starters, the people living in neighborhoods with higher smoking rates tended to make less money than people in neighborhoods with lower smoking rates. The researchers calculated that a $10,000 increase in a census tract’s median household income corresponded with a 0.92 percentage-point decrease in smoking prevalence.

In addition, neighborhoods with higher smoking rates were more likely to be populated by African Americans and Latinos, while the reverse was true for non-Hispanic whites. A 10 percentage-point increase in a census tract’s white population corresponded with a 0.84 percentage-point decrease in the prevalence of smoking.

The Stanford team also found that the popularity of smoking and the prevalence of diseases rose or fell in tandem. For instance, if the smoking rate in a neighborhood were to increase from 10.7 percent (the 10th percentile of all census tracts) to 27.6 percent (the 90th percentile), the prevalence of coronary heart disease would rise by 27 percent, asthma would jump by 39 percent, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease would climb by 120 percent.

In each of the 500 cities, the researchers quantified the degree of “smoking prevalence inequity” on a scale from 0 (perfect equity) to 1 (complete inequity). All cities in the study had a score of at least 0.03, representing at least a small degree of inequity, and the bulk of them had scores between 0.1 and 0.15. The most inequitable city in America was Washington, D.C., with a score of 0.23.

Leas said he was amazed by the differences in the nation’s capital: The smoking prevalence in some neighborhoods was 8.8 percent, while in others it reached 49.1 percent.

“A rate of 49.1 percent is higher even than where the national average was in the 1960s, highlighting how far many neighborhoods need to come to catch up to the national trends,” said Leas, who is now an assistant adjunct professor at the UC San Diego School of Medicine.

Health experts make a distinction between inequalities and inequities. Some amount of health inequality may be unavoidable, such as when a genetic variant makes a person more vulnerable to a particular disease. However, when an unequal outcome could have been avoided, you have a case of inequity.

The researchers proposed several policy measures to combat the inequities they documented.

For instance, people in neighborhoods with higher smoking rates were more likely to encounter stores selling cigarettes and other tobacco products — an increase of five tobacco retailers in a census tract corresponded with a 0.11 percentage-point increase in smoking prevalence there, the researchers found. Regulations aimed at “limiting the quantity, location, and type of tobacco retailers” in an area might lead to reductions in smoking there, they wrote.

Raising taxes on cigarettes to make them more expensive would probably reduce demand among low-income smokers, helping to erase at least some of the inequity, they added. The findings also suggest that smoking cessation programs would do more good if they were “targeted to resource-poor communities,” they wrote.

The study was published Monday by the journal JAMA Internal Medicine.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.

click me