Is it more expensive to employ a smoker than a non-smoker?

Question

DN.se

Det kostar nära 6.000 dollar (knappt 40.000 kronor) mer per år att ha en rökare anställd än någon som inte röker, visar en studie i USA.

Skälet är rökares större sjukfrånvaro, dyrare hälsovård och lägre produktivitet på grund av rökpauser.

Studien har tagit med i beräkningen att rökare har kortare livslängd och får ut mindre pension.

Translation:

Smokers cost close to 6000 dollars more per year than non-smokers, according to an american study.

The reason is that smokers have higher amount of sick days, more expensive health care and lower productivity because of smoke pauses.

The study have included into the calculation, the fact that smokers have shorter lifespan, and get lower pension.

Is there any truth to the study?

Is it really that big difference between smokers and non-smokers?

This is a study from the US, does it apply to rest of the world as well?

I know there is a HUGE difference in work situation between Sweden and the US. In Sweden everyone is allowed to take pauses from work, to eat, drink coffee etc. It's written down in a nationwide contract every employer is supposed to follow. If you don't follow it, you get workers union, media and in some cases even the government breathing down your neck.

What I am looking for is not anecdotes, but something more substantial. Smoking is harmful, and the effects of smoking is fairly well documented. While details on that might be used as circumstantial evidence, this question is about if it's more expensive to hire a smoker than a non-smoker.

Answer 1

The Swedish summary appears to refer to this paper:

• Estimating the cost of a smoking employee, Micah Berman, Rob Crane, Eric Seiber, Mehmet Munur Tob Control, doi:10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2012-050888

It was an economic analysis based on existing literature.

We examined absenteeism, presenteesim, smoking breaks, healthcare costs and pension benefits for smokers. [...] Our best estimate of the annual excess cost to employ a smoker is $5816. This estimate should be taken as a general indicator of the extent of excess costs, not as a predictive point value.

So, the Daygens Nyheter summary seems reasonable. There was a study that did draw these conclusions.

Whether the study itself is accurate is more difficult to assess.

• It was published in a prestigious, peer-reviewed scientific journal.
• It was only published recently, so it is a bit early to check whether the scientific community has cited it approvingly.
• I checked on one author, and it was within their area of expertise.
• It is consistent with similar approaches/findings from Germany and the UK.
• They document potential biases, and discuss how they have attempted to minimise them.

It seems reasonable to provisionally accept these findings until counter-evidence is found.

It almost goes without saying: Correlation does not imply causation. It may not be the tobacco alone that account for the increased costs.

Answer 2

It's generally accepted by most employers (certainly in the UK) that smokers on average will take more time off due to associated illnesses than those who don't smoke (tobacco).

This is information relating to a recent study into this subject:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/jobs/9644859/Smokers-extra-sick-days-cost-UK-businesses-1.4bn-a-year.html

Unfortunately the actual research findings don't appear to be available online.

Also it's a legal requirement in the UK that workers get regular breaks but the exact length and frequency of the break depends on the type of work undertaken.

So, according to the above research it is more expensive on average to hire a smoker than a non-smoker if you pay sick pay. If not then there's the inconvenience of lost productivity when they're sick etc.

Answer 3

There is a lot of contradictory information, e.g. this study actually find the opposite result.

Ultimately, the thin and healthy group cost the most, about $417,000, from age 20 on. The cost of care for obese people was $371,000, and for smokers, about $326,000. The results counter the common perception that preventing obesity will save health systems worldwide millions of dollars.

Also, one common flaw in the "sick days" argument is the distribution of smokers in the workforce. E.g. there are more smoker among construction workers (and manual labour in general) than for example in academical fields. The risks for injuries are obviously higher for the first group, so correlation does not imply causation.