Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2014 Feb;104(2):e74-9.
doi: 10.2105/AJPH.2013.301697. Epub 2013 Dec 12.

The impact of smoke-free laws on asthma discharges: a multistate analysis

Affiliations

The impact of smoke-free laws on asthma discharges: a multistate analysis

Glenn Landers. Am J Public Health. 2014 Feb.

Abstract

Objectives: This is the first, to my knowledge, multistate, county-level analysis of Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project state inpatient data to examine the relationship between smoke-free laws and asthma discharges.

Methods: I used treatment and control groups to examine the effects of state and county or city smoke-free laws separately and together (2002-2009). I compared quarterly county-level discharge rates before and after the implementation of 12 state smoke-free laws, accounting for counties with preexisting county or city smoke-free laws and using the data from 5 states without state smoke-free laws as a control group. I used difference-in-differences models, controlling for year and state fixed effects, state cigarette taxes, seasonality, and numerous county-level factors.

Results: I observed statistically significant reductions in asthma discharges after the implementation of county smoke-free laws but no statistically significant effect of state laws besides the effect of county laws or of state laws alone. There was also no statistically significant effect of any smoke-free law on appendicitis discharges.

Conclusions: It may be unwise to pursue state smoke-free laws where they have yet to pass; rather, efforts might be better focused at the local level, where there is evidence of a significant impact.

PubMed Disclaimer

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Reduced hospitalizations for acute myocardial infarction after implementation of a smoke-free ordinance-city of Pueblo, Colorado, 2002–2006. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2009;57(51):1373–1377. - PubMed
    1. Barnoya J, Glantz SA. Cardiovascular effects of second-hand smoke help explain the benefits of smoke-free legislation on heart disease burden. J Cardiovasc Nurs. 2006;21(6):457–462. - PubMed
    1. Barone-Adesi F, Vizzini L, Merletti F, Richiardi L. Variation in hospital admission for AMI unlikely to be attributable to smoking legislation. Eur Heart J. 2007;28(3):380. author reply 380–381. - PubMed
    1. Bartecchi C, Alsever RN, Nevin-Woods C et al. Reduction in the incidence of acute myocardial infarction associated with a citywide smoking ordinance. Circulation. 2006;114(14):1490–1496. - PubMed
    1. Broome RA, Beveridge CH, Williams ES. Short-term effects of Italian smoking regulation on rates of hospital admission for acute myocardial infarction. Eur Heart J. 2007;28(18):2296. author reply 2296–2297. - PubMed

Substances