8/8/2019 Economic Impact of Smoke-Free Policies on Restaurants and Bars
1/33
8/8/2019 Economic Impact of Smoke-Free Policies on Restaurants and Bars
2/33
Economic Impact of Smoke-free
Policies on Restaurants and Bars
Andrew Hyland, PhDAssociate Member
Roswell Park Cancer Institute
November 2002
8/8/2019 Economic Impact of Smoke-Free Policies on Restaurants and Bars
3/33
ISSUE AT HAND Secondhand smoke causes lung cancer and heart disease.
Nearly all people are exposed to secondhand smoke.
Therefore, secondhand smoke is an important public healthproblem.
Policies restricting smoking in public places reduceexposure to secondhand smoke.
Main arguments against policies restricting smoking inpublic places include
Lost revenue
Freedom of choice
Government should butt out
Law is not enforceable
8/8/2019 Economic Impact of Smoke-Free Policies on Restaurants and Bars
4/33
8/8/2019 Economic Impact of Smoke-Free Policies on Restaurants and Bars
5/33
8/8/2019 Economic Impact of Smoke-Free Policies on Restaurants and Bars
6/33
8/8/2019 Economic Impact of Smoke-Free Policies on Restaurants and Bars
7/33
8/8/2019 Economic Impact of Smoke-Free Policies on Restaurants and Bars
8/33
ANALOGY Studies evaluating the impact of smoke-free laws are
conceptually similar to studies looking at the sideeffects of an experimental drug
The DRUG is the POLICY
The SIDE EFFECT is POOR ECONOMIC OUTCOME
If the drug is too toxic, then it wont be used
8/8/2019 Economic Impact of Smoke-Free Policies on Restaurants and Bars
9/33
METHODS USED TO DATE
Several methods have been used to study the
economic effects of smoke-free regulations Aggregate taxable sales Restaurant employment statistics
Surveys of consumers
Surveys of restaurant owners Compliance/Complaint files
8/8/2019 Economic Impact of Smoke-Free Policies on Restaurants and Bars
10/33
STUDY QUALITY CRITERIA
Caution needs to be used when interpreting studiesexamining the economic impact of smoke-free laws.
Siegel proposed 4 criteria to use Us of objective data (e.g., tax receipts or employment
statistics)
Inclusion of all data points after the law was implementedand several years before
Use of regression or other statistical methods that control forsecular trends and random fluctuation in the data
Appropriate control for overall economic trend.
Others also consider the funding source and whetherit is published in a peer-review publication
8/8/2019 Economic Impact of Smoke-Free Policies on Restaurants and Bars
11/33
CONCLUSIONS AND QUALITY
CRITERIA
Scollo et al examined the relationship between studyquality and their stated conclusions (in press, Tobacco
Control). The odds of using only a subjective measure was 4 times that of
studies concluding a negative impact
The odds of not being peer-reviewed was 20 times that of studiesconcluding no such negative impact.
All of the studies concluding a negative impact were supported bythe tobacco industry
93% of the tobacco industry-supported studies concluded a negativeeconomic impact compared to none of the non-industry supportedstudies.
8/8/2019 Economic Impact of Smoke-Free Policies on Restaurants and Bars
12/33
AGGREGATE TAXABLE SALES -Restaurants
As of Nov 2001, 20 studies have examined taxable sales inrestaurants - 19 conclude no effect or a positive impact and the1 tobacco industry funded study found a negative impact
Selected published studies include No effect on restaurants or bars in CA and CO after an average of 4
years of follow-up based on pooled data from 15 cities with smoke-freerestaurant ordinances and 5 cities and 2 counties with smoke-free barordinances (Glantz 1997)
No effect on restaurants in one Arizona city after 1 years of follow-up(Sciacca 1998)
No effect for 32 MA towns (Bartosch 1999)
No effect in New York City restaurants or hotels 1 years after the lawtook effect (Hyland 1999)
8/8/2019 Economic Impact of Smoke-Free Policies on Restaurants and Bars
13/33
Taxable Sales from Eating and Drinking
Establishments in New York City and the Rest of
New York State*, 1990 to 2000
1,000,000
1,500,000
2,000,000
2,500,000
3,000,000
3,500,000
4,000,000
4,500,000
3/90-8/90
9/90-2/91
3/91-8/91
9/91-2/92
3/92-8/92
9/92-2/93
3/93-8/93
9/93-2/94
3/94-8/94
9/94-2/95
3/95-8/95
9/95-2/96
3/96-8/96
9/96-2/97
3/97-8/97
9/97-2/98
3/98-8/98
9/98-2/99
3/99-8/99
9/99-2/00
ThousandsofDollars
Law took effectNYC
Outside NYC
* The rest of New York State is all counties in the state exceptNew York City, Suffolk, Westchester, Erie, Monroe, Nassau, Livingston, and Rockland.
8/8/2019 Economic Impact of Smoke-Free Policies on Restaurants and Bars
14/33
As of Nov 2001, 4 studies have examined taxable sales in barsand 2 in hotels, all 6 conclude no effect
Selected published studies include
No effect or perhaps even positive effects on tourism and hotelrevenues in 3 states and 6 cities (Glantz 1999)
Bar revenues increased following smoke-free bar regulations in CA(Glantz 2000)
Hotel taxable sales in New York City far outpaced sales in the rest ofNew York State without smoke-free regulations (Hyland 1999)
AGGREGATE TAXABLE SALES
Bars and Hotels
8/8/2019 Economic Impact of Smoke-Free Policies on Restaurants and Bars
15/33
Bar revenues in California continued to increase after the smoke free
bar law took effect in 1998 (dark blue line), three years after the
smoke free restaurant provisions took effect in 1995 (light blue line)
8/8/2019 Economic Impact of Smoke-Free Policies on Restaurants and Bars
16/33
Pros objective data collected in a consistent, uniformmanner
Cons aggregate data can mask trends in subsets, data oftenincludes sales from places not under the jurisdiction of theregulations
Considered to be an ideal outcome to assess economic impact
AGGREGATE TAXABLE SALES
Pros and Cons
8/8/2019 Economic Impact of Smoke-Free Policies on Restaurants and Bars
17/33
8/8/2019 Economic Impact of Smoke-Free Policies on Restaurants and Bars
18/33
20
22
24
26
28
30
Jan
Feb
Mar
April
May
June
July
Aug
Sept
O
ct
N
ov
D
ec
1997 1998
The number of restaurant emp oyees in Erie County New York has
remained virtually unchanged before and after its smoke-free law
waspassed in January 1998.
8/8/2019 Economic Impact of Smoke-Free Policies on Restaurants and Bars
19/33
8/8/2019 Economic Impact of Smoke-Free Policies on Restaurants and Bars
20/33
SURVEYS OF CONSUMERS
16 studies of consumers conducted all 12 non-industry studiesand 2 industry studies report no effect, 4 industry studies reportnegative impact.
Smokers dine out less, non-smokers dine out more with no neteffect on dining out frequency five months after NYC law took
effect (Corsun 1996) Same conclusion in survey 18 months after NYC law took effect(Hyland 1999)
Surveys of consumer intentions before smoke-free isimplemented generally suggest overall patronage will increase(Biener 1997, Biener 1999, Wakefield 1999); though opinion pollsdo exist that report smoker patronage will decrease (Fabrizio,McLaughlin, and Associates 1994)
Pros the source of dining patterns
Cons recall bias, not objective, bias due to personal views aboutthe law
8/8/2019 Economic Impact of Smoke-Free Policies on Restaurants and Bars
21/33
Results from New York City Patron Survey in 1997 - Some smokers are
dining out less often, some non-smokers are dining out more often; but for
mostpeople, the smoke-free law hasnt made a difference.
%11%
%
9%
72% %
%
20%
0%
0%
0%
100%
Smokers Non-smokers
More often Less often Same
8/8/2019 Economic Impact of Smoke-Free Policies on Restaurants and Bars
22/33
8/8/2019 Economic Impact of Smoke-Free Policies on Restaurants and Bars
23/33
8/8/2019 Economic Impact of Smoke-Free Policies on Restaurants and Bars
24/33
SURVEYS OF RESTAURATEURS
44 restaurateur studies all 13 non-industry studies report no effect
5 of 6 studies with an unknown funding source report a negativeeffect
all 25 industry funded studies report negative impact
One-third of all restaurants (both under jurisdiction of thelaw and not under jurisdiction of the law) reporteddecreases in business 18 months after the NYC law took
effect i.e., no effect of the law after smoke-free law tookeffect (Hyland 1999)
8/8/2019 Economic Impact of Smoke-Free Policies on Restaurants and Bars
25/33
SURVEYS OF RESTAURATEURS
Unpublished private reports yield significant decreases in reportedbusiness such as
16% reduced sales and 40% reduced workforce in a survey five monthsafter NYCs law (Fabrizio, McLaughlin, & Associates 1995)
63% of NYC restaurateurs report the law is hurting their business in a
survey 2 months after implementation (Penn + Schoen Associates, Inc.1996)
Reported 25% to 35% revenue decreases in restaurants among interviewswith 25 retail establishments in Mesa, AZ (Applied Economic 1996)
Pros who better to ask if there has been an impact? Cons recall bias, bias due to personal views about the law, not
objective
8/8/2019 Economic Impact of Smoke-Free Policies on Restaurants and Bars
26/33
8/8/2019 Economic Impact of Smoke-Free Policies on Restaurants and Bars
27/33
8/8/2019 Economic Impact of Smoke-Free Policies on Restaurants and Bars
28/33
8/8/2019 Economic Impact of Smoke-Free Policies on Restaurants and Bars
29/33
COMPLIANCE/COMPLAINT FILES
Studies of compliance are critical if nobody isobeying the law, then dont expect to see an effect
Fewer complaints 2 years after NYC law than beforewhen law required separate sections (Hyland 1999)
Complaint levels at same rate 12 months after ErieCounty, NY law implemented (Hyland 2001)
Pros need to measure compliance to assess impact
Cons correlation between complaints and
compliance may be low
8/8/2019 Economic Impact of Smoke-Free Policies on Restaurants and Bars
30/33
Relativelyfewcomplaints
aboutthelawhave
registered,NewY
orkCity199
5-7.
020
40
60
80
100
120
140
Apr-95
May-95
Jun-95
Jul-95
Aug-95
Sep-95
Oct-95
Nov-95
Dec-95
Jan-96
Feb-96
Mar-96
Apr-96
May-96
Jun-96
Jul-96
Aug-96
Sep-96
Oct-96
Number ofComplaints
8/8/2019 Economic Impact of Smoke-Free Policies on Restaurants and Bars
31/33
SUMMARY OF LITERATURE
Virtually all published studies show no adverse aggregateeffect in restaurants (most studies), hotels (some studies),and bars (fewest studies), regardless of study method used.
Studies showing adverse consequences typically haveflawed methods, rely on survey data or anecdotal reports,or are funded by a restaurant or tobacco interest.
Restaurant business remains healthy after smoke-freedining policies are implemented.
8/8/2019 Economic Impact of Smoke-Free Policies on Restaurants and Bars
32/33
FUTURE RESEARCH
Many believe the issue is closed and we already knowthe answer smoke-free laws have no effect (Glantz1999)
From a public health perspective future studies needto be done in more diverse settings with improvedmethods such as isolating taxable sales specific torestaurants only.
From a purely scientific perspective, future studiesshould examine individual level data by looking atactual sales over time before and after a smoke-freelaw.
8/8/2019 Economic Impact of Smoke-Free Policies on Restaurants and Bars
33/33
FOR MORE INFORMATION
http://www.tobaccoscam.ucsf.edu/target/index.cfm - website targeted towardrestaurant owners
http://www.vctc.org.au/publ/reports/Hospitality_paper_summary.pdf for summaryof all reports on the economic impact of
smoke-free policies in the hospitalityindustry.