Employment change for bars and restaurants following a statewide clean indoor air policy

Impact of US smoke-free air laws on restaurants and bars by employer size: a panel study

OBJECTIVES

Thirty states have smoke-free air laws that ban smoking in restaurants and bars, covering nearly two-thirds of the US population. It is well established that these laws generally have a null or positive economic impact on restaurants and bars. However, all establishments in a geographic area are usually treated as a homogeneous group without considering the potential for differential effects by establishment characteristics. This study uses variation in smoke-free air laws over time to estimate their impact on employment in restaurants and bars with a focus on potential differences by employer size (number of employees). A two-pronged approach with a national-level and state-level analysis is used to take advantage of more granular data availability for a single state (North Carolina).

DESIGN

Observational study using panel data.

SETTING

1) US, 2) North Carolina INTERVENTIONS: Smoke-free air laws.

OUTCOME MEASURES

State-level accommodation and food services employment for all 50 states and District of Columbia from 1990 through 2014 (Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages); county-level restaurant and bar employment in North Carolina from 2001 through 2014 (North Carolina Department of Commerce).

RESULTS

There is no evidence of a redistributive effect of smoke-free air laws on restaurant and bar employment by employer size.

CONCLUSION

The lack of a redistributive effect is an important finding for policy-makers considering implementation or expansion of a smoke-free air law to protect employees and patrons from the dangers of exposure to secondhand smoke.

Ending tobacco sales in pharmacies: A qualitative study

OBJECTIVE

The states of California and Massachusetts are leading the effort to prohibit the sale of tobacco products in pharmacies in the United States. The process of adopting these tobacco-free pharmacy laws remains understudied. This study qualitatively explores the process of adopting and enforcing tobacco-free pharmacy laws.

METHODS

Researchers performed qualitative semistructured telephone interviews with 23 key informants who were involved in the effort to adopt and implement tobacco-free pharmacy laws in California and Massachusetts. A content analysis was used to study the process of adopting tobacco-free pharmacy laws as well as barriers and facilitators during the process. Two researchers independently coded the interview transcripts and written responses to identify key categories and themes that emerged from the interviews.

RESULTS

The qualitative study results suggest that the process of adopting the tobacco-free pharmacy laws was fairly smooth, with a few barriers. Local youth groups and independent pharmacies played an important role in raising public awareness and attracting media attention. The results also highlighted the need to regulate the sale of e-cigarettes as a part of tobacco-free pharmacy laws.

CONCLUSION

As the number of cities that have adopted tobacco-free pharmacy laws grows, banning tobacco sales in pharmacies is becoming less controversial and more normative to both pharmacy retailers and the public. Our findings inform the ongoing discussion about tobacco-free pharmacy laws and are useful for decision-makers from communities that are considering such laws.

Compliance with smoke-free policies in korean bars and restaurants in california: a descriptive analysis

BACKGROUND

Compliance with California's smoke-free restaurant and bar policies may be more a function of social contingencies and less a function of legal contingencies. The aims of this study were: 1) to report indications of compliance with smoke-free legislation in Korean bars and restaurants in California; 2) to examine the demographic, smoking status, and acculturation factors of who smoked indoors; and 3) to report social cues in opposition to smoking among a sample of Koreans in California.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Data were collected by telephone surveys administered by bilingual interviewers between 2007-2009, and included California adults of Korean descent who visited a Korean bar or restaurant in a typical month (N=2,173, 55% female).

RESULTS

1% of restaurant-going participants smoked inside while 7% observed someone else smoke inside a Korean restaurant. Some 23% of bar-going participants smoked inside and 65% observed someone else smoke inside a Korean bar. Presence of ashtrays was related to indoor smoking in bars and restaurants. Among participants who observed smoking, a higher percentage observed someone ask a smoker to stop (17.6%) or gesture to a smoker (27.0%) inside Korean restaurants (N=169) than inside Korean bars (n=141, 17.0% observed verbal cue and 22.7% observed gesture). Participants who smoked inside were significantly younger and more acculturated than participants who did not. Less acculturated participants were significantly more to likely to be told to stop smoking.

CONCLUSIONS

Ten years after implementation of ordinances, smoking appears to be common in Korean bars in California.

The effect of Philadelphia and Pennsylvania Clean Indoor Air Act on food services and drinking places sales and numbers, 1998-2011

Introduction

Philadelphia enacted its Clean Indoor Air Act (CIAA) nearly 2 years before the statewide CIAA. In this study, we assessed the economic impact of CIAAs on 4 types of food services and drinking places and addressed the predominant limitation of previous pre–post ban studies, namely the lack of control for confounders and changes in secular trends over time.

Methods

We analyzed data from Pennsylvania Department of Revenue Quarterly 1998–2011 taxable county-level revenue sales and number of food services and drinking places. Region-specific and type-specific adjusted sales and number of food services and drinking places accounted for consumer spending as a general economic indicator. Segmented regression analysis of interrupted time-series methodology assessed changes in trend and level.

Results

Pennsylvania CIAA had no significant effect on adjusted sales or numbers except for an increase in sales in Philadelphia for limited-service eating places and in the surrounding 4 counties for special food services. Philadelphia CIAA was associated with an increase in adjusted numbers of full-service restaurants in Philadelphia and the rest of the state, special food services in Philadelphia, and drinking places in the rest of the state, and a decrease in the number of special food services in the surrounding counties. Philadelphia CIAA had no significant effect on adjusted sales except for an increase in special food services in the rest of the state.

Conclusion

Overall, CIAAs had no negative business-related impact and, for the most part, suggest a positive impact on restaurant sales and numbers. Our results provide further support for comprehensive CIAA ordinance for restaurants.

The economic impact of smoke-free laws on restaurants and bars in 9 States

Introduction

Smoke-free air laws in restaurants and bars protect patrons and workers from involuntary exposure to secondhand smoke, but owners often express concern that such laws will harm their businesses. The primary objective of this study was to estimate the association between local smoke-free air laws and economic outcomes in restaurants and bars in 8 states without statewide smoke-free air laws: Alabama, Indiana, Kentucky, Mississippi, Missouri, South Carolina, Texas, and West Virginia. A secondary objective was to examine the economic impact of a 2010 statewide smoke-free restaurant and bar law in North Carolina.

Methods

Using quarterly data from 2000 through 2010, we estimated dynamic panel data models for employment and sales in restaurants and bars. The models controlled for smoke-free laws, general economic activity, cigarette sales, and seasonality. We included data from 216 smoke-free cities and counties in the analysis. During the study period, only North Carolina had a statewide law banning smoking in restaurants or bars. Separate models were estimated for each state.

Results

In West Virginia, smoke-free laws were associated with a significant increase of approximately 1% in restaurant employment. In the remaining 8 states, we found no significant association between smoke-free laws and employment or sales in restaurants and bars.

Conclusion

Results suggest that smoke-free laws did not have an adverse economic impact on restaurants or bars in any of the states studied; they provided a small economic benefit in 1 state. On the basis of these findings, we would not expect a statewide smoke-free law in Alabama, Indiana, Kentucky, Missouri, Mississippi, South Carolina, Texas, or West Virginia to have an adverse economic impact on restaurants or bars in those states.

Smokefree legislation: a review of health and economic outcomes research

CONTEXT

Smokefree legislation is a powerful public health intervention. Despite progress in smokefree legislation, over half of U.S. adults remain unprotected by comprehensive smokefree legislation.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

This paper reviews the scientific literature on health and economic outcome studies of smokefree legislation from the past decade, 2000 to early 2010, using MEDLINE and key search terms: smoking, smoking cessation, smoking/legislation and jurisprudence, smoking cessation/legislation and jurisprudence, and health policy.

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

There is a wealth of research showing the health benefits to entire populations when communities implement comprehensive smokefree laws and/or regulations. These laws improve the health of hospitality workers and the general population by improving indoor air quality, reducing acute myocardial infarctions and asthma exacerbations, and improving infant and birth outcomes. Some studies report reduced smoking prevalence and cigarette consumption and improved cessation outcomes after smokefree legislation. In addition to the health benefits, economic studies confirm that smokefree laws do not adversely affect business revenues or operating costs.

CONCLUSIONS

While there is an abundance of smokefree policy outcomes research showing both the health and economic impacts of smokefree legislation, these outcomes may have more to do with implementation effectiveness than adoption, especially among subpopulations. An emerging body of literature documents not only that disparities in health protections remain among subpopulations, but that health outcomes of smokefree legislation may vary by gender, race/ethnicity, SES, and age. Further research is needed on implementation effectiveness of smokefree legislation and differential effects on subpopulations.