£400 for Prernant Smoking Mothers to Give Quit

zagfles

JustOnce wrote: »

It's easy for them to find that out, they just need to ask people how long they've been smoking. People won't understand why they're asking, so they'll be no incentive to lie.

What, keep the whole scheme secret? Too late, it's being discussed on the internet!

Whats your approximation of the number of non-smokers who will start smoking and become pregnant in order to get this money?

OK. First let's drop the strawman about becoming pregnant in order to claim the money. I doubt anyone would do that.

Just consider the incentives someone who is/wants to be pregnant has.

One thing the research clearly showed was the financial incentive was more important than the health issues to the baby.

"Significantly more smokers in the incentives group than control group stopped smoking: 69 (22.5%) versus 26 (8.6%). "

So clearly financial incentives play a bigger role than health issues. About twice as many people where incentived by money than were incentivised by health risks.

So given that, once this scheme gets wide publicity and everyone is aware of the qualifying rules, what proportion of non-smokers, or intermittant smokers, or people who gave up a year ago etc, would then take up smoking perhaps just enough to "pass" the smoker test at the 12 week check? Evidence above suggest two thirds.

OK, maybe smokers care less about health than non smokers. So maybe it wouldn't be two thirds. But then again how many would just say, well if I just smoke for a couple of days/a week, I'll pass the "smoker" test and can then "give up" and get the money, that won't do any harm will it? A few days in early pregnancy?

And how many might misjudge, and get back into smoking when they would otherwise have never smoked at all in pregnancy?

JustOnce

zagfles wrote: »

OK. First let's drop the strawman about becoming pregnant in order to claim the money. I doubt anyone would do that.

Just consider the incentives someone who is/wants to be pregnant has.

One thing the research clearly showed was the financial incentive was more important than the health issues to the baby. So clearly financial incentives play a bigger role than health issues. About twice as many people where incentived by money than were incentivised by health risks.

So given that, once this scheme gets wide publicity and everyone is aware of the qualifying rules, what proportion of non-smokers, or intermittant smokers, or people who gave up a year ago etc, would then take up smoking perhaps just enough to "pass" the smoker test at the 12 week check? Evidence above suggest two thirds.

OK, maybe smokers care less about health than non smokers. So maybe it wouldn't be two thirds. But then again how many would just say, well if I just smoke for a couple of days/a week, I'll pass the "smoker" test and can then "give up" and get the money, that won't do any harm will it? A few days in early pregnancy?

And how many might misjudge, and get back into smoking when they would otherwise have never smoked at all in pregnancy?

This also needs to be considered in costings. How much does/will it cost for specialist care through an entire lifetime of somebody with a disability?

Even if one children were born healthily and without disability etc, because of this intervention, then I'd take a rough guess that even if £40,000 (that's 100 people playing the system) for every baby saved to a genuine person were spent on people scamming the system, the money would spent would still be money saved in the long run.

zagfles

JustOnce wrote: »

This also needs to be considered in costings. How much does/will it cost for specialist care through an entire lifetime of somebody with a disability?

Even if one children were born healthily and without disability etc, because of this intervention, then I'd take a rough guess that even if £40,000 (that's 100 people playing the system) for every baby saved to a genuine person were spent on people scamming the system, the money would spent would still be money saved in the long run.

Whoosh.... The issue isn't the cost of playing the system. The issue is encouraging smoking in early pregnancy, which could cause more health problems than it prevents.

The only sensible, safe way for such a scheme is simply to pay everyone who doesn't smoke in pregnancy. Simple. Perhaps mitigate the cost by reducing benefits/tax credits by an equivalent amount, over 18 years it wouldn't need much, maybe £20 a year, 50p a week, off child benefit, paid upfront to everyone who doesn't smoke.

Teahfc

It's a vote catcher for chavvy mums.
Will never happen.
Imagine if there was triplets ... Court cases galore for a few quid

JustOnce

zagfles wrote: »

Whoosh.... The issue isn't the cost of playing the system. The issue is encouraging smoking in early pregnancy, which could cause more health problems than it prevents.

The only sensible, safe way for such a scheme is simply to pay everyone who doesn't smoke in pregnancy. Simple. Perhaps mitigate the cost by reducing benefits/tax credits by an equivalent amount, over 18 years it wouldn't need much, maybe £20 a year, 50p a week, off child benefit, paid upfront to everyone who doesn't smoke.

Interesting point. I dunno how feasible it is, or if its more feasible than this study, but that's interesting.

I studied this stuff in a module or two at undergrad level, so only have a rudimentary grasp of it, but I like that point you made. Interesting

Ames

Are people really saying that someone will start smoking, spend a few hundred over a couple of months so that they test positive (spending more if it takes longer than a couple of months to get pregnant) just to get a few hundred back at the end?

Really?

Anything that stops smoking in pregnancy has to be a good thing IMO. I have a health condition which is usually seen in smokers, I've never smoked first hand but mum smoked while she was pregnant (my sister has health problems too) and both my parents smoked while I was a child. The treatment for my health problem is £2000 per month, and that's just for the treatment intself, not counting staff costs, monitoring etc.

£400 seems an absolute bargain.

specialboy

Simplify the scheme, any mother who puts their unborn child at harm in any way gets no child benefit for the first year,

zagfles

Ames wrote: »

Are people really saying that someone will start smoking, spend a few hundred over a couple of months so that they test positive (spending more if it takes longer than a couple of months to get pregnant) just to get a few hundred back at the end?

Really?

Incentives work at the margins. What about those (and this applies to many people I know including my own mother), who were smokers but decided to give up smoking before trying for pregnancy? How many of them will think "may as well wait till I become pregnant before giving up"? Given that the research quoted to justify this scheme shows twice as many people are incentivised by money than by health?

Anything that stops smoking in pregnancy has to be a good thing IMO. I have a health condition which is usually seen in smokers, I've never smoked first hand but mum smoked while she was pregnant (my sister has health problems too) and both my parents smoked while I was a child. The treatment for my health problem is £2000 per month, and that's just for the treatment intself, not counting staff costs, monitoring etc.

£400 seems an absolute bargain.

As mentioned above by JustOnce, "Smoking during first trimester is a particularly associated with causing birth defects."

This scheme does nothing to prevent smoking in the first trimester, it encourages it. Those who smoke in the first trimester and give up are rewarded. Those who gave up smoking before the first trimester get nothing.

The problem with this scheme is it only looks at how the incentives work on a narrow group - those already smoking in early pregnancy. It doesn't look at the incentives on others at the margins - eg those who give up smoking before trying for pregnancy.

FBaby

specialboy wrote: »

Simplify the scheme, any mother who puts their unborn child at harm in any way gets no child benefit for the first year,

Except that whereas rewards brings it results, punishment brings in whinging. Take CB away and mothers will cry that stopping smoking isn't easy, that they tried but couldn't do it and it isn't fair to stop benefits on this basis because it's not their fault. Make it an incentive and they find the will.

I wish they would use this study (assuming it is reliable) as evidence that rewarding good behaviour is more of an incentive and apply it to working.

zagfles

FBaby wrote: »

Except that whereas rewards brings it results, punishment brings in whinging. Take CB away and mothers will cry that stopping smoking isn't easy, that they tried but couldn't do it and it isn't fair to stop benefits on this basis because it's not their fault. Make it an incentive and they find the will.

I wish they would use this study (assuming it is reliable) as evidence that rewarding good behaviour is more of an incentive and apply it to working.

It doesn't reward "good behaviour". That's the point. It rewards a very specific type of behaviour and may incentive "bad" behaviour.

Take two groups:

A: Smokers who intend to give up before trying for pregnancy
B: Smokers who have no intention of giving up

Neither will get rewarded if they behave as planned.

Both will get rewarded if they smoke in the initial early months of pregnancy (first trimester) then give up.

A are incentivised to behave worse, B are incentivised to behave better. Both are incentived to smoke in the first trimester, which according to our resident expert is the most dangerous time to smoke.

Fines may not be a bad idea. And for those who whinge "it's not fair, it'll affect the child..." remember that smokers are fined every time they buy cigarettes, through excise duties. Is anyone arguing pregnant mothers shouldn't pay excise duty?