Impacts of Tax and Flavor Tobacco Policies on San Francisco Bay Area Tobacco Prices.

IF 3 4区 社会学 Q1 SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY
Evaluation Review Pub Date : 2023-10-01 Epub Date: 2023-03-21 DOI:10.1177/0193841X231164908
Vira Pravosud, Louisa M Holmes, Lauren K Lempert, Pamela M Ling
{"title":"Impacts of Tax and Flavor Tobacco Policies on San Francisco Bay Area Tobacco Prices.","authors":"Vira Pravosud, Louisa M Holmes, Lauren K Lempert, Pamela M Ling","doi":"10.1177/0193841X231164908","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>California Proposition 56 increased the state tobacco tax by $2 per cigarette pack effective April 1, 2017. Between 2015-2020 San Francisco (SF) and some cities in Alameda County enacted local flavored tobacco sales restrictions. SF also increased its Cigarette Litter Abatement Fee, from $0.20/pack in 2015 to $1.00 in 2020. Compare the change in tobacco prices before (2015) and after (2019/20) the implementation of a $2 increase in tobacco excise tax and local flavored tobacco policies in SF and Alameda Counties. Descriptive study of the pre-to-post policy analysis design. We drew a proportional random sample of retailers (N=463) in SF and Alameda Counties, by city. Using multivariable, single- and multiple-level linear regressions, we compared inflation-adjusted average tobacco prices in 2015 vs. 2019/20 by county and by flavor policy, accounting for socio-demographics. Change in inflation-adjusted average tobacco prices in 2015 vs. 2019/20 by county and flavor policy, accounting for socio-demographics. Between 2015-2019/20, the increase in cigarette prices was higher than the $2 tax increase, and higher in SF than Alameda County (+$4.6 vs +$2.5). SF retailers stopped selling Newport menthol cigarettes and Blu brand menthol e-cigarettes in 2019/20. Adjusted average cigarette prices increased significantly more in SF and Alameda County cities with comprehensive or partial flavor policies versus cities without flavor policies (by $3.23 and $2.11). Local flavor policies affected menthol product availability and may have had positive spillover effects and indirectly increased pack prices.</p>","PeriodicalId":47533,"journal":{"name":"Evaluation Review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10542911/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Evaluation Review","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/0193841X231164908","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/3/21 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

California Proposition 56 increased the state tobacco tax by $2 per cigarette pack effective April 1, 2017. Between 2015-2020 San Francisco (SF) and some cities in Alameda County enacted local flavored tobacco sales restrictions. SF also increased its Cigarette Litter Abatement Fee, from $0.20/pack in 2015 to $1.00 in 2020. Compare the change in tobacco prices before (2015) and after (2019/20) the implementation of a $2 increase in tobacco excise tax and local flavored tobacco policies in SF and Alameda Counties. Descriptive study of the pre-to-post policy analysis design. We drew a proportional random sample of retailers (N=463) in SF and Alameda Counties, by city. Using multivariable, single- and multiple-level linear regressions, we compared inflation-adjusted average tobacco prices in 2015 vs. 2019/20 by county and by flavor policy, accounting for socio-demographics. Change in inflation-adjusted average tobacco prices in 2015 vs. 2019/20 by county and flavor policy, accounting for socio-demographics. Between 2015-2019/20, the increase in cigarette prices was higher than the $2 tax increase, and higher in SF than Alameda County (+$4.6 vs +$2.5). SF retailers stopped selling Newport menthol cigarettes and Blu brand menthol e-cigarettes in 2019/20. Adjusted average cigarette prices increased significantly more in SF and Alameda County cities with comprehensive or partial flavor policies versus cities without flavor policies (by $3.23 and $2.11). Local flavor policies affected menthol product availability and may have had positive spillover effects and indirectly increased pack prices.

税收和风味烟草政策对旧金山湾区烟草价格的影响。
加利福尼亚州第56号提案自2017年4月1日起将州烟草税每包提高2美元。2015-2020年间,旧金山和阿拉米达县的一些城市颁布了当地风味烟草销售限制。SF还提高了其香烟垃圾清除费,从2015年的0.20美元/包提高到2020年的1.00美元。比较SF县和阿拉米达县实施2美元烟草消费税和当地风味烟草政策之前(2015年)和之后(2019/20年)烟草价格的变化。前后政策分析设计的描述性研究。我们按城市对SF县和阿拉米达县的零售商(N=463)进行了比例随机抽样。使用多变量、单水平和多水平线性回归,我们比较了2015年与2019/20年经通胀调整的平均烟草价格,按县和口味政策划分,并考虑了社会人口统计。2015年与2019/20年相比,根据县和口味政策,考虑到社会人口统计,经通胀调整的平均烟草价格的变化。2015-2019/20年间,香烟价格的涨幅高于2美元的增税幅度,旧金山的涨幅高于阿拉米达县(+4.6美元对+2.5美元)。旧金山零售商在2019/20年停止销售纽波特薄荷醇香烟和蓝光牌薄荷醇电子烟。与没有香料政策的城市相比,有全面或部分香料政策的SF和阿拉米达县城市的调整后平均卷烟价格涨幅更大(分别为3.23美元和2.11美元)。当地香料政策影响了薄荷醇产品的供应,可能产生了积极的溢出效应,并间接提高了包装价格。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Evaluation Review
Evaluation Review SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY-
CiteScore
2.90
自引率
11.10%
发文量
80
期刊介绍: Evaluation Review is the forum for researchers, planners, and policy makers engaged in the development, implementation, and utilization of studies aimed at the betterment of the human condition. The Editors invite submission of papers reporting the findings of evaluation studies in such fields as child development, health, education, income security, manpower, mental health, criminal justice, and the physical and social environments. In addition, Evaluation Review will contain articles on methodological developments, discussions of the state of the art, and commentaries on issues related to the application of research results. Special features will include periodic review essays, "research briefs", and "craft reports".
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信