Department for Health, University of Bath, Bath, UK.
Addiction. 2013 Jul;108(7):1317-26. doi: 10.1111/add.12159. Epub 2013 Apr 16.
Tobacco tax increases are the most effective means of reducing tobacco use and inequalities in smoking, but effectiveness depends on transnational tobacco company (TTC) pricing strategies, specifically whether TTCs overshift tax increases (increase prices on top of the tax increase) or undershift the taxes (absorb the tax increases so they are not passed onto consumers), about which little is known.
Review of literature on brand segmentation. Analysis of 1999-2009 data to explore the extent to which tax increases are shifted to consumers, if this differs by brand segment and whether cigarette price indices accurately reflect cigarette prices.
UK.
UK smokers.
Real cigarette prices, volumes and net-of-tax- revenue by price segment.
TTCs categorise brands into four price segments: premium, economy, mid and 'ultra-low price' (ULP). TTCs have sold ULP brands since 2006; since then, their real price has remained virtually static and market share doubled. The price gap between premium and ULP brands is increasing because the industry differentially shifts tax increases between brand segments; while, on average, taxes are overshifted, taxes on ULP brands are not always fully passed onto consumers (being absorbed at the point each year when tobacco taxes increase). Price indices reflect the price of premium brands only and fail to detect these problems.
Industry-initiated cigarette price changes in the UK appear timed to accentuate the price gap between premium and ULP brands. Increasing the prices of more expensive cigarettes on top of tobacco tax increases should benefit public health, but the growing price gap enables smokers to downtrade to cheaper tobacco products and may explain smoking-related inequalities. Governments must monitor cigarette prices by price segment and consider industry pricing strategies in setting tobacco tax policies.
提高烟草税是减少烟草使用和吸烟不平等的最有效手段,但有效性取决于跨国烟草公司(TTC)的定价策略,特别是 TTC 是否过度转移税收(在税收增加的基础上提高价格)或税收不足转移(吸收税收增加,使其不转嫁给消费者),对此知之甚少。
对品牌细分的文献回顾。分析 1999-2009 年的数据,以探讨税收增加在多大程度上转嫁给消费者,如果这因品牌细分而有所不同,以及卷烟价格指数是否准确反映卷烟价格。
英国。
英国吸烟者。
按价格细分的实际卷烟价格、数量和净税收收入。
TTC 将品牌分为四个价格细分市场:高档、经济型、中价和“超低价格”(ULP)。自 2006 年以来,TTC 一直在销售 ULP 品牌;自那时以来,其实际价格几乎保持不变,市场份额翻了一番。高档和 ULP 品牌之间的价格差距正在扩大,因为该行业在品牌细分市场之间有差异地转移税收增加;尽管平均而言,税收过度转移,但 ULP 品牌的税收并非总是完全转嫁给消费者(每年烟草税增加时被吸收)。价格指数仅反映高档品牌的价格,无法发现这些问题。
英国烟草业发起的卷烟价格变化似乎是为了加剧高档和 ULP 品牌之间的价格差距。在提高烟草税之上提高更昂贵香烟的价格应该有利于公共健康,但价格差距的扩大使吸烟者能够降级购买更便宜的烟草产品,这可能解释了与吸烟相关的不平等现象。政府必须按价格细分监测卷烟价格,并在制定烟草税收政策时考虑行业定价策略。