Brock Betsy, Choi Kelvin, Boyle Raymond G, Moilanen Molly, Schillo Barbara A
Research Department, The Association for Nonsmokers-Minnesota, St. Paul, Minnesota, USA.
Division of Intramural Research, National Institute on Minority Health and Health Disparities, Bethesda, Maryland, USA.
Tob Control. 2016 Mar;25(2):166-73. doi: 10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2014-052018. Epub 2015 Jan 6.
In 2013, the State of Minnesota Legislature passed a tobacco tax increase that increased the combined cigarette excise and sales tax by US$1.75 (from US$1.60 to US$3.35) and increased the tax on non-cigarette tobacco products from 70% to 95% of the wholesale price. The current study explores the change in tobacco prices in retail locations and whether the tax increase was fully passed to consumers.
An observational study of tobacco retail prices was performed in a sample of 61 convenience stores in Minnesota, North Dakota, South Dakota and Wisconsin. Six rounds of data were collected between May 2013 and January 2014. In each round, purchases were made at the same stores for the same four tobacco products (Camel Blue cigarettes, Marlboro Gold cigarettes, Grizzly Wintergreen moist smokeless tobacco and Copenhagen Wintergreen moist smokeless tobacco).
For all studied tobacco products, prices in Minnesota increased significantly after the tax increase (Round 1-Round 6). After controlling for price changes in neighbouring states, the average price difference in Minnesota for the two cigarette brands increased by US$1.89 and US$1.81, which are both more than the US$1.75 tax increase. For moist smokeless, the average price difference increased by US$0.90 and US$0.94. Significant price changes were not observed in the comparison states. After the introduction of the minimum moist smokeless tax, a significantly higher proportion of Minnesota stores offered price promotions on smokeless tobacco.
A large tobacco tax resulted in an average retail cigarette price exceeding the tax, suggesting the industry over-shifted the cigarette tax increase to consumers in Minnesota. The findings support the known public health benefit of tobacco tax increases while highlighting the need for additional information about how, or if, tobacco companies use price promotions to blunt the impact of tax increases.
2013年,明尼苏达州立法机构通过了一项烟草税上调法案,将香烟消费税和销售税合并提高了1.75美元(从1.60美元提高到3.35美元),并将非香烟烟草产品的税率从批发价的70%提高到95%。本研究探讨了零售场所烟草价格的变化以及税收增加是否完全转嫁给了消费者。
对明尼苏达州、北达科他州、南达科他州和威斯康星州的61家便利店的烟草零售价格进行了一项观察性研究。在2013年5月至2014年1月期间收集了六轮数据。在每一轮中,在相同的商店购买相同的四种烟草产品(骆驼蓝香烟、万宝路金香烟、灰熊冬青味湿鼻烟和哥本哈根冬青味湿鼻烟)。
对于所有研究的烟草产品,明尼苏达州的价格在税收增加后(第1轮至第6轮)显著上涨。在控制了邻近州的价格变化后,明尼苏达州两个香烟品牌的平均价格差异分别增加了1.89美元和1.81美元,均超过了1.75美元的税收增加额。对于湿鼻烟,平均价格差异增加了0.90美元和0.94美元。在比较州未观察到显著的价格变化。引入最低湿鼻烟税后,明尼苏达州有更高比例的商店对鼻烟提供价格促销。
大幅提高烟草税导致零售香烟平均价格超过税收,这表明该行业将香烟税的增加过度转嫁给了明尼苏达州的消费者。这些发现支持了提高烟草税对公众健康有益的已知观点,同时强调需要更多关于烟草公司如何或是否利用价格促销来削弱税收增加影响的信息。