- Georgetown University, Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center, Cancer Prevention and Control Program, Washington, DC, USA.
- Department of Epidemiology, University of Michigan School of Public Health, Ann Arbor, MI, USA.
Nicotine Tob Res. 2024 Jul 22;26(8):1103-1107. doi: 10.1093/ntr/ntad214.
Sales data analyses are increasingly used to guide tobacco regulatory science. However, such data do not cover specialist retailers like vape shops or tobacconists. Understanding the extent of the cigarette and electronic nicotine delivery system (ENDS) markets covered by sales data is critical to establishing such analyses' generalizability and potential biases.
Using retail sales data from Information Resources Incorporated (IRI) and Nielsen, we conduct tax gap analyses comparing states' cigarette and ENDS tax revenue to tax collection estimates based on retail sales data. For the 23 US states in both retail sales datasets, cigarette tax gap analyses were conducted for each year from 2018 to 2020. Four (Louisiana, North Carolina, Ohio, and Washington) of those 23 states levied per-unit ENDS taxes and provided monthly tax revenue data covering January 2018 to October 2021, where we conducted monthly tax gap analyses for both cigarettes and ENDS.
Across states covered by both sales datasets, annual mean cigarette sales in IRI and Nielsen account for 92.3% (95% CI = 88.3% to 96.2%) and 84.0% (95% CI = 79.3% to 88.7%) of state cigarette tax revenue, respectively. Monthly average coverage rates for ENDS sales were lower, ranging from 42.3% to 86.1% for IRI and 43.6% to 88.5% for Nielsen, but remained stable over time.
IRI and Nielsen sales data capture almost the entire US cigarette market and a substantial but lower portion of the US ENDS market. With proper care to address shortcomings, sales data analyses can capture changes in the US market for these tobacco products.
Policy evaluations and analyses using e-cigarette and cigarette sales data are often criticized because these data do not cover online sales or sales by specialty retailers like tobacconists. Cigarette sales data consistently cover nearly 90% of taxed sales, while e-cigarette sales data cover around 50% of taxed volumes. Retail sales data capture nearly all cigarette sales and a substantial portion of ENDS sales with relatively stable rates of coverage over time, supporting their continued use in tobacco surveillance and policy evaluation work.
销售数据分析越来越多地被用于指导烟草监管科学。然而,此类数据并未涵盖电子烟商店或烟草零售商等专业零售商。了解销售数据所涵盖的香烟和电子尼古丁输送系统(ENDS)市场的程度对于确定此类分析的通用性和潜在偏差至关重要。
我们使用 Information Resources Incorporated(IRI)和 Nielsen 的零售销售数据,根据零售销售数据进行税收差距分析,比较各州的香烟和 ENDS 税收收入与税收征收估计数。对于这两个零售销售数据集中的 23 个美国州,我们对 2018 年至 2020 年的每一年进行了香烟税收差距分析。其中 4 个州(路易斯安那州、北卡罗来纳州、俄亥俄州和华盛顿州)对每个单位征收 ENDS 税,并提供涵盖 2018 年 1 月至 2021 年 10 月的每月税收收入数据,我们对香烟和 ENDS 进行了每月税收差距分析。
在这两个销售数据都涵盖的州中,IRI 和 Nielsen 的香烟年平均销售额分别占各州香烟税收收入的 92.3%(95%置信区间=88.3%至 96.2%)和 84.0%(95%置信区间=79.3%至 88.7%)。ENDS 销售额的每月平均覆盖率较低,IRI 为 42.3%至 86.1%,Nielsen 为 43.6%至 88.5%,但随着时间的推移保持稳定。
IRI 和 Nielsen 的销售数据几乎涵盖了美国所有的香烟市场,以及美国相当一部分但较小的 ENDS 市场。通过适当的关注来解决缺点,销售数据分析可以捕捉到这些烟草产品在美国市场的变化。
使用电子烟和香烟销售数据进行的政策评估和分析经常受到批评,因为这些数据不包括在线销售或烟草零售商(如烟草商)的销售。香烟销售数据几乎一直覆盖 90%的应税销售额,而电子烟销售数据覆盖约 50%的应税数量。零售销售数据几乎涵盖了所有的香烟销售和相当一部分的 ENDS 销售,且随着时间的推移,覆盖率相对稳定,这支持了它们在烟草监测和政策评估工作中的持续使用。