The impact of cigarette cost on pack sales per capita consumption in the United States.

OBJECTIVES: Evidence suggests that cigarette costs significantly impact tobacco use, yet the effect of state-level cost variations on cigarette sales per capita in the US remains uncertain. This study investigates how state-level cigarette costs affect pack sales per capita consumption. STUDY DESIGN: This was an observational study of cigarette-pack sales per capita consumption in the United States. METHODS: We used the tobacco tax burden data (1989-2019) and a two-way fixed-effects model to analyse how cigarette costs affect consumption. Our predictor variables were average cost per pack, state tax per pack, and combined federal and state tax as a percentage of the retail price. Additionally, we compared the percentage change in state cigarette taxes per pack for each state in five-year intervals, adjusting for inflation. RESULTS: Regression analysis revealed that a 10% increase in the average cost per pack was related to a 9.59% decrease in per capita cigarette consumption (ß_average cost = -0.959, P < 0.001). Similarly, a rise in state tax per pack and a higher tax as a proportion of the retail price per pack were related to a decline in consumption (ß_ state tax = -0.176, P < 0.001), (ß_retail price = -0.323, P < 0.001). States that raised cigarette taxes beyond the rate of inflation had a higher reduction in cigarette per capita sales than those maintaining stable tax rates. CONCLUSIONS: Some states have not raised their cigarette taxes sufficiently to account for inflation. It appears that cigarette costs have significantly reduced cigarette consumption in the US.

Do alcohol control policies have the predicted effects on consumption? An analysis of the Baltic countries and Poland 2000-2020.

BACKGROUND: Many population-based alcohol control policies are postulated to work via changes in adult alcohol per capita consumption (APC). However, since APC is usually assessed on a yearly basis, often there are not enough data to conduct interrupted time-series or other controlled analyses. The current dataset, with 21 years of observation from four countries (Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and Poland), had sufficient power to test for average effects and potential interactions of the World Health Organization's (WHO) three "best buys" for alcohol control: taxation increases leading to a decrease in affordability; reduced availability (via a decrease in opening hours of at least 20 %); and advertising and marketing restrictions. We postulated that the former two would have immediate effects, while the latter would have mid- to long-term effects. METHODS: Linear regression analysis. RESULTS: Taxation increases and availability reductions in all countries were associated with an average reduction in APC of 0.83 litres (ℓ) of pure alcohol per year (95 % confidence interval: -1.21 ℓ, -0.41 ℓ) in the same year, with no significant differences between countries. Restrictions on advertising and/or marketing had no significant immediate associations with APC (average effect 0.04 ℓ per year; 95 % confidence interval: -0.65 ℓ, 0.73 ℓ). Several sensitivity analyses corroborated these main results. CONCLUSIONS: The WHO "best buy" alcohol control policies of taxation increases and availability restrictions worked as postulated in these four northeastern European Union countries.

Improving the Validity of the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System Alcohol Measures.

BACKGROUND: Valid measurement of alcohol use can be difficult in surveys, which are subject to biases like underreporting and differential nonresponse. Still, monitoring trends, policy impacts, disparities, and related issues all require valid individual- and state-level drinking data collected over time. Here, we propose a double-adjustment approach for improving the validity of the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS) alcohol measures. METHODS: Validity analyses of the 1999 to 2016 BRFSS, a general population survey of U.S. adults. Measures are aggregated to state level for N = 918 observations, single-adjusted for BRFSS methodologic changes, and double-adjusted by per capita consumption. Fixed-effects models: (i) assess predictive validity using adjusted BRFSS drink volume to predict mortality outcomes and (ii) assess outcome validity using state-level alcohol taxes to predict adjusted BRFSS volume. RESULTS: Neither the raw nor the single-adjusted BRFSS drinking measures were related to mortality in the expected direction, while double-adjusted BRFSS volume and 5+ days were significantly positively related to mortality, as expected. Spirits and beer taxes were not related to single-adjusted BRFSS drinking in the expected direction. However, spirits and beer taxes were both significantly related to double-adjusted BRFSS volume in the expected directions. CONCLUSIONS: Future studies should consider using the double-adjusted BRFSS measures to ensure the validity of drinking survey data in analyses where variation over time is considered.