Beyond the smoke: Historical analysis of the revenue implications of state cigarette tax policies, 1989 to 2019.

INTRODUCTION: While cigarette taxes are a vital tobacco control tool, their impact on cigarette tax revenue has been largely understudied in the extant literature. This study examines how the level of cigarette taxes affects the revenue generated from cigarettes in the United States over a thirty-year period. METHODS: We obtained the Tax Burden Data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (1989-2019). Our dependent variables were gross cigarette tax revenue and per capita gross cigarette tax revenue, and our independent variable was state tax per pack. We used two-way fixed effects to estimate the relationship between state cigarette tax revenue and cigarette taxes, adjusting for state-level sociodemographic characteristics, state-fixed effects, and time trends. RESULTS: The study reveals that raising cigarette state tax by 10 % led to a 7.2 % to 7.5 % increase in cigarette tax revenue. We also found state and regional variation in taxes and revenue, with the Northeast region having the highest taxes per pack and tax revenues. In 2019, most states had low or moderate taxes per pack and tax revenues per capita, while a few states had high taxes per pack and tax revenues per capita. CONCLUSIONS: Our research demonstrates the positive impact of increased cigarette taxes on state tax revenue over three decades. Not only do higher taxes aid in tobacco control, but they also enhance state revenues that can be reinvested in state initiatives. Some states could potentially optimize their tax rates.

Treatment Referrals Post-prohibition of Alcohol Exclusion Laws: Evidence from Colorado and Illinois.

BACKGROUND: Individuals with alcohol-related disorders often encounter barriers to accessing treatment. One potential barrier is the state alcohol exclusion laws (AELs) that allow insurers to deny coverage for injuries or illnesses caused by alcohol intoxication. Several states have repealed AELs by prohibiting them completely, including banning exclusions in health and accident insurance policies, limiting their scope, or creating exemptions. OBJECTIVES: To examine whether prohibiting alcohol exclusions in health and accident insurance policies is associated with alcohol-related treatment admissions. DESIGN: We used the 2002 to 2017 Treatment Episode Data Set and obtained data from several sources to control for state-level factors. We employed a heterogeneous difference-in-differences method and an event study to compare the treatment admissions in Colorado and Illinois, two states that uniquely repealed AELs, with control states that allowed or had no AELs. MAIN MEASURES: We used aggregated alcohol treatment admission for adults by healthcare referral: (i) with alcohol as the primary substance and (ii) with alcohol as the primary, secondary, or tertiary substance. KEY RESULTS: We found a significant relationship between AEL repeal and increased referrals. AEL repeal in Colorado and Illinois was associated with higher treatment admissions from 2008 to 2011 (average treatment effect on the treated: 2008 = 653, 2009 = 1161, 2010 = 1388, and 2011 = 2020). We also found that a longer duration of exposure to AEL repeal was associated with higher treatment admissions, but this effect faded after the fourth year post-treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Our study reveals a potential positive association between the repeal and prohibition of AELs and increased alcohol-related treatment admissions. These findings suggest that states could enhance treatment opportunities for alcohol-related disorders by reconsidering their stance on AELs. While our study highlights the possible public health benefits of repealing AELs, it also paves the way for additional studies in this domain.

Health claims denial for alcohol intoxication: State laws and structural stigma.

BACKGROUND: Some alcohol exclusion laws (AELs) allow health insurers to deny coverage to individuals injured due to being intoxicated. Evidence has shown that such AELs disincentivize health-care providers to screen for alcohol while they deter treatment utilization by people with an alcohol use disorder (AUD). Certain states have changed AELs to enhance the health of people with an AUD, but these changes are not well documented in the extant literature. This study examined the current status and historical trends in AELs across US states. METHODS: We conducted a systematic legal analysis in 2023 to examine how state alcohol exclusion laws vary across the United States. These laws allow or prohibit insurers from denying coverage for injuries or deaths related to alcohol use. We classified the states into three categories: (1) States that explicitly permit alcohol exclusions, (2) States that explicitly ban alcohol exclusions, and (3) States that have no clear policy on alcohol exclusions. RESULTS: We found that 18 states still have alcohol exclusion laws, down from 37 in 2004. Meanwhile, the number of states that have explicitly banned AELs and prohibited insurers from applying alcohol exclusions (AEs) to their policies has increased from 3 to 15 in the same period. The remaining 17 states have no clear laws on AEs. We also noted that five states that repealed their AELs did not adopt any specific prohibition on AEs, and four states limited their prohibition to policies that cover hospital, medical, or surgical expenses. CONCLUSIONS: Our systematic mapping reveals that some states have prohibited AELs in response to their detrimental effects. However, some states maintain these policies, and none has effectively outlawed AEs in the last 10 years, despite their possible role in reinforcing stigma.

Loopholes for Underage Access in E-Cigarette Delivery Sales Laws, United States, 2022.

Objectives. To comprehensively catalog and review state e-cigarette delivery sales laws as well as capture their scope and dimensions. Methods. We conducted an in-depth review to determine whether states had at least 1 form of e-cigarette delivery sales law. We coded laws for 5 key policy domains: (1) delivery terminology used in laws, (2) age verification requirements, (3) packaging label requirements, (4) permit or registration requirements, and (5) fines and penalties for violations. Results. Overall, 34 states had e-cigarette delivery sales laws with varying scopes and dimensions. In 27 states, these laws required at least 1 form of age verification requirements. We identified mandatory packaging labels in 12 states, and 7 states where permits were required. There were considerable differences among states on the scale of fines and penalties for violations. Conclusions. Our findings reveal extensive heterogeneity in e-cigarette delivery sales laws among states, particularly regarding the scope and dimensions of these laws. Public Health Implications. The mapping of e-cigarette delivery sales policies showed several potential loopholes that may diminish their effectiveness. (Am J Public Health. 2023;113(5):568-576. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2023.307228).

Sexual Minority Youth E-Cigarette Use.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: There is consistent evidence that sexual minority youth (SMY) use more traditional cigarettes than their non-SMY counterparts. However, there is relatively less information on e-cigarettes and, importantly, differences between and within SMY populations by race and ethnicity and sex. This study examines e-cigarette use by sexual orientation status and the intersection of race and ethnicity and sex. METHODS: Data come from high school students in the 2020 and 2021 National Youth Tobacco Surveys (N = 16 633). Current e-cigarette use prevalence by sexual identity categories was calculated for racial and ethnic subgroups. Multivariable logistic regression analysis examined the association between sexual identity and e-cigarette use by race and ethnicity groups and sex. RESULTS: E-cigarette use prevalence was higher for most SMY racial and ethnic groups than their non-SMY counterparts. However, multivariable logistic analysis showed varied results by race and ethnic groups, with higher e-cigarette use odds for SMY populations, although not statistically significant for some race and ethnic groups. Black gay or lesbian (adjusted odds ratio: 3.86, 95% confidence interval, 1.61-9.24) and bisexual (adjusted odds ratio: 3.31, 95% confidence interval, 1.32-8.30) high school students had significantly higher e-cigarette use odds than Black heterosexuals. Non-Hispanic Black females e-cigarettes use odds are 0.45 times that of non-Hispanic white males, and non-Hispanic other gay or lesbian had 3.15 times higher e-cigarette use odds than non-Hispanic white heterosexuals. CONCLUSIONS: E-cigarette use is more prevalent among SMY populations. Disparities in e-cigarette use vary depending on race and ethnicity and sex.

Is socioeconomic status related to youth e-cigarette use? Examining family affluence and sexual identity.

There is limited evidence about the relationship between socioeconomic status (SES) and youth electronic cigarette use, particularly among sexual minorities. This study investigates whether family affluence is significantly associated with e-cigarette use among youth, including sexual minority youth. Data came from the 2021 National Youth Tobacco Survey (N = 10,515). The prevalence of e-cigarette use for all participants and sexual minority youth (N = 1376) by SES was calculated and ranked according to the Family Affluence Scale. A propensity score weighting method was used to address the imbalance in characteristics among SES groups. The associations of SES with current e-cigarette use and current flavored e-cigarette use were estimated using univariate survey logistic regression for all participants and self-identified sexual minority students. The prevalence of e-cigarette use was similar among socioeconomic groups for all participants and sexual minorities. The propensity score weighting analysis showed no significant association between SES and current e-cigarette use for all participants and sexual minority students. Equally, there was no significant association between SES and current flavored e-cigarette use. Findings suggest that other protective and risk factors might explain youth e-cigarette use more than SES (family affluence scale).

E-cigarette preemption laws: Limiting local communities from protecting youth.

E-cigarette use is prevalent among youth in the United States. Historically, local communities have been a catalyst for adopting evidence-based tobacco control policies. However, some states have ceiling preemption laws that prevent more stringent statutes from being enacted at the city or county level and inhibit tobacco control efforts. The current study documents state preemption laws regarding e-cigarette advertising, licensure, indoor clean air, and youth access. We conducted a systematic synthesis of state statutes to identify states with e-cigarette preemption laws. Data were collected on four policy categories being preempted: advertising, licensure, clean indoor air, and youth access. Laws were compiled, and the content was verified using the Westlaw legal database. In the US, 25 states preempt stricter local e-cigarette regulations in 55 laws. Of these states, 19 preempt advertising regulations, 11 preempt licensure requirements, four preempt ordinances for indoor clean air, and 21 preempt youth access. A broad range of terms was employed to describe preemption, yet few states explicitly used the term "preempt." E-cigarette ceiling preemption laws inhibit public health progress and prevent local authorities from addressing the popularity of e-cigarettes among adolescents.States without preemption laws should be encouraged to adopt language that expressly saves local authority.

A double disparity: Rural sexual minorities and tobacco use among U.S. adults.

BACKGROUND: Marginalized groups continue to face an uneven distribution of the risks and consequences of smoking cigarettes, with rural/urban geography and sexual orientation status examined independently. However, little is known about the intersection of rural/urban geography and sexual orientation regarding tobacco use disparities. This study examined rural-urban sexual minority differences in tobacco use in the United States. METHODS: Data came from the 2018-2020 Behavioral Risk Factor Survey System (N = 675,221). We estimated cigarette smoking prevalence for each year of survey data by rural/urban status and sexual orientation. Multivariable logistic regressions were used to assess associations of rural/urban location and sexual orientation status with cigarette use. Additional Multivariable logistic regressions were conducted, including stratified analyses by sex on multiple sexual orientation categories. FINDINGS: Cigarette smoking was higher among participants who lived in rural areas and identified as lesbian or gay and bisexual. Furthermore, the disparities in smoking rates were significantly different, with 38 % higher odds of smoking among rural sexual minorities than urban sexual minorities (aOR = 1.38, 95 % CI = 1.19, 1.60). Stronger odds of cigarette smoking were found among rural gays or lesbians (aOR = 1.83, 95 % CI = 1.47, 2.28) and rural bisexuals (aOR = 2.40, 95 % CI = 2.03, 2.84) compared to urban straight counterparts. CONCLUSION: Findings highlight rural populations, particularly sexual minorities, might have an elevated risk of cigarette use. Prevention and cessation efforts that help these especially disadvantaged groups will be beneficial in addressing tobacco use disparities.

Does state repeal of alcohol exclusion laws increase problem drinking?

BACKGROUND: For decades, alcohol exclusion laws (AELs) have allowed insurance companies to reject claims for physical injuries caused by alcohol consumption, including injuries from impaired driving. A central premise of AELs is that they function as a deterrent to risk-taking behaviors, such as excessive drinking. If this assumption is correct, state repeal of these laws should result in increased drinking. This study examines whether the repeal of AELs by some states affects drinking behaviors. METHODS: Data were obtained from the 1993 to 2017 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System nationwide survey. Exploiting the natural experiment presented by state repeal of AELs, we assessed the impact on current drinking and binge drinking. We used a rigorous quasi-experimental difference-in-differences analysis and conducted a battery of sensitivity analyses to assure robust findings. RESULTS: Overall, the study found no discernable impact of state repeal of AELs on alcohol consumption. While the repeal of AELs significantly decreased the odds of reporting drinking in the past 30 days compared to those living in states with AELs or that never had AELs, the effects were small (aOR = 0.98, 95% CI = 0.96, 0.99). Likewise, there were higher odds of binge drinking among individuals living in states that repealed AELs compared to those living in states without AELs, yet with small effects (aOR = 1.03, 95% CI = 1.01, 1.05). After additionally adjusting for state-varying characteristics and state-specific time trends, no significant effects were identified regarding current and binge drinking. Findings from the sensitivity analyses were largely consistent with the main analysis. CONCLUSION: This study found no evidence supporting the idea that repealing AELs increased alcohol consumption or binge drinking. Future studies should consider other state-specific dimensions within the Uniform Accident and Sickness Policy Provision Law.

Mental health condition indicators and e-cigarette use among sexual minority youth.

BACKGROUND: Sexual minorities face mental health disparities compared to heterosexual people. There is limited research on the possible connections between mental health and e-cigarette use among sexual minority youth. This study examines anxiety, depression, and e-cigarette use for sexual minority youth only and between sexual minorities versus straight youth. METHODS: Study data were drawn from the 2021 National Youth Tobacco Survey (n = 16,065). Prevalence of self-reported anxiety and depression by sexual minority status was calculated, and the univariate analysis was assessed using Rao-Scott Chi-Square tests. Multivariable logistic regression models were used to evaluate the association of current e-cigarette use with self-reported anxiety and depression among sexual minority youth. The study also examined current e-cigarette use between sexual minorities versus straight students for those with or without anxiety and depression, and stratified analyses were performed by sex. RESULTS: Analysis showed a substantially higher prevalence of all self-reported mental health problems among sexual minorities than straight students. Sexual minority males with anxiety (aOR 1.91, 95 % CI, 1.22-3.00), depression (aOR 2.08, 95 % CI, 1.27-3.40), moderate depression and anxiety (aOR 1.85, 95 % CI, 1.16-2.97), and severe depression and anxiety (aOR 2.03, 95 % CI, 1.16-3.56) were more likely to be current e-cigarette users than their straight peers with similar mental health conditions. LIMITATIONS: Self-reported measures and the analysis design precludes making causal inferences. CONCLUSIONS: Sexual minority males with mental health conditions may be particularly vulnerable to e-cigarette use and may require special efforts toward prevention and cessation.