Dataset Information

Is Every Smoker Interested in Price Promotions? An Evaluation of Price-Related Discounts by Cigarette Brands.

ABSTRACT: Raising unit price is one of the most effective ways of reducing cigarette consumption. A large proportion of US adult smokers use generic brands or price discounts in response to higher prices, which may mitigate the public health impacts of raising unit price.The main purpose of this study was to evaluate the retail price impact and the determinants of price-related discount use among US adult smokers by their most commonly used cigarette brand types.Data from the 2009-2010 National Adult Tobacco Survey, a telephone survey of US adults 18 years or older, was used to assess price-related discount use by cigarette brands. Price-related discounts included coupons, rebates, buy 1 get 1 free, 2 for 1, or any other special promotions. Multivariate logistic regression was used to assess sociodemographic and tobacco use determinants of discount use by cigarette brands.Discount use was most common among premium brand users (22.1%), followed by generic (13.3%) and other brand (10.8%) users. Among premium brand users, those who smoked 10 to 20 cigarettes per day were more likely to use discounts, whereas elderly smokers, non-Hispanic blacks, those with greater annual household income, dual users of cigarettes and other combustible tobacco products, and those who had no quit intentions were less likely to do so. Among generic brand users, those who had no quit intentions and those who smoked first cigarette within 60 minutes after waking were more likely to use discounts.Frequent use of discounts varies between smokers of premium and generic cigarette brands. Setting a high minimum price, together with limiting the use of coupons and promotions, may uphold the effect of cigarette excise taxes to reduce smoking prevalence.

SUBMITTER: Xu X

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5094355 | biostudies-literature | 2016 Jan-Feb

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Is Every Smoker Interested in Price Promotions? An Evaluation of Price-Related Discounts by Cigarette Brands.

Xu Xin X Wang Xu X Caraballo Ralph S RS

Journal of public health management and practice : JPHMP 20160101 1

<h4>Context</h4>Raising unit price is one of the most effective ways of reducing cigarette consumption. A large proportion of US adult smokers use generic brands or price discounts in response to higher prices, which may mitigate the public health impacts of raising unit price.<h4>Objective</h4>The main purpose of this study was to evaluate the retail price impact and the determinants of price-related discount use among US adult smokers by their most commonly used cigarette brand types.<h4>Metho ...[more]

PMID: 26598952

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundThe AMNOG regulation, introduced in 2011 in Germany, changed the game for new drugs. Now, the industry is required to submit a dossier to the GBA (the central decision body in the German sickness fund system) to show additional benefit. After granting the magnitude of the additional benefit by the GBA, the manufacturer is entitled to negotiate the reimbursement price with the GKV-SV (National Association of Statutory Health Insurance Funds). The reimbursement price is defined as a discount on the drug price at launch. As the price or discount negotiations between the manufacturers and the GKV-SV takes place behind closed doors, the factors influencing the results of the negotiation are not known.ObjectivesThe aim of this evaluation is to identify factors influencing the results of the AMNOG price negotiation process.MethodsThe analysis was based on a dataset containing detailed information on all assessments until the end of 2015. A descriptive analysis was followed by an econometric analysis of various potential factors (benefit rating, size of target population, deviating from appropriate comparative therapy and incorporation of HRQoL-data).ResultsUntil December 2015, manufacturers and the GKV-SV finalized 96 negotiations in 193 therapeutic areas, based on assessment conducted by the GBA. The GBA has granted an additional benefit to 100/193 drug innovations. Negotiated discount was significantly higher for those drugs without additional benefit (p = 0.030) and non-orphan drugs (p = 0.015). Smaller population size, no deviation from recommended appropriate comparative therapy and the incorporation of HRQoL-data were associated with a lower discount on the price at launch. However, neither a uni- nor the multivariate linear regression showed enough power to predict the final discount.ConclusionsAlthough the AMNOG regulation implemented binding and strict rules for the benefit assessment itself, the outcome of the discount negotiations are still unpredictable. Obviously, negotiation tactics, the current political situation and soft factors seem to play a more influential role for the outcome of the negotiations than the five hard and known factors analyzed in this study. Further research is needed to evaluate additional factors.

Project description:IntroductionThe sale of tobacco products within American pharmacies has generated controversy for several decades, leading two U.S. states and 45 municipalities to adopt tobacco-free pharmacy policies. While previous research has reported cheaper cigarette prices in pharmacies, compared to other retailers, little is known about cigarette promotions in pharmacies, which are associated with increased youth smoking and unplanned cigarette purchases among adults.Aims and methodsBetween May and August 2015, trained data collectors conducted store audits at 2128 tobacco retailers located within 97 U.S. counties in 40 states. Observations were made for three types of cigarette promotions: special price (e.g., $0.30 off/pack), multi-pack promotions (e.g., buy one pack, get one free), and cross-product promotions (e.g., buy a pack of cigarettes and a get free can of snus). We calculated weighted estimates of the proportion of pharmacies and other retailer types with cigarette promotions and used weighted multivariable logistic regression to compare cigarette promotions by tobacco retailer type, accounting for clustering at the county level and controlling for county-level demographic characteristics.ResultsCigarette promotions were observed in 94.0% of pharmacies, more than any other retailer type (e.g., convenience stores: 82.0%, tobacco stores: 77.0%). All retailer types had lower odds of promotions for Marlboro, Newport, Camel, menthol, or any interior cigarette promotion, compared to pharmacies.ConclusionsNearly all pharmacies offered in-store cigarette promotions and pharmacies had greater odds of offering cigarette promotions than all other retailer types. Whether voluntarily or legislatively, tobacco-free pharmacies would eliminate a prevalent retail source of cigarette promotions.ImplicationsThis is the first known national study to examine prevalence of cigarette promotions in U.S. pharmacies compared to other retailer types. Nearly all pharmacies offered in-store cigarette promotions and pharmacies had greater odds of offering cigarette promotions than all other retailer types. These findings underscore the inherent contradiction of pharmacies serving both as an important component of the health care system, but also as purveyors and promotors of addictive and lethal tobacco products. Whether voluntarily or legislatively, tobacco-free pharmacy policies would eliminate a prevalent retail source of cigarette promotions.

Project description:IntroductionInnovations in tobacco control interventions are required to ensure continued reductions in global tobacco use, and to minimise attributable morbidity and mortality. We therefore aimed to investigate the perceived effectiveness of current cigarette packaging warnings and the potential effectiveness of cigarette-stick warnings across four countries.MethodsAn online survey was distributed to adult smokers in Australia, Canada, the United Kingdom, and the United States. Participants rated (using a 5-point Likert scale) and commented on the effectiveness of current cigarette packaging warnings and text warnings on eight cigarette sticks that prompted smokers to quit. Ratings were analysed using proportional odds logistic regression, and comments were analysed using content analysis.ResultsParticipants (N=678, mean age=44.3 years) from all four countries perceived cigarette packaging warnings as being minimally effective in prompting smokers to quit, citing desensitisation and irrelevance of the warnings, with US participants particularly critical of the text-only warnings. Compared to packaging warnings, the cigarette-stick warnings describing the financial costs of smoking and the effect of smoking on others, were the highest rated in all four countries (OR=3.42, 95% CI: 2.75-4.25, p<0.001 and OR=2.85, 95% CI: 2.29-3.55, p<0.001, respectively) and cited as strong messages to reduce smoking. Half of the participants either 'agreed' or 'strongly agreed' to the use of cigarette-stick warnings.ConclusionsThe findings of this study suggest that cigarette packaging warnings may experience a loss of effectiveness over time, eventually resulting in minimal impact on smoker behaviour. Health and non-health focused warnings and messages on individual cigarette sticks represent a novel and potentially effective method for reducing tobacco use. This would complement tobacco control interventions currently employed, resulting in public health benefits.

Dataset Information

Is Every Smoker Interested in Price Promotions? An Evaluation of Price-Related Discounts by Cigarette Brands.

Publications

Is Every Smoker Interested in Price Promotions? An Evaluation of Price-Related Discounts by Cigarette Brands.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets