Public health · 2025
Differential impacts of cigarette tax increases on health equity in the United States.
СтатьяНаблюдательное исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Azagba Sunday, Ebling Todd, Korkmaz Alperen
Аннотация
OBJECTIVES: Our study investigates the health equity implications of higher cigarette taxes by examining the differential responses among various sociodemographic groups in the United States.
STUDY DESIGN: Repeated observational study.
METHODS: This study utilizes a nationally representative, cross-sectional dataset (n = 1,236,126) from the Tobacco Use Supplement to the Current Population Study (1992-2019). We employ a logistic regression model with two-way fixed effects analysis to examine the response of smoking participation to combined federal and state cigarette taxes, stratified by sociodemographic characteristics.
RESULTS: Our findings revealed variability in cigarette tax sensitivity across sociodemographic groups. Males, younger adults, metropolitan residents, Hispanics, individuals with higher education, higher-income individuals, and part-time employees were more responsive to tax changes than their counterparts. Those with less than a high school degree were the least responsive among education groups, and individuals with household incomes below $49,999 were the least responsive among income groups. A 10 % increase in cigarette tax reduces smoking by 2.94 % in individuals aged 18-24, 1.91 % in those aged 25-44, and 1.77 % in those aged 45-64. With year- and state-fixed effects, the responsiveness for the youngest group decreases to -0.135, with similar patterns observed in other age groups.
CONCLUSIONS: These differential responses highlight the potential of tax policy as a tool for promoting health equity. However, tax policy alone may not be sufficient to reduce smoking rates and improve health outcomes in the least responsive groups.
STUDY DESIGN: Repeated observational study.
METHODS: This study utilizes a nationally representative, cross-sectional dataset (n = 1,236,126) from the Tobacco Use Supplement to the Current Population Study (1992-2019). We employ a logistic regression model with two-way fixed effects analysis to examine the response of smoking participation to combined federal and state cigarette taxes, stratified by sociodemographic characteristics.
RESULTS: Our findings revealed variability in cigarette tax sensitivity across sociodemographic groups. Males, younger adults, metropolitan residents, Hispanics, individuals with higher education, higher-income individuals, and part-time employees were more responsive to tax changes than their counterparts. Those with less than a high school degree were the least responsive among education groups, and individuals with household incomes below $49,999 were the least responsive among income groups. A 10 % increase in cigarette tax reduces smoking by 2.94 % in individuals aged 18-24, 1.91 % in those aged 25-44, and 1.77 % in those aged 45-64. With year- and state-fixed effects, the responsiveness for the youngest group decreases to -0.135, with similar patterns observed in other age groups.
CONCLUSIONS: These differential responses highlight the potential of tax policy as a tool for promoting health equity. However, tax policy alone may not be sufficient to reduce smoking rates and improve health outcomes in the least responsive groups.