Cigarette Price Minimization Strategies in the United States: Price Reductions and Responsiveness to Excise Taxes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Because cigarette price minimization strategies can provide substantial price reductions for individuals continuing their usual smoking behaviors following federal and state cigarette excise tax increases, we examined independent price reductions compensating for overlapping strategies. The possible availability of larger independent price reduction opportunities in states with higher cigarette excise taxes is explored. METHODS: Regression analysis used the 2006-2007 Tobacco Use Supplement of the Current Population Survey (N = 26,826) to explore national and state-level independent price reductions that smokers obtained from purchasing cigarettes (a) by the carton, (b) in a state with a lower average after-tax cigarette price than in the state of residence, and (c) in "some other way," including online or in another country. Price reductions from these strategies are estimated jointly to compensate for known overlapping strategies. RESULTS: Each strategy reduced the price of cigarettes by 64-94 cents per pack. These price reductions are 9%-22% lower than conventionally estimated results not compensating for overlapping strategies. Price reductions vary substantially by state. Following cigarette excise tax increases, the price reduction available from purchasing cigarettes by cartons increased. Additionally, the price reduction from purchasing cigarettes in a state with a lower average after-tax cigarette price is positively associated with state cigarette excise tax rates and border state cigarette excise tax rate differentials. CONCLUSIONS: Findings from this large, nationally representative study of cigarette smokers suggest that price reductions are larger in states with higher cigarette excise taxes, and increase as cigarette excise taxes rise.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".