Standardised packaging, minimum excise tax, and RYO focussed tax rise implications for UK tobacco pricing
Standardised packaging for factory made (FM) and roll your own (RYO) tobacco was fully implemented in the UK in May 2017. Around the same time, several changes to the tax system were applied (a Minimum Excise Tax (MET) for FM products and tax increases weighted towards RYO products). The tobacco ind...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | PloS one 2020-02, Vol.15 (2), p.e0228069-e0228069 |
|---|---|
| Hauptverfasser: | , , , |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | e0228069 |
|---|---|
| container_issue | 2 |
| container_start_page | e0228069 |
| container_title | PloS one |
| container_volume | 15 |
| creator | Hiscock, Rosemary Augustin, Nicole H Branston, J Robert Gilmore, Anna B |
| description | Standardised packaging for factory made (FM) and roll your own (RYO) tobacco was fully implemented in the UK in May 2017. Around the same time, several changes to the tax system were applied (a Minimum Excise Tax (MET) for FM products and tax increases weighted towards RYO products). The tobacco industry claims that standardised packaging will lower prices (a disincentive for quitting) by commoditising the product, yet had itself taken advantage of the previous tax regime to achieve large profits from premium brands while also keeping some products' prices relatively low. Here we evaluate the impact of standardised packaging, the MET and the RYO focussed tax changes on price and industry profitability.
Nielsen electronic point of sale (EPOS) data (May 2015 to April 2018) were used to calculate real (inflation adjusted) monthly price per stick overall, by cigarette type (FM and RYO) and by seven market segments. Trend estimation, using additive mixed models, assessed weighted average price (weighted by volume of sales) and tobacco industry net revenue changes. The beginning and end of the data series were compared in terms of: (a) average monthly price growth, (b) average monthly net revenue growth, and (c) undershifting and overshifting patterns after tax changes. FM and RYO real prices changed little over the 3-year period-overall prices rose by about 1p per stick. There was no evidence of commoditisation with prices of all FM segments (but not RYO) rising faster after the implementation of standardised packaging than immediately beforehand. The prices of the cheapest FM brands rose with the implementation of the MET. RYO price increases did not close the gap to FM pricing levels despite RYO focussed tax increases. Tax changes following the implementation of standardised packaging and the MET were more widely and quickly passed on to smokers in the form of higher prices than the tax change pre-implementation. The main limitations are first that because we do not know the exact mechanism by which Nielsen scales up sample data to provide UK estimates, we could only use data for a set three year period during which the same adjustments are made. Second, the tax and standardised packaging events were sometimes too close in time to separate their consequences statistically. Third, tobacco prices may also be affected by external factors such as changes in smokers' disposable income or availability of electronic nicotine delivery systems.
There was no long-term |
| doi_str_mv | 10.1371/journal.pone.0228069 |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_plos_</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_plos_journals_2354741747</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><doaj_id>oai_doaj_org_article_ad6977b947a54b128af6db3ecbb8bb7d</doaj_id><sourcerecordid>2355937483</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c526t-d0c88b07a7e20c9207871e71d4dcf96d73d2070fa2e59e2966b9c50daa04576f3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNptkktv1DAUhSMEog_4BwgssemiM_gVO94goYpHRaVKQBesrOtHBg9JHOwElX-Pp5NWLWJl657vHt9rnap6QfCaMEnebOOcBujWYxz8GlPaYKEeVYdEMboSFLPH9-4H1VHOW4xr1gjxtDpgtFwFZodV-DrB4CC5kL1DI9ifsAnD5hT1YQj93CN_bYuEJrg-RYVEX75fojbaOe_4UkVpJ4d-7IKFKcQhFzmhq89oigasjWhMwRbLZ9WTFrrsny_ncXX14f23s0-ri8uP52fvLla2pmJaOWybxmAJ0lNsFcWykcRL4rizrRJOMldquAXqa-WpEsIoW2MHgHktRcuOq1d737GLWS-_lDVlNZecSC4Lcb4nXIStLuP1kP7oCEHfFGLaaEhTsJ3X4ISS0iguoeaG0AZa4Qzz1pjGGOmK19vltdn03lk_TAm6B6YPlSH80Jv4W0tMpFJNMThZDFL8Nfs86T5k67sOBh_nm7lrxSRvWEFf_4P-fzu-p2yKOSff3g1DsN4l57ZL75Kjl-SUtpf3F7lruo0K-wsyucLJ</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Website</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2354741747</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Standardised packaging, minimum excise tax, and RYO focussed tax rise implications for UK tobacco pricing</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals</source><source>PAIS Index</source><source>Public Library of Science (PLoS) Journals Open Access</source><source>EZB-FREE-00999 freely available EZB journals</source><source>PubMed Central</source><source>Free Full-Text Journals in Chemistry</source><creator>Hiscock, Rosemary ; Augustin, Nicole H ; Branston, J Robert ; Gilmore, Anna B</creator><contributor>McCollister, Kathryn E.</contributor><creatorcontrib>Hiscock, Rosemary ; Augustin, Nicole H ; Branston, J Robert ; Gilmore, Anna B ; McCollister, Kathryn E.</creatorcontrib><description>Standardised packaging for factory made (FM) and roll your own (RYO) tobacco was fully implemented in the UK in May 2017. Around the same time, several changes to the tax system were applied (a Minimum Excise Tax (MET) for FM products and tax increases weighted towards RYO products). The tobacco industry claims that standardised packaging will lower prices (a disincentive for quitting) by commoditising the product, yet had itself taken advantage of the previous tax regime to achieve large profits from premium brands while also keeping some products' prices relatively low. Here we evaluate the impact of standardised packaging, the MET and the RYO focussed tax changes on price and industry profitability.
Nielsen electronic point of sale (EPOS) data (May 2015 to April 2018) were used to calculate real (inflation adjusted) monthly price per stick overall, by cigarette type (FM and RYO) and by seven market segments. Trend estimation, using additive mixed models, assessed weighted average price (weighted by volume of sales) and tobacco industry net revenue changes. The beginning and end of the data series were compared in terms of: (a) average monthly price growth, (b) average monthly net revenue growth, and (c) undershifting and overshifting patterns after tax changes. FM and RYO real prices changed little over the 3-year period-overall prices rose by about 1p per stick. There was no evidence of commoditisation with prices of all FM segments (but not RYO) rising faster after the implementation of standardised packaging than immediately beforehand. The prices of the cheapest FM brands rose with the implementation of the MET. RYO price increases did not close the gap to FM pricing levels despite RYO focussed tax increases. Tax changes following the implementation of standardised packaging and the MET were more widely and quickly passed on to smokers in the form of higher prices than the tax change pre-implementation. The main limitations are first that because we do not know the exact mechanism by which Nielsen scales up sample data to provide UK estimates, we could only use data for a set three year period during which the same adjustments are made. Second, the tax and standardised packaging events were sometimes too close in time to separate their consequences statistically. Third, tobacco prices may also be affected by external factors such as changes in smokers' disposable income or availability of electronic nicotine delivery systems.
There was no long-term lowering of tobacco prices after the implementation of standardised packaging as predicted by the industry. The introduction of the MET was successful in increasing the price of the cheapest FM cigarettes and narrowing the price gap between FM brands. The RYO tax increases were, however, insufficient to narrow the price gap between RYO and FM. Overall, undershifting became less extensive indicating that tobacco industry manipulation of the tax system which had previously kept cheap products available had declined. This suggests that standardised packaging and a MET will likely contribute to further declines in UK tobacco use.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1932-6203</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1932-6203</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0228069</identifier><identifier>PMID: 32053603</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>United States: Public Library of Science</publisher><subject>Biology and Life Sciences ; Changes ; Cigarettes ; Confidence intervals ; Data ; Economics ; Excise taxes ; Implementation ; Inflation ; Legislation ; Manipulation ; Market segments ; Medicine and Health Sciences ; Multivariate Analysis ; Nicotiana ; Nicotine ; Packaging ; People and Places ; Point of sale systems ; Price increases ; Prices ; Pricing ; Product Packaging - economics ; Profitability ; Profits ; Reference Standards ; Revenue ; Segments ; Smoking ; Social Sciences ; Tax increases ; Tax rates ; Taxation ; Taxes - statistics & numerical data ; Tobacco ; Tobacco industry ; Tobacco Industry - economics ; Trends ; United Kingdom ; VAT</subject><ispartof>PloS one, 2020-02, Vol.15 (2), p.e0228069-e0228069</ispartof><rights>2020 Hiscock et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (the “License”), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.</rights><rights>2020 Hiscock et al 2020 Hiscock et al</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c526t-d0c88b07a7e20c9207871e71d4dcf96d73d2070fa2e59e2966b9c50daa04576f3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c526t-d0c88b07a7e20c9207871e71d4dcf96d73d2070fa2e59e2966b9c50daa04576f3</cites><orcidid>0000-0001-9741-9083 ; 0000-0002-2332-2403 ; 0000-0001-6644-3742</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7017998/pdf/$$EPDF$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$Hfree_for_read</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7017998/$$EHTML$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$Hfree_for_read</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>230,314,727,780,784,864,885,2102,2928,23866,27866,27924,27925,53791,53793</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32053603$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><contributor>McCollister, Kathryn E.</contributor><creatorcontrib>Hiscock, Rosemary</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Augustin, Nicole H</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Branston, J Robert</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Gilmore, Anna B</creatorcontrib><title>Standardised packaging, minimum excise tax, and RYO focussed tax rise implications for UK tobacco pricing</title><title>PloS one</title><addtitle>PLoS One</addtitle><description>Standardised packaging for factory made (FM) and roll your own (RYO) tobacco was fully implemented in the UK in May 2017. Around the same time, several changes to the tax system were applied (a Minimum Excise Tax (MET) for FM products and tax increases weighted towards RYO products). The tobacco industry claims that standardised packaging will lower prices (a disincentive for quitting) by commoditising the product, yet had itself taken advantage of the previous tax regime to achieve large profits from premium brands while also keeping some products' prices relatively low. Here we evaluate the impact of standardised packaging, the MET and the RYO focussed tax changes on price and industry profitability.
Nielsen electronic point of sale (EPOS) data (May 2015 to April 2018) were used to calculate real (inflation adjusted) monthly price per stick overall, by cigarette type (FM and RYO) and by seven market segments. Trend estimation, using additive mixed models, assessed weighted average price (weighted by volume of sales) and tobacco industry net revenue changes. The beginning and end of the data series were compared in terms of: (a) average monthly price growth, (b) average monthly net revenue growth, and (c) undershifting and overshifting patterns after tax changes. FM and RYO real prices changed little over the 3-year period-overall prices rose by about 1p per stick. There was no evidence of commoditisation with prices of all FM segments (but not RYO) rising faster after the implementation of standardised packaging than immediately beforehand. The prices of the cheapest FM brands rose with the implementation of the MET. RYO price increases did not close the gap to FM pricing levels despite RYO focussed tax increases. Tax changes following the implementation of standardised packaging and the MET were more widely and quickly passed on to smokers in the form of higher prices than the tax change pre-implementation. The main limitations are first that because we do not know the exact mechanism by which Nielsen scales up sample data to provide UK estimates, we could only use data for a set three year period during which the same adjustments are made. Second, the tax and standardised packaging events were sometimes too close in time to separate their consequences statistically. Third, tobacco prices may also be affected by external factors such as changes in smokers' disposable income or availability of electronic nicotine delivery systems.
There was no long-term lowering of tobacco prices after the implementation of standardised packaging as predicted by the industry. The introduction of the MET was successful in increasing the price of the cheapest FM cigarettes and narrowing the price gap between FM brands. The RYO tax increases were, however, insufficient to narrow the price gap between RYO and FM. Overall, undershifting became less extensive indicating that tobacco industry manipulation of the tax system which had previously kept cheap products available had declined. This suggests that standardised packaging and a MET will likely contribute to further declines in UK tobacco use.</description><subject>Biology and Life Sciences</subject><subject>Changes</subject><subject>Cigarettes</subject><subject>Confidence intervals</subject><subject>Data</subject><subject>Economics</subject><subject>Excise taxes</subject><subject>Implementation</subject><subject>Inflation</subject><subject>Legislation</subject><subject>Manipulation</subject><subject>Market segments</subject><subject>Medicine and Health Sciences</subject><subject>Multivariate Analysis</subject><subject>Nicotiana</subject><subject>Nicotine</subject><subject>Packaging</subject><subject>People and Places</subject><subject>Point of sale systems</subject><subject>Price increases</subject><subject>Prices</subject><subject>Pricing</subject><subject>Product Packaging - economics</subject><subject>Profitability</subject><subject>Profits</subject><subject>Reference Standards</subject><subject>Revenue</subject><subject>Segments</subject><subject>Smoking</subject><subject>Social Sciences</subject><subject>Tax increases</subject><subject>Tax rates</subject><subject>Taxation</subject><subject>Taxes - statistics & numerical data</subject><subject>Tobacco</subject><subject>Tobacco industry</subject><subject>Tobacco Industry - economics</subject><subject>Trends</subject><subject>United Kingdom</subject><subject>VAT</subject><issn>1932-6203</issn><issn>1932-6203</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2020</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><sourceid>7TQ</sourceid><sourceid>ABUWG</sourceid><sourceid>AFKRA</sourceid><sourceid>AZQEC</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>CCPQU</sourceid><sourceid>DWQXO</sourceid><sourceid>GNUQQ</sourceid><sourceid>DOA</sourceid><recordid>eNptkktv1DAUhSMEog_4BwgssemiM_gVO94goYpHRaVKQBesrOtHBg9JHOwElX-Pp5NWLWJl657vHt9rnap6QfCaMEnebOOcBujWYxz8GlPaYKEeVYdEMboSFLPH9-4H1VHOW4xr1gjxtDpgtFwFZodV-DrB4CC5kL1DI9ifsAnD5hT1YQj93CN_bYuEJrg-RYVEX75fojbaOe_4UkVpJ4d-7IKFKcQhFzmhq89oigasjWhMwRbLZ9WTFrrsny_ncXX14f23s0-ri8uP52fvLla2pmJaOWybxmAJ0lNsFcWykcRL4rizrRJOMldquAXqa-WpEsIoW2MHgHktRcuOq1d737GLWS-_lDVlNZecSC4Lcb4nXIStLuP1kP7oCEHfFGLaaEhTsJ3X4ISS0iguoeaG0AZa4Qzz1pjGGOmK19vltdn03lk_TAm6B6YPlSH80Jv4W0tMpFJNMThZDFL8Nfs86T5k67sOBh_nm7lrxSRvWEFf_4P-fzu-p2yKOSff3g1DsN4l57ZL75Kjl-SUtpf3F7lruo0K-wsyucLJ</recordid><startdate>20200213</startdate><enddate>20200213</enddate><creator>Hiscock, Rosemary</creator><creator>Augustin, Nicole H</creator><creator>Branston, J Robert</creator><creator>Gilmore, Anna B</creator><general>Public Library of Science</general><general>Public Library of Science (PLoS)</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7QG</scope><scope>7QL</scope><scope>7QO</scope><scope>7RV</scope><scope>7SN</scope><scope>7SS</scope><scope>7T5</scope><scope>7TG</scope><scope>7TM</scope><scope>7TQ</scope><scope>7U9</scope><scope>7X2</scope><scope>7X5</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88E</scope><scope>8AO</scope><scope>8C1</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>8FE</scope><scope>8FG</scope><scope>8FH</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>ABJCF</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>ARAPS</scope><scope>ATCPS</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BBNVY</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BEZIV</scope><scope>BGLVJ</scope><scope>BHPHI</scope><scope>C1K</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>D1I</scope><scope>DHY</scope><scope>DON</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FR3</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>H94</scope><scope>HCIFZ</scope><scope>K6~</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>KB.</scope><scope>KB0</scope><scope>KL.</scope><scope>L6V</scope><scope>LK8</scope><scope>M0K</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M1P</scope><scope>M7N</scope><scope>M7P</scope><scope>M7S</scope><scope>NAPCQ</scope><scope>P5Z</scope><scope>P62</scope><scope>P64</scope><scope>PATMY</scope><scope>PDBOC</scope><scope>PIMPY</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>PTHSS</scope><scope>PYCSY</scope><scope>RC3</scope><scope>7X8</scope><scope>5PM</scope><scope>DOA</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9741-9083</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2332-2403</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6644-3742</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>20200213</creationdate><title>Standardised packaging, minimum excise tax, and RYO focussed tax rise implications for UK tobacco pricing</title><author>Hiscock, Rosemary ; Augustin, Nicole H ; Branston, J Robert ; Gilmore, Anna B</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c526t-d0c88b07a7e20c9207871e71d4dcf96d73d2070fa2e59e2966b9c50daa04576f3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2020</creationdate><topic>Biology and Life Sciences</topic><topic>Changes</topic><topic>Cigarettes</topic><topic>Confidence intervals</topic><topic>Data</topic><topic>Economics</topic><topic>Excise taxes</topic><topic>Implementation</topic><topic>Inflation</topic><topic>Legislation</topic><topic>Manipulation</topic><topic>Market segments</topic><topic>Medicine and Health Sciences</topic><topic>Multivariate Analysis</topic><topic>Nicotiana</topic><topic>Nicotine</topic><topic>Packaging</topic><topic>People and Places</topic><topic>Point of sale systems</topic><topic>Price increases</topic><topic>Prices</topic><topic>Pricing</topic><topic>Product Packaging - economics</topic><topic>Profitability</topic><topic>Profits</topic><topic>Reference Standards</topic><topic>Revenue</topic><topic>Segments</topic><topic>Smoking</topic><topic>Social Sciences</topic><topic>Tax increases</topic><topic>Tax rates</topic><topic>Taxation</topic><topic>Taxes - statistics & numerical data</topic><topic>Tobacco</topic><topic>Tobacco industry</topic><topic>Tobacco Industry - economics</topic><topic>Trends</topic><topic>United Kingdom</topic><topic>VAT</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Hiscock, Rosemary</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Augustin, Nicole H</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Branston, J Robert</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Gilmore, Anna B</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Animal Behavior Abstracts</collection><collection>Bacteriology Abstracts (Microbiology B)</collection><collection>Biotechnology Research Abstracts</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Database</collection><collection>Ecology Abstracts</collection><collection>Entomology Abstracts (Full archive)</collection><collection>Immunology Abstracts</collection><collection>Meteorological & Geoastrophysical Abstracts</collection><collection>Nucleic Acids Abstracts</collection><collection>PAIS Index</collection><collection>Virology and AIDS Abstracts</collection><collection>Agricultural Science Collection</collection><collection>Entrepreneurship Database</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Medical Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Pharma Collection</collection><collection>Public Health Database</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>ProQuest SciTech Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Technology Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Materials Science & Engineering Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>Advanced Technologies & Aerospace Collection</collection><collection>Agricultural & Environmental Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Business Premium Collection</collection><collection>Technology Collection</collection><collection>Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Materials Science Collection</collection><collection>PAIS International</collection><collection>PAIS International (Ovid)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>Engineering Research Database</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>AIDS and Cancer Research Abstracts</collection><collection>SciTech Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Business Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Materials Science Database</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Meteorological & Geoastrophysical Abstracts - Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest Engineering Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>Agricultural Science Database</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Medical Database</collection><collection>Algology Mycology and Protozoology Abstracts (Microbiology C)</collection><collection>Biological Science Database</collection><collection>Engineering Database</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Premium</collection><collection>Advanced Technologies & Aerospace Database</collection><collection>ProQuest Advanced Technologies & Aerospace Collection</collection><collection>Biotechnology and BioEngineering Abstracts</collection><collection>Environmental Science Database</collection><collection>Materials Science Collection</collection><collection>Publicly Available Content Database</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><collection>Engineering Collection</collection><collection>Environmental Science Collection</collection><collection>Genetics Abstracts</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><collection>PubMed Central (Full Participant titles)</collection><collection>DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals</collection><jtitle>PloS one</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Hiscock, Rosemary</au><au>Augustin, Nicole H</au><au>Branston, J Robert</au><au>Gilmore, Anna B</au><au>McCollister, Kathryn E.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Standardised packaging, minimum excise tax, and RYO focussed tax rise implications for UK tobacco pricing</atitle><jtitle>PloS one</jtitle><addtitle>PLoS One</addtitle><date>2020-02-13</date><risdate>2020</risdate><volume>15</volume><issue>2</issue><spage>e0228069</spage><epage>e0228069</epage><pages>e0228069-e0228069</pages><issn>1932-6203</issn><eissn>1932-6203</eissn><abstract>Standardised packaging for factory made (FM) and roll your own (RYO) tobacco was fully implemented in the UK in May 2017. Around the same time, several changes to the tax system were applied (a Minimum Excise Tax (MET) for FM products and tax increases weighted towards RYO products). The tobacco industry claims that standardised packaging will lower prices (a disincentive for quitting) by commoditising the product, yet had itself taken advantage of the previous tax regime to achieve large profits from premium brands while also keeping some products' prices relatively low. Here we evaluate the impact of standardised packaging, the MET and the RYO focussed tax changes on price and industry profitability.
Nielsen electronic point of sale (EPOS) data (May 2015 to April 2018) were used to calculate real (inflation adjusted) monthly price per stick overall, by cigarette type (FM and RYO) and by seven market segments. Trend estimation, using additive mixed models, assessed weighted average price (weighted by volume of sales) and tobacco industry net revenue changes. The beginning and end of the data series were compared in terms of: (a) average monthly price growth, (b) average monthly net revenue growth, and (c) undershifting and overshifting patterns after tax changes. FM and RYO real prices changed little over the 3-year period-overall prices rose by about 1p per stick. There was no evidence of commoditisation with prices of all FM segments (but not RYO) rising faster after the implementation of standardised packaging than immediately beforehand. The prices of the cheapest FM brands rose with the implementation of the MET. RYO price increases did not close the gap to FM pricing levels despite RYO focussed tax increases. Tax changes following the implementation of standardised packaging and the MET were more widely and quickly passed on to smokers in the form of higher prices than the tax change pre-implementation. The main limitations are first that because we do not know the exact mechanism by which Nielsen scales up sample data to provide UK estimates, we could only use data for a set three year period during which the same adjustments are made. Second, the tax and standardised packaging events were sometimes too close in time to separate their consequences statistically. Third, tobacco prices may also be affected by external factors such as changes in smokers' disposable income or availability of electronic nicotine delivery systems.
There was no long-term lowering of tobacco prices after the implementation of standardised packaging as predicted by the industry. The introduction of the MET was successful in increasing the price of the cheapest FM cigarettes and narrowing the price gap between FM brands. The RYO tax increases were, however, insufficient to narrow the price gap between RYO and FM. Overall, undershifting became less extensive indicating that tobacco industry manipulation of the tax system which had previously kept cheap products available had declined. This suggests that standardised packaging and a MET will likely contribute to further declines in UK tobacco use.</abstract><cop>United States</cop><pub>Public Library of Science</pub><pmid>32053603</pmid><doi>10.1371/journal.pone.0228069</doi><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9741-9083</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2332-2403</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6644-3742</orcidid><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 1932-6203 |
| ispartof | PloS one, 2020-02, Vol.15 (2), p.e0228069-e0228069 |
| issn | 1932-6203 1932-6203 |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_plos_journals_2354741747 |
| source | MEDLINE; DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals; PAIS Index; Public Library of Science (PLoS) Journals Open Access; EZB-FREE-00999 freely available EZB journals; PubMed Central; Free Full-Text Journals in Chemistry |
| subjects | Biology and Life Sciences Changes Cigarettes Confidence intervals Data Economics Excise taxes Implementation Inflation Legislation Manipulation Market segments Medicine and Health Sciences Multivariate Analysis Nicotiana Nicotine Packaging People and Places Point of sale systems Price increases Prices Pricing Product Packaging - economics Profitability Profits Reference Standards Revenue Segments Smoking Social Sciences Tax increases Tax rates Taxation Taxes - statistics & numerical data Tobacco Tobacco industry Tobacco Industry - economics Trends United Kingdom VAT |
| title | Standardised packaging, minimum excise tax, and RYO focussed tax rise implications for UK tobacco pricing |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-22T12%3A09%3A33IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_plos_&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Standardised%20packaging,%20minimum%20excise%20tax,%20and%20RYO%20focussed%20tax%20rise%20implications%20for%20UK%20tobacco%20pricing&rft.jtitle=PloS%20one&rft.au=Hiscock,%20Rosemary&rft.date=2020-02-13&rft.volume=15&rft.issue=2&rft.spage=e0228069&rft.epage=e0228069&rft.pages=e0228069-e0228069&rft.issn=1932-6203&rft.eissn=1932-6203&rft_id=info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0228069&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_plos_%3E2355937483%3C/proquest_plos_%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2354741747&rft_id=info:pmid/32053603&rft_doaj_id=oai_doaj_org_article_ad6977b947a54b128af6db3ecbb8bb7d&rfr_iscdi=true |