Price-responsiveness of Cigarette Smoking Behaviors Across Income Groups in the United States

Keeler C, Yao T, Wang Y, Max W, Sung HY.
Price-responsiveness of Cigarette Smoking Behaviors Across Income Groups in the United States
Nicotine Tob Res. 2025 Dec 23;28(1):61-69. doi: 10.1093/ntr/ntaf177. PMID: 40874571.

Introduction: To compare price-responsiveness of smoking participation and intensity across US income groups.

Methods: We pooled the 2015-2016, 2018-2019, and 2022 Tobacco Use Supplement to the Current Population Survey data (n = 337 974 aged 18+), classifying respondents into poor, low-income, middle-income, and high-income groups (<100%, 100%-199%, 200%-399%, and ≥ 400% of the federal poverty level [FPL], respectively). Using a two-part econometric model of cigarette demand, we estimated the price elasticities of smoking participation and intensity for each income group. State-level cigarette price data came from the Tax Burden on Tobacco Report. Additional covariates included sociodemographic characteristics, secular variation, state-level smoke-free air law coverage, tobacco control program funding, and unemployment rate.

Results: Price elasticity of smoking participation was significant for the poor (-0.32), low-income (-0.27), and middle-income (-0.24) groups but not for the high-income group. Price elasticity of smoking intensity was statistically significant for middle-income (-0.33) and high-income (-0.42) smokers but not for poor and low-income smokers. Total price elasticity of cigarette demand was statistically significant for all groups; total elasticity estimates were highest among the middle-income group (-0.56), followed by the low-income group (-0.48), and were lowest among the poorest (-0.40) and highest income (-0.40) groups.

Conclusions: Our results indicate that the lower-income (<200% FPL) groups were significantly more price-responsive than the high-income group in reducing smoking participation but smokers in these lower-income groups were not price-responsive in reducing smoking intensity. Policymakers might consider earmarking cigarette taxation revenues for cessation assistance to help smokers in the lower-income groups who could not quit smoking.

Implications: This study adds to the rich but inconclusive literature that compares the price-responsiveness of smoking behaviors across US income groups. Our results indicate that the lower-income (<200% FPL) groups were significantly more price-responsive than the high-income group in quitting cigarette smoking but smokers in the lower-income groups were not price-responsive in reducing smoking intensity. Policymakers might consider earmarking cigarette taxation revenues for cessation assistance to help smokers in the lower-income groups who could not quit smoking.