BACKGROUND: Tobacco pricing impacts use, yet military retailers sell discounted cigarettes. No systematic research has examined how military retail stores use internal community comparisons to set prices. We analysed data obtained through a Freedom of Information Act request on community price comparisons used by military retail to set cigarette prices. METHODS: Data on cigarette prices were obtained directly from military retailers (exchanges) from January 2013 to March 2014. Complete pricing data were obtained from exchanges on 114 military installations. RESULTS: The average price for a pack of Marlboro cigarettes in military exchanges was US$5.51, which was similar to the average lowest community price (US$5.45; mean difference=-0.06; p=0.104) and almost a US$1.00 lower than the average highest price (US$6.44). Military retail prices were 2.1%, 6.2% and 13.7% higher than the lowest, average and highest community comparisons, respectively, and 18.2% of exchange prices violated pricing instructions. There was a negative correlation (r=-0.21, p=0.02) between the number of community stores surveyed and exchange cigarette prices. CONCLUSIONS: There was no significant difference between prices for cigarettes on military installations and the lowest average community comparison, and in some locations, the prices violated Department of Defense (DoD) policy. US Marine Corps exchanges had the lowest prices, which is of concern given that the Marines also have the highest rates of tobacco use in the DoD. Given the relationship between tobacco product prices and demand, a common minimum (or floor) shelf price for tobacco products should be set for all exchanges and discount coupon redemptions should be prohibited. Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://www.bmj.com/company/products-services/rights-and-licensing/.
BACKGROUND:Tobacco pricing impacts use, yet military retailers sell discounted cigarettes. No systematic research has examined how military retail stores use internal community comparisons to set prices. We analysed data obtained through a Freedom of Information Act request on community price comparisons used by military retail to set cigarette prices. METHODS: Data on cigarette prices were obtained directly from military retailers (exchanges) from January 2013 to March 2014. Complete pricing data were obtained from exchanges on 114 military installations. RESULTS: The average price for a pack of Marlboro cigarettes in military exchanges was US$5.51, which was similar to the average lowest community price (US$5.45; mean difference=-0.06; p=0.104) and almost a US$1.00 lower than the average highest price (US$6.44). Military retail prices were 2.1%, 6.2% and 13.7% higher than the lowest, average and highest community comparisons, respectively, and 18.2% of exchange prices violated pricing instructions. There was a negative correlation (r=-0.21, p=0.02) between the number of community stores surveyed and exchange cigarette prices. CONCLUSIONS: There was no significant difference between prices for cigarettes on military installations and the lowest average community comparison, and in some locations, the prices violated Department of Defense (DoD) policy. US Marine Corps exchanges had the lowest prices, which is of concern given that the Marines also have the highest rates of tobacco use in the DoD. Given the relationship between tobacco product prices and demand, a common minimum (or floor) shelf price for tobacco products should be set for all exchanges and discount coupon redemptions should be prohibited. Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://www.bmj.com/company/products-services/rights-and-licensing/.
Entities:
Keywords:
Economics; Prevention; Price; Public policy
Authors: C Keith Haddock; Jennifer E Taylor; Kevin M Hoffman; Walker S C Poston; Alan Peterson; Harry A Lando; Suzanne Shelton Journal: Am J Health Promot Date: 2009 Mar-Apr
Authors: Elizabeth A Smith; Sara A Jahnke; Walker S C Poston; Larry N Williams; Christopher K Haddock; Steven A Schroeder; Ruth E Malone Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2014-07-02 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Christopher Keith Haddock; Melissa L Hyder; Walker S C Poston; Sara A Jahnke; Larry N Williams; Harry Lando Journal: Am J Public Health Date: 2014-02-13 Impact factor: 9.308
Authors: Sara A Jahnke; C Keith Haddock; Walker S C Poston; Kevin M Hoffman; Joseph Hughey; Harry A Lando Journal: Nicotine Tob Res Date: 2010-01-22 Impact factor: 4.244
Authors: Elizabeth A Smith; Sara A Jahnke; Walker S C Poston; Ruth E Malone; Christopher K Haddock Journal: Nicotine Tob Res Date: 2016-05-04 Impact factor: 4.244
Authors: Amanda Y Kong; Shelley D Golden; Allison E Myers; Melissa A Little; Robert Klesges; Wayne Talcott; Sara M Vandegrift; Daniel G Cassidy; Kurt M Ribisl Journal: Tob Control Date: 2018-04-28 Impact factor: 7.552