The Impact of New Jersey's 2020 E-Cigarette Flavor Ban on E-Cigarette, Cigarette, and Cigar Sales in NJ.

INTRODUCTION: On April 20, 2020, New Jersey (NJ) implemented a comprehensive ban on the sale of flavored e-cigarettes. This study compares sales of e-cigarettes, cigarettes, and cigars before and after the law. METHODS: Data were biweekly retailer scanner sales in NJ convenience stores for e-cigarettes, cigarettes, and cigars between August 2019 and December 2020. We used Joinpoint regression to assess sales trends for cigarettes (non-menthol, menthol), cigars (unflavored, flavored), and e-cigarettes (unflavored, fruit/sweet/concept flavor, menthol flavor) in the 36 weeks before and 36 weeks after a statewide ban on flavored e-cigarettes. RESULTS: Flavored e-cigarette sales, not including menthol, significantly decreased over the study period while menthol e-cigarette sales significantly increased until the e-cigarette flavor ban took effect, after which these sales rapidly declined through May 2020, then slowed. Unflavored e-cigarette sales declined through September 2019, then grew modestly until the flavored e-cigarette ban, after which sales significantly increased. Flavored cigar sales increased between March and May 2020, then declined; non-flavored cigar sales increased between mid-February and early July 2020, then declined. Cigarette sales were decreasing before the flavored e-cigarette ban but after, significantly increased until June 2020. Overall, there was no significant trend in the average biweekly percent change for cigarette sales. CONCLUSIONS: Flavored e-cigarette sales were declining prior to the ban but the pace of the decline accelerated following federal and state restrictions on flavored e-cigarette sales, then slowed by the second half of 2020, with a brief period of increased cigarette and cigar sales immediately following the ban. IMPLICATIONS: New Jersey's 2020 statewide e-cigarette flavor ban offered the opportunity to observe how sales of e-cigarette, cigarette, and cigar products shifted after the change. The effect of the state law, at least in the short-term, was decreased sales of flavored e-cigarettes and increased sales of unflavored e-cigarettes. Research on long term policy effects is needed.

Does noticing cigar warnings associate with cigar harm perceptions and smoking behaviors? Analysis from Wave 5 of the population assessment of tobacco and health study.

BACKGROUND: In the US, cigar warning label standards are less stringent than cigarette warning requirements and are not uniformly required; research is needed about warning efficacy in promoting cigar risk beliefs, discouraging use and supporting public health. METHODS: Using data from the PATH Study (Wave 5), we analyzed associations between noticing cigar warnings and perceived harm from cigar use, frequency of thinking about harms, and effects of warnings labels. RESULTS: Among adults who smoke cigars, respondents noticing warnings at least sometimes (vs. never/rarely) had higher odds of thinking about harms of their tobacco use often/very often (cigarillos 30% vs. 19%, p <.001, aOR 1.80 [1.27, 2.56]); filtered cigars: 43% vs. 16%, p <.001, aOR 3.81 [2.50, 5.82]) and of reporting that smoking cigars is very/extremely harmful (cigarillos: 59% vs. 46%, p =.001, aOR 1.45 [1.05, 1.99]). A substantial majority found cigar warnings to be very/extremely believable (cigarillos: 63%, filtered cigars: 59%, traditional cigars: 65%), with 16%, 24% and 12% respectively reporting past-30-day warning avoidance. Those noticing warnings at least sometimes (vs. rarely) had higher rates of reporting that warnings sometimes/often/very often stopped them from having a cigar in the past 30 days (cigarillos: 36% vs. 10%; filtered cigars: 50% versus 6%; traditional cigars: 30% versus 9%; p's < 0.001) and that warnings made them somewhat/a lot more likely to quit smoking (cigarillos: 55% versus 37%, p <.01; filtered cigars: 55% versus 26%, p <.001; traditional cigars: 39% vs. 24%, p <.05). CONCLUSIONS: Results support potential public health benefits of mandating the presence and increasing salience of cigar warning labels.

Association Between a Capitated, Low-cost, County-Based Public Health Insurance Option and Affordable Care Act Premium Growth in California.

Importance: Empirical evidence is needed on how a capitated, risk-based county plan performs as a viable public option in the Affordable Care Act (ACA) Marketplace in California. Objective: To estimate whether LA Care-a capitated, county-based public option and California's largest public insurer-was associated with health insurance premium growth in the Los Angeles (LA) regions of Covered California (CC), the ACA exchange in California. Design, Setting, and Participants: This economic evaluation used ACA silver plan premium data within the 19 CC regions. Difference-in-differences and event study models used data on plan-level premiums from Health Insurance Exchange Compare for years 2014 to 2022 to estimate the association between LA Care and ACA premium growth in LA. Exposures: The intervention was LA Care becoming the lowest-cost health plan on the ACA exchange in 2018. The treatment group included the East and West LA regions, and the control group included the remaining 17 CC regions. Main Outcomes and Measures: The main outcome variable was annual premium growth of plans on CC from 2014 to 2022. Results: Using 504 plan-level observations for 2014 to 2022, ACA premium growth in LA declined by 4.8% after LA Care became the lowest-cost health plan on the exchange in 2018 (coefficient estimate, -0.048; SE, 0.022; 95% CI, -0.093 to -0.002). Savings due to lower premium growth from 2019 to 2022 were calculated to be $345 million, with approximately 70% of the savings ($242 million) going to the federal government. Conclusions and Relevance: In this economic evaluation, LA Care was associated with lower premium growth of other health insurance plans in the LA regions of CC, with the majority of savings going to the federal government. California could have captured these savings if it had applied for and received a State Innovation Waiver under section 1332 of the ACA. LA Care may be a viable public option with the potential to be expanded across California through the state's 16 other county-based health plans.

Communication Between US Physicians and Patients Regarding Electronic Cigarette Use.

Importance: Physicians play a primary role in patient smoking cessation, yet their communication regarding e-cigarettes is not well understood. Objective: To assess physician-patient communication regarding e-cigarettes. Design, Setting, and Participants: A national cross-sectional survey in 2018 and 2019 was conducted. Participants were invited by mail; surveys were completed online. Respondents were 2058 board-certified physicians from family medicine, internal medicine, obstetrics and gynecology, cardiology, pulmonary, and oncology. Data were analyzed from August to September 2021. Exposures: Physician demographic characteristics, tobacco use, medical specialty, and harm-reduction beliefs (ie, not all tobacco products are equally harmful) applied within 2 hypothetical clinical scenarios. Main Outcomes and Measures: Physicians' self-reported e-cigarette communication (being asked about e-cigarettes by patients and recommending e-cigarettes to patients) and hypothetical e-cigarette communication in 2 clinical scenarios. Results: Among 2058 physicians, the mean (SD) age was 51.6 (10.5) years, and 1173 (58.5%) were male. More than 60% of physicians believed all tobacco products to be equally harmful. Overall, 69.8% of physicians reported ever being asked about e-cigarettes by their patients (35.9% in the past 30 days), and 21.7% reported ever recommending e-cigarettes to a patient (9.8% in the past 30 days). Pulmonologists (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 2.14, 95% CI, 1.10-4.16) and cardiologists (aOR, 2.04; 95% CI, 1.03-4.05), as well as physicians who implemented the US Public Health Service Clinical Practice Guidelines (aOR, 1.77; 95% CI, 1.12-2.80), had greater odds of recommending e-cigarettes to patients. Physicians who endorsed a harm-reduction perspective (aOR, 3.04, 95% CI, 2.15-4.31) and had ever smoked cigarettes (aOR, 1.98; 95% CI, 1.27-3.08) were significantly more likely to recommend e-cigarettes. Physicians who reported being asked about e-cigarettes had greater odds of recommending e-cigarettes (aOR, 16.60; 95% CI, 10.33-26.68). In clinical scenarios, physicians were overall more likely to recommend e-cigarettes for cessation to an older heavy smoker with multiple unsuccessful quit attempts (49.3%; 95% CI, 47.1%-51.4%) than a younger light smoker with no prior cessation treatments (15.2%; 95% CI, 13.6%-16.7%) (P < .001). Conclusions and Relevance: In this survey study of physicians, findings suggest that physicians may recommend switching to e-cigarettes for some patients who smoke cigarettes under certain circumstances, presumably for cessation. The belief that all tobacco products are equally harmful was associated with lower rates of recommending e-cigarettes. As the evidence base grows for e-cigarette efficacy for smoking cessation, there is need for physician education regarding e-cigarette efficacy.

Cigar Warning Noticing and Demographic and Usage Correlates: Analysis from the United States Population Assessment of Tobacco and Health Study, Wave 5.

Although cigars pose health risks similar to cigarettes, their packaging/marketing is not subject to commensurate regulation in the US. In a 2000 agreement with the Federal Trade Commission, seven major manufacturers agreed to use some form of cigar warning. In 2016, the Food and Drug Administration passed a rule requiring larger standardized warnings, but the requirement was successfully challenged in court. Here, we examined U.S. population-level trends in noticing existing cigarillo, traditional and filtered cigar warnings. We analyzed Wave 5 Population Assessment of Tobacco and Health adult data to assess prevalence of past-30 day warning noticing and associations with socio-demographic and tobacco use variables. Noticing was higher among current users of cigarillos (27%), filtered (34%) and traditional cigars (21%), than non-users (8% for each product, p < 0.0001), and among every-day vs. some-day users, established vs. experimental users, and past-30 day users vs. those without past-30 day use. Results varied by product, but generally indicated lower noticing among non-Hispanic Whites and dual cigarette users, but higher noticing among those purchasing cigars by the box/pack (vs. not purchasing for themselves). Low overall noticing but higher prevalence among frequent users underscores a need for a stronger, uniform cigar warning label policy in the US.