Cost Comparison and Spending on Tobacco Products: Evidence from A Nationally Representative Sample of Adult E-Cigarette Users

INTRODUCTION

In 2021, 4.5% US adults aged 18 or above were current e-cigarette users, including 11% of young adults aged 18-24.(Kramarow & Elgaddal, 2023) While e-cigarettes lead to addiction among youth and young adults, they are also considered as a less harmful alternative to combustible tobacco products, thereby having the potential to help quitting smoking if smokers switch completely to e-cigarettes.(Balfour et al., 2021; National Academies of Sciences Engineering and Medicine, 2018) As the popularity of e-cigarettes grows over time,(Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), 2023b) it becomes increasingly important to understand adults e-cigarette users’ purchase and use behaviors in order to inform policymakers who are balancing the benefits and risks of e-cigarettes.

In particular, cost comparison between e-cigarettes and cigarettes and the spending on each product are particularly relevant to the understanding of adult e-cigarette purchase and use behaviors. Approximately 30% of adult e-cigarette users in the U.S. are dual users who also concurrently smoke cigarettes and 40% are former smokers who have smoked 100 cigarettes or more in the past.(Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), 2023a). While 30% of adult e-cigarettes never smoked, they are more likely to be young adults - a group that may be exposed to the gateway effect where e-cigarette use leads to future smoking.(He et al., 2024; Takada et al., 2022; Yao et al., 2017) Therefore, the budget or expenditures on tobacco products and the cost comparison reveal economic incentives and tradeoffs when choosing between two products, further influencing downstream behavioral outcomes including quitting and transitions (e.g., escalation, relapse).

How e-cigarette users consider cost comparison between cigarettes and e-cigarette and their spending on tobacco products may change as a growing number of states and local jurisdictions tax e-cigarettes. Using a nationally representative sample of smokers and vapers from the U.S., one study found that higher frequency of cigarette use leads smokers and vapers to think cigarettes are more expensive and e-cigarette users who use pre-filled cartridges and tank devices are more likely to think e-cigarettes are less expensive than cigarettes.(Thompson et al., 2019) However, given the small sample size of vapers in that study, their conclusions may be largely driven by smokers, with a limited ability to inform e-cigarette users’ perceived relative cost.

In addition to cost consideration, income-related factors such as expenditures and budgets are also important factors of consumers decision-making. One study from the U.S. suggests that expenditures could be a useful measure of e-cigarette use intensities among smokers, which are often not captured in detail in national surveys. Studies from the UK further illustrate that expenditures on e-cigarettes change as the marketplace evolves and are associated with product choices, use behaviors, and demographics. However, evidence on tobacco and e-cigarette expenditures for the US population is scarce.

Motivated by these knowledge gaps, our study contributes to the tobacco control literature by evaluating the expenditures on cigarettes and e-cigarettes (frequencies and amounts), and the cost comparison between two products, among a nationally representative sample of adult e-cigarette users aged 18+. We further assessed how expenditures and cost comparisons are associated with taxation, use behaviors, and socio-demographic characteristics.

METHOD

Measures

RESULTS

Table 1 presents the summary statistics of outcome variables, tobacco use frequencies, product type, and state-level taxes. Among adult e-cigarette users in the U.S., 50% were everyday users and 50% were someday users; more than two thirds (68.92%) were exclusive e-cigarette users who never smoked or were not current smokers. 42% perceived e-cigarettes as less expensive than cigarettes, 24% reported perceiving the costs of cigarettes and e-cigarettes as about the same, 18% believed e-cigarettes were more expensive, and 17% said that they did not know. Average monthly e-cigarette spending was $82.22 and average monthly cigarette spending was $118.77. Standardized state e-cigarette taxes per ml were 0.54 dollars on average and state cigarette tax was 1.85 dollars per pack at the time of survey.

Appendix Table 1 presents the summary statistics of demographic characteristics. The majority of e-cigarette users were young people aged 18-29 (43%) and 30-44 (33%), male (54%), unmarried (68%), non-Hispanic White (73%), working full-time (54%), had a household income of $75K or less (56%), lived in a one-family house (65%), and had some college education or associate degree or less (79%).

Table 2 presents our findings from the cost comparison analysis. Relative to someday e-cigarette users, everyday e-cigarette users were less likely to perceive smoking as cheaper (OR = 0.55, p < 0.05). Compared to young adults aged 18-29, those who were at least 45 years old were less likely to perceive smoking as cheaper (OR = 0.23, p < 0.01 for 45-59 and OR = 0.32, p < 0.05 for 60+). Compared with disposable e-cigarette users, e-liquid users were less likely to perceive smoking as cheaper (OR = 0.26, p < 0.01). Adult e-cigarette users who lived in a state with higher e-cigarette taxes (per ml) were more likely to perceive vaping as more expensive than smoking (OR = 1.43, p < 0.01). Neither cigarette use status nor state cigarette taxes were associated with adult vapers’ cost comparison between cigarettes and e-cigarettes.

Figures 1a and 1b show preferred budget or expenditure frequency (weekly vs. monthly) by tobacco use status (dual use or exclusive e-cigarette use) and use frequency (someday or everyday use). Dual users of cigarettes and e-cigarettes were 4% more likely to prefer reporting weekly budget on e-cigarettes compared with exclusive users of e-cigarettes, though this difference was not statistically significant. Everyday e-cigarette users were 16% more likely to prefer reporting weekly budget on e-cigarettes, relative to someday e-cigarette users (p < 0.01). Figure 2 presents frequency of cigarette budgeting and expenditures among dual users, and 61% of them preferred to report weekly cigarette budget. In addition, everyday smokers were 34% more likely to prefer reporting weekly cigarette budget (p < 0.001).

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 1. Preference on how one reports EC budget (weekly vs. monthly) (N=776)

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 2. Preference on how one reports CIG budget (weekly vs. monthly) (N=268)

EC: e-cigarette. CIG: cigarette. Dual users: Adult (18+) e-cigarette users who smoke cigarettes. **(***) in Figure 1b (Figure 2b) indicates that more regular users of EC(CIG) prefer budget weekly over monthly than less regular EC(CIG) users at 1% (0.1%) significance level. Alternatively, less regular EC(CIG) users prefer budget monthly over weekly than more regular EC(CIG) users since preference on weekly or monthly reporting is binary. In Figure 1a, dual users’ preferences of weekly over monthly were not statistically different from EC-only users. Each observation was weighted using the 2021 National Health Interview Survey as a benchmark, to ensure that the sample was representative of adult e-cigarette user population in the US.

Results from the expenditure analysis are shown in Table 3. Columns (1), (3) and (5) present findings without including cost comparison as an explanatory variable, whereas columns (2), (4) and (6) show findings when including cost comparison in the equations, to understand whether participants’ cost comparison between e-cigarettes and cigarettes mitigated the influences of other factors on their expenditures.

Regardless of controlling for cost comparison or not, everyday e-cigarette users spent 69-70% more on e-cigarettes (p < 0.001) and 53% more on e-cigarettes and cigarettes combined if they were dual users (p < 0.001), compared with someday e-cigarette users. E-liquid users spent 33-37% less on e-cigarettes and 28-30% less on e-cigarettes and cigarettes combined if they were dual users, relative to disposable e-cigarette users. Compared with adult vapers who had less than high school education, those with some college education, associate degree or bachelor’s degree spent 33-39% less on e-cigarettes and 30-34% less on cigarettes and e-cigarettes combined if they were dual users. Compared to adults who lived in a one-family house, those who lived in a condo, townhouse or apartment complex spent less on e-cigarettes. In addition, female participants spent 24% less on e-cigarettes than male participants.

Among dual users of cigarettes and e-cigarettes, someday smokers spent less on cigarettes than everyday smokes. Total expenditures (cigarettes and e-cigarettes combined) of dual users who were someday smokers or everyday smokers were 72-75% and 1.4 times more than those of exclusive e-cigarette users, respectively. Compared to dual users aged 18-29, those who were 30-44 or 60+ spent more on cigarettes. Among dual users, those who were not working spent 42% less on cigarettes than full-time workers.

Finally, state-level cigarette and e-cigarette taxes were not associated with e-cigarette or cigarette expenditures, regardless of controlling for cost comparison. The associations, AIC and BIC were very similar across models with or without cost comparison as a control variable. This finding suggests that cost comparison did not mediate any potential associations between expenditures and explanatory variables in the regressions. Nonetheless, cost comparisons were significantly associated with e-cigarette expenditures alone, and total expenditures (of cigarettes and e-cigarettes combined), suggesting their possible behavioral impacts.

DISCUSSION

Our study adds to the tobacco control literature by presenting crucial evidence on e-cigarette and cigarette cost comparison and expenditures using data from a nationally representative sample of adult e-cigarette users aged 18+ in the U.S. We found that monthly e-cigarette spending was $82.22 and cigarette spending was $118.77, with the combined cigarette and e-cigarette spending amounting to 217.11 dollars for dual users who purchased both. Considering that average household income was less than $6,250 per month (i.e., < $75,000 per year) in our sample, this finding implies that over 1.3% income was spent on e-cigarettes alone, and for dual users, 2% was spent on cigarettes. These percentages could be significantly higher for users with low income (e.g., less than $40,000).

Consistent with the growing popularity of disposables since flavors were banned in open systems,(Do et al., 2023; Hammond et al., 2022) disposables were also the most popular e-cigarette product type among people who exclusively used one e-cigarette model or type (45%), followed by exclusive users of e-liquids (37%) and refill cartridges/pods (18%). In addition, 26% of adult vapers reported using multiple e-cigarette models or types. Existing literature suggests that while young adult vapers prefer pods and disposables, older adults may prefer tank or mod systems.(Tillery et al., 2023) In addition, different device types may have different appeals, and their potentials as cigarette substitute as well as health risks might also differ.(Hajek et al., 2018) Our study shows that a majority of vapers exclusively used one e-cigarette model or type, suggesting the importance of evaluating e-cigarette use and health consequences by device types.

Interestingly, we found that adult vapers who lived in states with higher e-cigarette excise taxes were more likely to perceive vaping as more costly than smoking, which is consistent with existing literature that shows higher e-cigarette taxes reduce e-cigarette use and sales.(Cotti et al., 2022; Reiter et al., 2024; Yan et al., 2023) In contrast, cigarette taxes were not significantly associated with cost comparison among adult vapers. Our findings are different from a previous study that shows cigarettes taxes are associated with perceiving cigarettes as more costly than e-cigarettes among US adult smokers and e-cigarette users.(He et al., 2024) These differences may be explained by sampling differences between the two studies since the prior study used a national sample primarily consisting of adult smokers (78%)(He et al., 2024) whereas our sample exclusively consists of vapers (70% exclusive e-cigarette users and 30% dual users). It is not surprising that cigarette taxes influence cost comparison among smokers and e-cigarette taxes influence cost comparison among vapers, but not vice versa.

Despite the differences in the associations between taxes and cost comparison, our study and prior research converge in showing that vapers who used tank systems with e-liquids perceived lower costs of vaping compared to other device types. This may be desired because there is research suggesting that vapers who successfully quit smoking prefer tank systems with e-liquids to other types.(Chen et al., 2016; Dawkins et al., 2013) Nonetheless, given the different tax burdens on difference device types,(Shang et al., 2023) more research is needed to understand the roles of economic costs across device types in shaping vaping and smoking behaviors.

Furthermore, our cost comparison analysis illustrated vapers aged 45+ perceived lower costs of e-cigarettes than younger adults, and that vapers with 25K to less than 50K household income perceived lower costs of e-cigarettes compared to people with a household income less than 25K. These findings are in general in line with existing knowledge that younger people and tobacco users of lower SES are more sensitive to prices.(Cruces et al., 2022; Golden et al., 2020)

Our expenditure analysis further confirmed the findings in cost comparison analysis: compared to those who perceived cigarettes and e-cigarettes as costing the same, vapers who perceived lower e-cigarette costs also spent less on e-cigarettes, and if they were dual users, spent less on e-cigarettes and cigarettes combined, after controlling for use frequencies. Similarly, e-liquid users spent less than users of other e-cigarette product types. These findings suggest that cost comparison and expenditures are related concepts to consumers, measuring several factors including actual costs (e.g., taxes), use patterns, and SES. From this perspective, both cost comparison and expenditure measures are constructs more similar to affordability than to actual costs or pricing. Future research is needed to elucidate their relationships and examine how use behaviors are jointly determined by device types, perceived costs, and budget/expenditure constraints.

The expenditure analysis further showed that female e-cigarette users, those who were at least 60 years, and people with at least some college education spent significantly less than their counterparts on e-cigarettes, after adjusting for frequency of use, income, cost comparison, etc. These findings corroborate with the relatively low prevalence of use among these subpopulations reported by surveillance data. Interestingly, vapers who lived in a condo or townhouse spent less than those who lived in a one-family house, after controlling for household income. This finding suggests possible effects of tobacco-free policies (commonly imposed in shared housing) on reducing e-cigarette spending.(Azagba et al., 2020)

Finally, we found that budgeting window and spending frequency (weekly vs. monthly) were significantly associated with use frequency: everyday users preferred to report weekly budget whereas someday users preferred to report monthly budget. Future tobacco surveys may consider this difference when eliciting spending-related questions. Nonetheless, the percentage of vapers reporting weekly purchases of e-cigarettes (42%) was much lower than that of dual users reporting weekly purchases of cigarettes (75%), showing considerable difference in purchasing frequencies between cigarettes and e-cigarettes.

Our study is not without limitations. First, the conclusion is based on cross-sectional data from a single survey. Future research using repeated cross-sectional or longitudinal data are needed to ascertain the relationships. Second, cost comparison and expenditures are based on self-reported information and may contain recall or measurement errors. Third, although we collected expenditure data and had detailed information on use frequencies and household income, we have not used Deaton or household expenditure model to estimate own and cross price elasticities of demand for cigarettes and e-cigarettes, which we plan to assess in future studies.(Jackson et al., 2019; John et al., 2023)

CONCLUSIONS

Adult e-cigarette users in the U.S. on average spends $82 on e-cigarettes and dual users spend additional $119 on cigarettes per month. A majority of adult e-cigarette users exclusively used one device type, and among them, disposables were the most popular. State excise taxes on e-cigarettes, device type, and age were associated with adult users’ cost perception of vaping relative to smoking. Compared to adult users who perceived vaping and smoking as costing the same, those who perceived vaping as less costly (than smoking) also spent less on vaping. Age, sex, education attainment, housing type and device type were associated with adult users’ spending on vaping. Daily e-cigarette users tended to budget expenditures on a weekly basis whereas someday users tended to budget expenditures on a monthly basis. Future research is warranted to understand how e-cigarette use behaviors among US adults are jointly determined by device types, perceived costs, and budget/expenditure constraints.

Ethics Statement

This study was approved by The Ohio State University Institutional Review Board (Study ID: 2021E0460).

Declarations of competing interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Funding

This work was supported by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and the National Cancer Institute (grant# R21CA249757, PI: Ce Shang). The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the NIH. Dr. Ma is supported by the Pelotonia Fellowship (6/1/2022-5/31/2024) from The Ohio State University Comprehensive Cancer Center (OSUCCC).

Author contribution statement

SM – validation, investigation, writing - original draft, writing - review & editing, visualization; QY - investigation, project administration, writing - review & editing; SA – software, formal analysis, data curation, writing - original draft, visualization; HP - investigation, writing - review & editing; YH – investigation, writing - review & editing; JB – conceptualization, methodology, writing - review & editing, supervision; CS – conceptualization, methodology, software, validation, investigation, resources, writing - review & editing, supervision, funding acquisition