TABLE 2—

Selected Examples of Own-Price Elasticities (OPEs) of Relevance to Epidemiology and Public Health

Product/Service	OPE Example(s)	Additional Details
Alcohol	−0.46 for beer, −0.80 for spirits	A meta-analysis of 112 studies (with 1003 estimates from 1823 to 2009) identified the following reported mean elasticities (for alcohol sales or self-reported consumption of alcohol) of −0.46 for beer, −0.69 for wine, and −0.80 for spirits. It was also noted that price/tax has a significant impact on heavy drinking.3
Bed nets	−0.12	This figure was derived from a 2006 study in Tanzania on subsidized insecticide-treated bed nets.12
Food	−0.04 for cereals, −0.48 for “other” food (wide OPE range) (see Figures 1 and 2)	A systematic review of food price elasticities (PEs) has been published20 (data period: 1938 to 2007), and some countries have relatively high-quality data on cross-price elasticities (CPEs), including the United Kingdom.39 The latter source has been used in modeling studies of pricing interventions for public health purposes.11,45 Other studies have used PE estimates for “unhealthy foods” (e.g., chocolate, sweetened breakfast cereals).45,46 Similarly, estimates have been calculated for nutritious/healthy foods (e.g., fruit, vegetables).45,46
Public transport/gasoline for cars	Gasoline: −0.26 (short run), −0.59 (long run)	Estimated OPEs for gasoline from an international 1929 to 1993 meta-analysis were −0.26 in the short run and −0.59 in the long run.47 A study of several different countries showed an average estimated CPE for public transport demand with respect to gasoline prices (from the 1970s to 1991) of 0.34.48 Also of interest from a public health perspective is evidence that lower gasoline prices are associated with increased obesity.49 Similarly, there is evidence from the United States that higher gasoline prices are related to an overall increase in physical activity that is at least moderately energy intensive.50
Beverages	−0.79	An example of an OPE for beverages (all categories, e.g., soda, fruit juice, regular soft drinks) is 0.79 (data period: 1938 to 2007).20 Estimated OPEs for regular soft drinks and diet soft drinks are −2.26 and −1.27, respectively.21
Tobacco	Negative at all income levels	A 2011 review by the International Agency for Research on Cancer reiterated the negative relationship between cigarette prices and cigarette consumption at all levels of income (based on aggregated data)2 (in an earlier review, the OPE was −0.4 in high-income countries).51 The evidence that lower-income populations were more price sensitive was considered “strong.” However, the evidence for such a pattern in comparisons of low-income and high-income countries was considered “limited.”
User fees for health services	−0.7 (range = −0.1 to −2.8)	In a systematic review of increases in user fees, the reported range of elasticities was −0.1 to −2.813 (data period: 1988 to 2002). The authors found that when fees were introduced or increased, use of health services decreased significantly.