2012
DOI: 10.1001/archderm.148.1.122
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Implementation of the Federal Excise Tax on Indoor Tanning Services in Illinois

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
26
0

Year Published

2012
2012
2019
2019

Publication Types

Select...
8
1

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 34 publications
(26 citation statements)
references
References 8 publications
0
26
0
Order By: Relevance
“…66 The tax is only applicable to UV tanning services, excluding tanning devices sold directly to consumers; facilities that offer tanning as an additional service to members without a separate fee, and sunless tanning products (such as spray tans) are not subject to the tax. 66 A 2012 study 67 found that the tax was being passed on to clients as intended; 26% of salons reported fewer customers after implementation of the tax, and 78% of salons reported that the tax did not seem to affect consumer behavior.…”
Section: Federal Environmental and Systems Efforts In The Usmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…66 The tax is only applicable to UV tanning services, excluding tanning devices sold directly to consumers; facilities that offer tanning as an additional service to members without a separate fee, and sunless tanning products (such as spray tans) are not subject to the tax. 66 A 2012 study 67 found that the tax was being passed on to clients as intended; 26% of salons reported fewer customers after implementation of the tax, and 78% of salons reported that the tax did not seem to affect consumer behavior.…”
Section: Federal Environmental and Systems Efforts In The Usmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Although the Health Care Reform Act enacted in 2010 included a 10% tax on tanning services, such an intervention may not be sufficient to restrict use of tanning services because it has had a minimal effect on decreasing the frequency of indoor tanning. 53 We also believe that tanning devices should be elevated to either a Class II or III category for medical devices, which would at least require regulatory oversight of manufacturers. Furthermore, because the majority of adolescents who use tanning beds are older (16 to 18 years old), 5 there is a need for higher age restrictions in states with existent laws.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…A recent study, however, showed that among 308 salon owners surveyed in Illinois, a majority (74 %) reported no reduction in clients as a result of the tax; a majority (71 %) also reported that the tax did not result in a decrease in tanning frequency among clients [32]. It remains unclear if the tax resulted in clients switching to UV-free tanning options, such as spray-on tans, or if they continued their UV tanning habits in spite of the tax.…”
Section: Restrictive Measuresmentioning
confidence: 97%