262281 Patterns of Select Alcohol Control Policies Across U.S. States

Tuesday, October 30, 2012 : 1:00 PM - 1:15 PM

Toben F. Nelson, ScD , Division of Epidemiology and Community Health, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN
Ziming Xuan, ScD, SM, MA , Department of Community Health Sciences, Boston University School of Public Health, Boston, MA
Jason Blanchette, MPH , Section of General Internal Medicine, Boston Medical Center, Boston, MA
Timothy Heeren, PhD , Biostatistics Department, Boston University School of Public Health, Boston, MA
Thien Nguyen, MPH , Department of Community Health Sciences, Boston University School of Public Health, Boston, MA
Timothy S. Naimi, MD, MPH , Section of General Internal Medicine, Department of Medicine, Boston University School of Medicine, Boston, MA
Background: State-level alcohol control policies may influence state patterns of drinking behavior. Methods: We developed a score (range 0-1.0) that reflected the presence or absence of policies and provisions for five policies in 50 US states for 1999-2011 using the Alcohol Policy Information Systems (APIS) and other data sources. The weights for each provision were assigned based on the relative importance for policy implementation, empirical evidence and theory as determined by panel of alcohol policy experts. Policies were: taxes on alcohol (TAX), restrictions on hours of sale (HOS), graduated driver licensing laws (GDL), keg registration policies (KEG), and house party laws (HPL). Results: In 2011, states varied in their mean rating score for HOS (mean=0.53; standard deviation=0.31), HPL (mean=0.32; s.d.=0.29), KEG (mean 0.18; s.d.=0.20) and GDL (mean=0.42; s.d.=0.16). TAX was examined using a continuous variable of dollars/drink based on excise, ad valorem and sales taxes for beer (and for beer, wine and spirits in states without government monopoly). The mean state tax per drink on beer was $0.104 (range $0.008-0.23). Policy ratings were not strongly correlated with one another at the state level. Three of five policies became more restrictive between 1999 and 2011, with significant change in policy scores for HPL (â=0.012; p<0.001), KEG (â=0.009; p<0.001), and GDL (â=0.016; p<0.001). Conclusions: The policy ratings can be used in future work to assess whether the policy environment accounts for state-level variation in alcohol consumption and alcohol-impaired driving behavior among youth and adults.

Learning Areas:
Public health or related public policy

Learning Objectives:
1. Describe a process for assessing the variation of alcohol policies over time. 2. Explain the rationale for assigning weights to policy provisions when assessing policies.

Keywords: Alcohol, Policy/Policy Development

Presenting author's disclosure statement:

Qualified on the content I am responsible for because: I have over 15 years in alcohol policy research, am currently an assistant professor in the Alcohol Epidemiology Program at the University of Minnesota, and have served as principal- or co-investigator of many alcohol policy federally-funded grants.
Any relevant financial relationships? No

I agree to comply with the American Public Health Association Conflict of Interest and Commercial Support Guidelines, and to disclose to the participants any off-label or experimental uses of a commercial product or service discussed in my presentation.