Several countries are considering a minimum price policy for alcohol, but concerns exist about the potential effects on drinkers with low incomes. We aimed to assess the effect of a £0·45 minimum unit price (1 unit is 8 g/10 mL ethanol) in England across the income and socioeconomic distributions. We used the Sheffield Alcohol Policy Model (SAPM) version 2.6, a causal, deterministic, epidemiological model, to assess effects of a minimum unit price policy. SAPM accounts for alcohol purchasing and consumption preferences for population subgroups including income and socioeconomic groups. Purchasing preferences are regarded as the types and volumes of alcohol beverages, prices paid, and the balance between on-trade (eg, bars) and off-trade (eg, shops). We estimated price elasticities from 9 years of survey data and did sensitivity analyses with alternative elasticities. We assessed effects of the policy on moderate, hazardous, and harmful drinkers, split into three socioeconomic groups (living in routine or manual households, intermediate households, and managerial or professional households). We examined policy effects on alcohol consumption, spending, rates of alcohol-related health harm, and opportunity costs associated with that harm. Rates of harm and costs were estimated for a 10 year period after policy implementation. We adjusted baseline rates of mortality and morbidity to account for differential risk between socioeconomic groups. Overall, a minimum unit price of £0.45 led to an immediate reduction in consumption of 1.6% (-11.7 units per drinker per year) in our model. Moderate drinkers were least affected in terms of consumption (-3.8 units per drinker per year for the lowest income quintile vs 0.8 units increase for the highest income quintile) and spending (increase in spending of £0.04 vs £1.86 per year). The greatest behavioural changes occurred in harmful drinkers (change in consumption of -3.7% or -138.2 units per drinker per year, with a decrease in spending of £4.01), especially in the lowest income quintile (-7.6% or -299.8 units per drinker per year, with a decrease in spending of £34.63) compared with the highest income quintile (-1.0% or -34.3 units, with an increase in spending of £16.35). Estimated health benefits from the policy were also unequally distributed. Individuals in the lowest socioeconomic group (living in routine or manual worker households and comprising 41.7% of the sample population) would accrue 81.8% of reductions in premature deaths and 87.1% of gains in terms of quality-adjusted life-years. Irrespective of income, moderate drinkers were little affected by a minimum unit price of £0.45 in our model, with the greatest effects noted for harmful drinkers. Because harmful drinkers on low incomes purchase more alcohol at less than the minimum unit price threshold compared with other groups, they would be affected most by this policy. Large reductions in consumption in this group would however coincide with substantial health gains in terms of morbidity and mortality related to reduced alcohol consumption. UK Medical Research Council and Economic and Social Research Council (grant G1000043).

Click on the book chapter title to read more.

Issues: There have been reviews on the association between density of alcohol outlets and harm including studies published up to December 2008. Since then the number of publications has increased dramatically. The study reviews the more recent studies with regard to their utility to inform policy.Approach: A systematic review found more than 160 relevant studies (published between January 2009 and October 2014). The review focused on: (i) outlet density and assaultive or intimate partner violence; (ii) studies including individual level data; or (iii) ‘natural experiments’.Key Findings: Despite overall evidence for an association between density and harm, there is little evidence on causal direction (i.e. whether demand leads to more supply or increased availability increases alcohol use and harm). When outlet types (e.g. bars, supermarkets) are analysed separately, studies are too methodologically diverse and partly contradictory to permit firm conclusions besides those pertaining to high outlet densities in areas such as entertainment districts. Outlet density commonly had little effect on individual‐level alcohol use, and the few ‘natural experiments’ on restricting densities showed little or no effects.Implications and Conclusions: Although outlet densities are likely to be positively related to alcohol use and harm, few policy recommendations can be given as effects vary across study areas, outlet types and outlet cluster size. Future studies should examine in detail outlet types, compare different outcomes associated with different strengths of association with alcohol, analyse non‐linear effects and compare different methodologies. Purely aggregate‐level studies examining total outlet density only should be abandoned. [Gmel G, Holmes J, Studer J. Are alcohol outlet densities strongly associated with alcohol‐related outcomes? A critical review of recent evidence. Drug Alcohol Rev 2015]

Background and Aims: The alcohol harm paradox (AHP) posits that disadvantaged groups suffer from higher rates of alcohol‐related harm compared with advantaged groups, despite reporting similar or lower levels of consumption on average. The causes of this relationship remain unclear. This study aimed to identify explanations proposed for the AHP. Secondary aims were to review the existing evidence for those explanations and investigate whether authors linked explanations to one another.Methods: This was a systematic review. We searched MEDLINE (1946–January 2021), EMBASE (1974–January 2021) and PsycINFO (1967–January 2021), supplemented with manual searching of grey literature. Included papers either explored the causes of the AHP or investigated the relationship between alcohol consumption, alcohol‐related harm and socio‐economic position. Papers were set in Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development high‐income countries. Explanations extracted for analysis could be evidenced in the empirical results or suggested by researchers in their narrative. Inductive thematic analysis was applied to group explanations.Results: Seventy‐nine papers met the inclusion criteria and initial coding revealed that these papers contained 41 distinct explanations for the AHP. Following inductive thematic analysis, these explanations were grouped into 16 themes within six broad domains: individual, life‐style, contextual, disadvantage, upstream and artefactual. Explanations related to risk behaviours, which fitted within the life‐style domain, were the most frequently proposed (n = 51) and analysed (n = 21).Conclusions: While there are many potential explanations for the alcohol harm paradox, most research focuses on risk behaviours while other explanations lack empirical testing.

While evidence that alcohol pricing policies reduce alcohol-related health harm is robust, and alcohol taxation increases are a WHO “best buy” intervention, there is a lack of research comparing the scale and distribution across society of health impacts arising from alternative tax and price policy options. The aim of this study is to test whether four common alcohol taxation and pricing strategies differ in their impact on health inequalities. An econometric epidemiological model was built with England 2014/2015 as the setting. Four pricing strategies implemented on top of the current tax were equalised to give the same 4.3% population-wide reduction in total alcohol-related mortality: current tax increase, a 13.4% all-product duty increase under the current UK system; a value-based tax, a 4.0% ad valorem tax based on product price; a strength-based tax, a volumetric tax of £0.22 per UK alcohol unit (= 8 g of ethanol); and minimum unit pricing, a minimum price threshold of £0.50 per unit, below which alcohol cannot be sold. Model inputs were calculated by combining data from representative household surveys on alcohol purchasing and consumption, administrative and healthcare data on 43 alcohol-attributable diseases, and published price elasticities and relative risk functions. Outcomes were annual per capita consumption, consumer spending, and alcohol-related deaths. Uncertainty was assessed via partial probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA) and scenario analysis. The pricing strategies differ as to how effects are distributed across the population, and, from a public health perspective, heavy drinkers in routine/manual occupations are a key group as they are at greatest risk of health harm from their drinking. Strength-based taxation and minimum unit pricing would have greater effects on mortality among drinkers in routine/manual occupations (particularly for heavy drinkers, where the estimated policy effects on mortality rates are as follows: current tax increase, −3.2%; value-based tax, −2.9%; strength-based tax, −6.1%; minimum unit pricing, −7.8%) and lesser impacts among drinkers in professional/managerial occupations (for heavy drinkers: current tax increase, −1.3%; value-based tax, −1.4%; strength-based tax, +0.2%; minimum unit pricing, +0.8%). Results from the PSA give slightly greater mean effects for both the routine/manual (current tax increase, −3.6% [95% uncertainty interval (UI) −6.1%, −0.6%]; value-based tax, −3.3% [UI −5.1%, −1.7%]; strength-based tax, −7.5% [UI −13.7%, −3.9%]; minimum unit pricing, −10.3% [UI −10.3%, −7.0%]) and professional/managerial occupation groups (current tax increase, −1.8% [UI −4.7%, +1.6%]; value-based tax, −1.9% [UI −3.6%, +0.4%]; strength-based tax, −0.8% [UI −6.9%, +4.0%]; minimum unit pricing, −0.7% [UI −5.6%, +3.6%]). Impacts of price changes on moderate drinkers were small regardless of income or socioeconomic group. Analysis of uncertainty shows that the relative effectiveness of the four policies is fairly stable, although uncertainty in the absolute scale of effects exists. Volumetric taxation and minimum unit pricing consistently outperform increasing the current tax or adding an ad valorem tax in terms of reducing mortality among the heaviest drinkers and reducing alcohol-related health inequalities (e.g., in the routine/manual occupation group, volumetric taxation reduces deaths more than increasing the current tax in 26 out of 30 probabilistic runs, minimum unit pricing reduces deaths more than volumetric tax in 21 out of 30 runs, and minimum unit pricing reduces deaths more than increasing the current tax in 30 out of 30 runs). Study limitations include reducing model complexity by not considering a largely ineffective ban on below-tax alcohol sales, special duty rates covering only small shares of the market, and the impact of tax fraud or retailer non-compliance with minimum unit prices. Our model estimates that, compared to tax increases under the current system or introducing taxation based on product value, alcohol-content-based taxation or minimum unit pricing would lead to larger reductions in health inequalities across income groups. We also estimate that alcohol-content-based taxation and minimum unit pricing would have the largest impact on harmful drinking, with minimal effects on those drinking in moderation. People have drunk alcoholic beverages throughout history. However, harmful alcohol consumption is currently responsible for around 2.7 million deaths every year and is a leading risk factor worldwide for heart disease, liver disease, and many other health problems. It also affects the well-being and health of people around those who drink, both within the household and through alcohol-related crime and road traffic crashes. As with most products, the price of alcohol influences how much people buy and consume. Alcohol affordability is an important driver of alcohol consumption, and in many countries, including the UK and US, alcohol prices have not kept pace with inflation and rising incomes. Alcohol taxes have the dual function of raising revenues and regulating alcohol prices. Different countries employ different alcohol-specific taxation structures including taxation by beverage volume, by value, or by alcohol content. Some countries also have additional price control measures that prevent the sale of very cheap alcohol. Although research shows that increases in the price of alcohol brought about by taxation or other pricing policies reduce alcohol consumption and alcohol-related harm, little is known about how alternative tax and price policy options affect the scale and distribution of alcohol-related health impacts across society. This is important because people with lower social status and/or income are disproportionately...