Prices, taxes and alcohol use: a systematic umbrella review

AIM

To measure the impact of taxes and prices on alcohol use with particular attention to the different context of rising alcohol consumption in low- and middle-income countries.

METHODS

Systematic review: we searched MEDLINE, Embase, EconLit and LILACS, grey literature, hand-searched five specialty journals and examined references of relevant studies. We considered all reviews that included studies that quantitatively examined the relationship between alcohol prices or taxes and alcohol use. At least two reviewers independently screened the articles and extracted the characteristics, methods and main results and assessed the quality of each included study. We identified 30 reviews.

RESULTS

There was overwhelming evidence that higher alcohol prices and taxes were associated with lower total alcohol consumption and that price responsiveness varied by beverage type. Total own-price elasticities of alcohol demand were consistently negative and substantial enough to be policy meaningful; total own-price elasticities for beer, wine and spirits were found to be approximately -0.3, -0.6 and -0.65. Reviews generally concluded that higher taxes and prices were associated with lower heavy episodic drinking and heavy drinking, although the magnitude of these associations was generally unclear. Reviews provided no evidence that alcohol price responsiveness differed by socioeconomic status, mixed and contradictory evidence with respect to age and sex and limited evidence that price responsiveness in low- and middle-income countries was approximately the same as in high-income countries.

CONCLUSIONS

Taxes are effective in reducing alcohol use. Moreover, increasing the price of alcohol by increasing taxes can also be expected to increase tax revenue, because the demand for alcohol is most certainly inelastic.

Joint effects of alcohol use, smoking and body mass index as an explanation for the alcohol harm paradox: causal mediation analysis of eight cohort studies

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Lower socio-economic status (SES) is associated with higher alcohol-related harm despite lower levels of alcohol use. Differential vulnerability due to joint effects of behavioural risk factors is one potential explanation for this 'alcohol harm paradox'. We analysed to what extent socio-economic inequalities in alcohol-mortality are mediated by alcohol, smoking and body mass index (BMI), and their joint effects with each other and with SES.

DESIGN

Cohort study of eight health examination surveys (1978-2007) linked to mortality data.

SETTING

Finland.

PARTICIPANTS

A total of 53 632 Finnish residents aged 25+ years.

MEASUREMENTS

The primary outcome was alcohol-attributable mortality. We used income as an indicator of SES. We assessed the joint effects between income and mediators (alcohol use, smoking and BMI) and between the mediators, adjusting for socio-demographic indicators. We used causal mediation analysis to calculate the total, direct, indirect and mediated interactive effects using Aalen's additive hazards models.

FINDINGS

During 1 085 839 person-years of follow-up, we identified 865 alcohol-attributable deaths. We found joint effects for income and alcohol use and income and smoking, resulting in 46.8 and 11.4 extra deaths due to the interaction per 10 000 person-years. No interactions were observed for income and BMI or between alcohol and other mediators. The lowest compared with the highest income quintile was associated with 5.5 additional alcohol deaths per 10 000 person-years (95% confidence interval = 3.7, 7.3) after adjusting for confounders. The proportion mediated by alcohol use was negative (-69.3%), consistent with the alcohol harm paradox. The proportion mediated by smoking and BMI and their additive interactions with income explained 18.1% of the total effect of income on alcohol-attributable mortality.

CONCLUSIONS

People of lower socio-economic status appear to be more vulnerable to the effects of alcohol use and smoking on alcohol-attributable mortality. Behavioural risk factors and their joint effects with income may explain part of the alcohol harm paradox.