Does state repeal of alcohol exclusion laws increase problem drinking?
Does state repeal of alcohol exclusion laws increase problem drinking?
复制标题
DOI：
10.1111/acer.14942
复制
发表时间：
2022-11
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
几十年来，酒精排除法(AELS)允许保险公司拒绝对饮酒造成的身体伤害的索赔，包括受损驾驶造成的伤害。AELS的一个核心前提是它们对过度饮酒等冒险行为具有威慑作用。如果这一假设是正确的，州政府废除这些法律应该会导致更多的饮酒。这项研究调查了一些州废除AELS是否会影响饮酒行为。数据来自1993至2017年的行为危险因素监测系统全国调查。利用国家废除AELS带来的自然实验，我们评估了对当前饮酒和狂欢饮酒的影响。我们使用了严格的准实验差异分析，并进行了一系列敏感性分析，以确保得出可靠的结果。总体而言，研究发现，州政府废除AELS对酒精消费没有明显影响。虽然与那些生活在患有AELS或从未患有AELS的州相比，AELS的废除显著降低了在过去30 天内报告饮酒的几率，但影响很小(AOR=0.98，95%CI=0.96，0.99)。同样，与那些生活在没有AELS的州的人相比，生活在废除AELS的州的个人酗酒的几率更高，但影响很小(AOR=1.03，95%CI=1.01，1.05)。在对状态变化特征和特定状态的时间趋势进行额外调整后，没有发现对当前饮酒和酗酒有显著影响。敏感性分析的结果与主要分析结果基本一致。这项研究没有发现证据支持废除AELS会增加酒精消费或酗酒的观点。未来的研究应该在《统一事故和疾病政策规定法》中考虑其他特定于州的方面。酒精排除法的实施主要是为了阻止冒险行为，如过度饮酒。根据酒精排除法(AELS)，保险公司可以拒绝酒精消费造成的身体伤害的索赔，包括受损驾驶造成的伤害。AELS的一个核心前提是它们对冒险行为起到了威慑作用；因此，它们的废除将导致问题饮酒。这项研究检验了这一前提，发现AEL的废除对饮酒没有明显的影响。
For decades, alcohol exclusion laws (AELs) have allowed insurance companies to reject claims for physical injuries caused by alcohol consumption, including injuries from impaired driving. A central premise of AELs is that they function as a deterrent to risk‐taking behaviors, such as excessive drinking. If this assumption is correct, state repeal of these laws should result in increased drinking. This study examines whether the repeal of AELs by some states affects drinking behaviors. Data were obtained from the 1993 to 2017 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System nationwide survey. Exploiting the natural experiment presented by state repeal of AELs, we assessed the impact on current drinking and binge drinking. We used a rigorous quasi‐experimental difference‐in‐differences analysis and conducted a battery of sensitivity analyses to assure robust findings. Overall, the study found no discernable impact of state repeal of AELs on alcohol consumption. While the repeal of AELs significantly decreased the odds of reporting drinking in the past 30 days compared to those living in states with AELs or that never had AELs, the effects were small (aOR = 0.98, 95% CI = 0.96, 0.99). Likewise, there were higher odds of binge drinking among individuals living in states that repealed AELs compared to those living in states without AELs, yet with small effects (aOR = 1.03, 95% CI = 1.01, 1.05). After additionally adjusting for state‐varying characteristics and state‐specific time trends, no significant effects were identified regarding current and binge drinking. Findings from the sensitivity analyses were largely consistent with the main analysis. This study found no evidence supporting the idea that repealing AELs increased alcohol consumption or binge drinking. Future studies should consider other state‐specific dimensions within the Uniform Accident and Sickness Policy Provision Law. Alcohol Exclusion Laws were primarily implemented to deter risk‐taking behaviors, such as excessive drinking. With Alcohol Exclusion Laws (AELs), insurance companies can reject claims for physical injuries caused by alcohol consumption, including injuries from impaired driving. A central premise of AELs is that they function as a deterrent to risk‐taking behaviors; as such, their repeal will lead to problem drinking. This study examined this premise and found no discernible impact of AEL repeal on drinking.
登录
查看更多内容
DOI：
10.1016/j.drugpo.2021.103530
发表时间：
2022-03
期刊：
The International journal on drug policy
影响因子：
--
作者：
Azagba S;Shan L;Hall M;Wolfson M;Chaloupka F
通讯作者：
Chaloupka F
影响因子：
2.8
作者：
Satterlund TD;Lee JP;Moore RS
通讯作者：
Moore RS
影响因子：
5
作者：
Keyes, K. M.;Hatzenbuehler, M. L.;Hasin, D.
通讯作者：
Hasin, D.
饮酒作为故意的冒险行为：研究州健康保险覆盖范围和过度饮酒之间的关联。
影响因子：
2.8
作者：
Azagba S;Shan L;Wolfson M;Hall M;Chaloupka F
通讯作者：
Chaloupka F
影响因子：
1.8
作者：
Dong, Yingying
通讯作者：
Dong, Yingying