Health Behaviors Tobacco Use Diet & Exercise Alcohol Use Sexual Activity Search Policies & Programs Display All Policies & Programs Contribute Content

Health Behaviors - Alcohol Use - Raise the price of alcohol

Increase alcohol excise tax

Health Factors:	Alcohol Use
Decision Makers:	Government - Local, Government - State
Evidence Rating:	Scientifically Supported
Population Reach:	50-99% of WI's population
Impact on Disparities:	Likely to decrease disparities

Is this program or policy in use in your community? Tell us about it.

Description

Alcohol excise taxes are intended to reduce alcohol-related harms and/or raise revenue. Alcohol taxes are implemented at the state and federal level, and differ for beer, wine, and spirits. Such taxes are usually based on the amount of beverage purchased, not on the sales price, so effects can erode over time due to inflation if taxes are not adjusted regularly (CG-Alcohol).

Expected Beneficial Outcomes

Reduced binge drinking
Reduced harmful alcohol consumption
Reduced underage drinking
Decreased impaired driving

Evidence of Effectiveness

There is strong evidence that increasing the unit price of alcohol by raising taxes reduces excessive alcohol consumption and related harms (CG-Alcohol). Increasing excise taxes to reduce consumption is recommended by RAND-Imm 2007 and the World Health Organization (WHO 2007). Public health effects are expected to be proportional to the size of a tax increase (CG-Alcohol).

Overall alcohol consumption decreases when alcohol prices increase; effects have been shown for beer, wine, and spirits. Higher alcohol prices are also associated with lower levels of drinking among high school and college-age youth (CG-Alcohol).

Higher alcohol prices reduce alcohol-related harms. Higher alcohol prices or taxes are consistently related to reductions in: motor vehicle crashes and fatalities; alcohol-impaired driving; and mortality from liver cirrhosis. Higher prices may also reduce violence, sexually transmitted diseases, and alcohol dependence (CG-Alcohol).

A 2004 Institute of Medicine report recommends placing top priority on beer taxes and indexing excise tax rates for all alcoholic beverages to the consumer price index so that they keep pace with inflation without further legislative action (IOM 2004).

Implementation Examples

United States

Alcohol tax rates vary by state and by type of alcohol. As of February, 2010, state sales taxes ranged from $1.50 (MD) to $26.45 (WA) per gallon of spirits, $0.11 (LA) to $2.50 per gallon of wine, and $0.019 (WY) to $1.05 (AL) per gallon of beer (Tax Foundation-Sales tax 2010).

Wisconsin

Wisconsin's beer tax of $2.00 per barrel was established in 1969 (WI LFB-Alcohol and tobacco 2009). Wisconsin has one of the lowest beer taxes in the country, only Wyoming's rate is lower. Eleven states have lower rates than Wisconsin for alcohol overall—beer, wine, and liquor (Tax Foundation-Sales tax 2010).

Implementation Resources

CSPI-Alcohol taxes 1996 - Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI). State alcohol taxes & health: A citizen’s action guide. Washington, DC: Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI); 1996. Accessed on June 20, 2012
Webpage: http://www.cspinet.org/booze/tax.pdf

NIAAA-Alcohol policy - Alcohol Policy Information System (APIS). Welcome to the Alcohol Policy Information System. National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (NIAAA). Accessed on June 19, 2012
Webpage: http://www.alcoholpolicy.niaaa.nih.gov/

Citations - Description

CG-Alcohol - The Guide to Community Preventive Services (The Community Guide). Preventing excessive alcohol consumption. Accessed on June 23, 2012
Webpage: http://www.thecommunityguide.org/alcohol/index.html

Citations - Evidence

IOM 2004 - Institute of Medicine (IOM), National Research Council (NRC), Committee on Developing a Strategy to Reduce and Prevent Underage Drinking, Board on Children, Youth, and Families (BCYF). Reducing underage drinking: A collective responsibility. (Bonnie RJ, O’Connell ME, eds.). Washington, DC: The National Academies Press; 2004. Accessed on June 8, 2012
Webpage: http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?isbn=0309089352

RAND-Imm 2007 - Imm P, Chinman M, Wandersman A, Rosenbloom D, Guckenburg S, Leis R. Preventing underage drinking: Using Getting To Outcomes™ with the SAMHSA strategic prevention framework to achieve results. Santa Monica: RAND Corporation; 2007: Technical Report. Accessed on June 23, 2012
Webpage: http://www.rand.org/pubs/technical_reports/TR403.html

WHO 2007 - World Health Organization (WHO). Evidence-based strategies and interventions to reduce alcohol-related harm. 2007. Accessed on June 23, 2012
Webpage: http://www.who.int/gb/ebwha/pdf_files/WHA60/A60_14-en.pdf

Citations - Implementation Examples

Tax Foundation-Sales tax 2010 - Tax Foundation. State sales, gasoline, cigarette, and alcohol tax rates by state, 2000-2010. Accessed on June 19, 2012
Webpage: http://taxfoundation.org/article/state-sales-gasoline-cigarette-and-alcohol-tax-rates-state-2000-2010

WI LFB-Alcohol and tobacco 2009 - Moran S. Alcohol and tobacco taxes. Madison: Wisconsin Legislative Fiscal Bureau (WI LFB); 2009.

Accessed on June 8, 2012
Webpage: http://legis.wisconsin.gov/lfb/publications/Informational-Papers/Documents/2009/8_alcohol and tobacco taxes.pdf

Comments from Users about this Policy/Program (Cost, Feasibility, Lessons Learned)

No comments

Health Factors

Health Behaviors

Tobacco Use

Diet & Exercise

Alcohol Use

Sexual Activity

Clinical Care

Access to Care

Quality of Care

Social & Economic Factors

Education

Employment
Income

Income

Family & Social Support

Community Safety

Physical Environment

Environmental Quality

Built Environment

Decision Makers

Businesses & Employers

Community Organizations

Government - Local

Government - State

Government - Federal

Healthcare Organizations

Individuals

Schools

Evidence Rating

Level of effectiveness based on a scan of academic literature and key recommendations of leading organizations.

Scientifically Supported Numerous studies or systematic review(s) with positive results
Some Evidence Research suggests positive impacts; further study may be warranted
Expert Opinion Recommended by credible groups*; research evidence limited
Insufficient Evidence Evidence limited or unavailable; further study warranted
Mixed Evidence Evidence mixed; further study warranted
Evidence of Ineffectiveness Research consistently shows program is detrimental or has no effect

Although many policies and programs are recommended by credible groups, we apply the rating ‘expert opinion’ only when policies are recommended but limited scientific evidence of effectiveness is available.

* The American Heritage Dictionary defines credible as 'capable of being believed; plausible.' and 'worthy of confidence; reliable.' To be considered an 'expert recommendation,' policies and programs must be recommended by one or more organizations that are recognized for their impartial expertise in the area of interest and have limited evidence available.

Potential Population Reach

Portion of Wisconsin's population likely to be reached by a policy or program if implemented statewide, based on its characteristics (e.g., target population(s), geographic limitations, and potential implementers).

	<1%			20-49%
	1-9%			50-99%
	10-19%			100%

Potential Population Reach

	<1%			20-49%
	1-9%			50-99%
	10-19%			100%

Potential Impact on Health Disparities

Likely impact of a given policy or program on racial/ethnic, socioeconomic, geographic or other disparities in Wisconsin based on its characteristics (e.g., target audience, mode of delivery, etc.) and best available evidence related to disparities.

Likely to decrease disparities
No impact on disparities likely
Likely to increase disparities