Background: 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.
Methods: 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.
Results: 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 Likewise, there were higher odds of binge drinking among individuals living in states that repealed AELs compared to those living in states without AELs, yet with small effects (aOR = 1.03, 95% CI = 1.01, 1.05).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.
Conclusion: 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.
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
---|---|
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10099925 | PMC |
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/acer.14942 | DOI Listing |
JAMA Health Forum
November 2024
Leonard Davis Institute of Health Economics, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.
Importance: People with disabilities experience pervasive health disparities driven by adverse social determinants of health, such as unemployment. Section 14(c) of the 1938 Fair Labor Standards Act has been a controversial policy that allows people with disabilities to be paid below the prevailing minimum wage, but its impact on employment remains unknown despite ongoing national debates about its repeal.
Objective: To estimate whether state-level repeal of Section 14(c) was associated with employment-related outcomes for people with cognitive disability.
BMJ Open
November 2024
Bioethics Unit, Istituto Superiore di Sanita, Rome, Lazio, Italy.
Independent ethics committees play an important role in clinical trials as well as in all health-related research. Internationally, the national laws of the individual countries have guided their local development and organisation over the decades. Directive 2001/20/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council explicitly recognised the ethics committees' duty to protect the rights, safety and well-being of human subjects involved in trials and to provide public assurance of that protection.
View Article and Find Full Text PDFAnnu Rev Public Health
October 2024
1Department of Economics, Middlebury College, Middlebury, Vermont, USA; email:
The era was hardly a monolith. For more than 50 years-beginning with abortion reforms in the 1960s and continuing through the decision in 2022-state regulations of abortion were neither uniform nor consistent. States reformed and repealed abortion bans leading up to the decision in 1973.
View Article and Find Full Text PDFMil Psychol
September 2024
Headquarters Air Force, A1Z - Integrated Resilience, Pentagon, Airlington, Virginia.
Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!