Carolyn Falkner1, Grant Christie, Lifeng Zhou, Julian King. 1. Community Alcohol and Drug Services, Pitman House, 50 Carrington Rd, Point Chevalier, Auckland, New Zealand 1025. carolyn.falkner@waitematadhb.govt.nz.
Abstract
AIMS: To investigate the current purchasing behaviours of a group of dependent drinkers and their potential response to future increases in the price of alcohol. METHODS: 115 clients undergoing medical detoxification completed an anonymous survey about their daily alcohol consumption, its cost, their response to potential price increases and strategies previously used when unable to afford alcohol. RESULTS: Mean and median number of standard drinks consumed per day was 24, at a median cost of $25 NZD (95%CI $22, $30). Thirty-six per cent (95%CI 26%, 46%) of the group bought alcohol at $1 or less per standard drink, and the median number of drinks consumed per day (30) by this group was significantly higher (p=0.0028) than the rest of the sample (22.5). The most common strategy used if no money was available to purchase alcohol was to forgo essentials. If facing a potential price rise, 77% (95%CI 69%, 85%) would switch wholly or partially to a cheaper product and 13% (95%CI 8%, 21%) would cut down their drinking. CONCLUSIONS: Although the majority of our group would be financially impacted by an increase in the minimum price per standard drink, any potential impacts would be most significant in those buying the cheapest alcohol (who also drink the most), suggesting that minimum pricing may be an important harm minimisation strategy in this group. A minimum price per standard drink would limit the possibility of switching to an alternate cheaper product and likely result in an overall reduction in alcohol consumption in this group. Stealing alcohol, or the use of non-beverage alcohol, were seldom reported as previous strategies used in response to unaffordable alcohol and fears of such are not valid reasons for rejecting minimum pricing to reduce general population consumption.
AIMS: To investigate the current purchasing behaviours of a group of dependent drinkers and their potential response to future increases in the price of alcohol. METHODS: 115 clients undergoing medical detoxification completed an anonymous survey about their daily alcohol consumption, its cost, their response to potential price increases and strategies previously used when unable to afford alcohol. RESULTS: Mean and median number of standard drinks consumed per day was 24, at a median cost of $25 NZD (95%CI $22, $30). Thirty-six per cent (95%CI 26%, 46%) of the group bought alcohol at $1 or less per standard drink, and the median number of drinks consumed per day (30) by this group was significantly higher (p=0.0028) than the rest of the sample (22.5). The most common strategy used if no money was available to purchase alcohol was to forgo essentials. If facing a potential price rise, 77% (95%CI 69%, 85%) would switch wholly or partially to a cheaper product and 13% (95%CI 8%, 21%) would cut down their drinking. CONCLUSIONS: Although the majority of our group would be financially impacted by an increase in the minimum price per standard drink, any potential impacts would be most significant in those buying the cheapest alcohol (who also drink the most), suggesting that minimum pricing may be an important harm minimisation strategy in this group. A minimum price per standard drink would limit the possibility of switching to an alternate cheaper product and likely result in an overall reduction in alcohol consumption in this group. Stealing alcohol, or the use of non-beverage alcohol, were seldom reported as previous strategies used in response to unaffordable alcohol and fears of such are not valid reasons for rejecting minimum pricing to reduce general population consumption.