Consumption of Alcoholic Beverages and Liquor Consumption by Michigan High School Students, 2011.

INTRODUCTION: Excessive alcohol consumption was responsible for approximately 4,300 annual deaths in the United States among people younger than 21 from 2006 through 2010. Underage drinking cost the United States $24.6 billion in 2006. Previous studies have shown that liquor is the most common type of alcohol consumed by high school students. However, little is known about the types of liquor consumed by youth or about the mixing of alcohol with energy drinks. METHODS: The 2011 Michigan Youth Tobacco Survey was used to assess usual alcohol beverage consumption and liquor consumption and the mixing of alcohol with energy drinks by Michigan high school students. Beverage preferences were analyzed by demographic characteristics and drinking patterns. RESULTS: Overall, 34.2% of Michigan high school students consumed alcohol in the past month, and 20.8% reported binge drinking. Among current drinkers, liquor was the most common type of alcohol consumed (51.2%), and vodka was the most prevalent type of liquor consumed by those who drank liquor (53.0%). The prevalence of liquor consumption was similar among binge drinkers and nonbinge drinkers, but binge drinkers who drank liquor were significantly more likely than nonbinge drinkers to consume vodka and to mix alcohol with energy drinks (49.0% vs 18.2%, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Liquor is the most common type of alcoholic beverage consumed by Michigan high school students; vodka is the most common type of liquor consumed. Mixing alcohol and energy drinks is common, particularly among binge drinkers. Community Guide strategies for reducing excessive drinking (eg, increasing alcohol taxes) can reduce underage drinking.

The effect of transitioning to ICD-10-CM on acute injury surveillance of active duty service members.

BACKGROUND: Acute injuries are a burden on the Military Health System and degrade service members' ability to train and deploy. Long-term injuries contribute to early attrition and increase disability costs. To properly quantify acute injuries and evaluate injury prevention programs, injuries must be accurately coded and documented. This analysis describes how the transition from International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification (ICD-9-CM) to the Tenth Revision (ICD-10-CM) impacted acute injury surveillance among active duty (AD) service members. Twelve months of ICD-9-CM and ICD-10-CM coded ambulatory injury encounter records for Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marine Corps AD service members were analyzed to evaluate the effect of ICD-10-CM implementation on acute injury coding. Acute injuries coded with ICD-9-CM and categorized with the Barell matrix were compared to ICD-10-CM coded injuries classified by the proposed Injury Diagnosis Matrix (IDM). Both matrices categorize injuries by the nature of injury and into three levels of specificity for body region, although column and row headings are not identical. RESULTS: Acute injury distribution between the two matrices was generally similar in the broader body region categories but diverged substantially at the most granular cell level. The proportion of Level 1 Spine and back Body Region diagnoses was higher in the Barell than in the IDM (6.8% and 2.3%, respectively). Unspecified Level 3 Lower extremity injuries were markedly lower in the IDM compared to the Barell (0.1% and 12.1%, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: This is the first large scale analysis evaluating the impacts of ICD-10-CM implementation on acute injury surveillance using ambulatory encounter data. Some injury diagnoses appeared to have shifted to a different chapter of the codebook. Also, it's likely that the more detailed diagnostic descriptions and episode of care codes in ICD-10-CM discouraged re-coding of initial acute injury diagnoses. The proposed IDM did not result in a major disruption of acute injury surveillance. However, many acute injury diagnosis codes cannot be aligned between ICD versions. Overall, the increased specificity of ICD-10-CM and use of the IDM may lead to more precise acute injury surveillance and tailored prevention programs, which may result in less chronic injury, reduced morbidity, and lower health-care costs.

2010 National and State Costs of Excessive Alcohol Consumption.

INTRODUCTION: Excessive alcohol use cost the U.S. $223.5 billion in 2006. Given economic shifts in the U.S. since 2006, more-current estimates are needed to help inform the planning of prevention strategies. METHODS: From March 2012 to March 2014, the 26 cost components used to assess the cost of excessive drinking in 2006 were projected to 2010 based on incidence (e.g., change in number of alcohol-attributable deaths) and price (e.g., inflation rate in cost of medical care). The total cost, cost to government, and costs for binge drinking, underage drinking, and drinking while pregnant were estimated for the U.S. for 2010 and allocated to states. RESULTS: Excessive drinking cost the U.S. $249.0 billion in 2010, or about $2.05 per drink. Government paid for $100.7 billion (40.4%) of these costs. Binge drinking accounted for $191.1 billion (76.7%) of costs; underage drinking $24.3 billion (9.7%) of costs; and drinking while pregnant $5.5 billion (2.2%) of costs. The median cost per state was $3.5 billion. Binge drinking was responsible for >70% of these costs in all states, and >40% of the binge drinking-related costs were paid by government. CONCLUSIONS: Excessive drinking cost the nation almost $250 billion in 2010. Two of every $5 of the total cost was paid by government, and three quarters of the costs were due to binge drinking. Several evidence-based strategies can help reduce excessive drinking and related costs, including increasing alcohol excise taxes, limiting alcohol outlet density, and commercial host liability.