Who Would Pay for State Alcohol Tax Increases in the United States?

INTRODUCTION: Despite strong evidence that increasing alcohol taxes reduces alcohol-related harm, state alcohol taxes have declined in real terms during the past 3 decades. Opponents of tax increases argue that they are unfair to "responsible" drinkers and those who are financially disadvantaged. The objectives of this study were to assess the impact of hypothetical state alcohol tax increases on the cost of alcohol for adults in the United States on the basis of alcohol consumption and sociodemographic characteristics. METHODS: The increased net cost of alcohol (ie, product plus tax) from a series of hypothetical state alcohol tax increases was modeled for all 50 states using data from the 2011 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System, IMPACT Databank, and the Alcohol Policy Information System. Costs were assessed by drinking pattern (excessive vs nonexcessive) and by sociodemographic characteristics. RESULTS: Among states, excessive drinkers would pay 4.8 to 6.8 times as much as nonexcessive drinkers on a per capita basis and would pay at least 72% of aggregate costs. For nonexcessive drinkers, the annual cost from even the largest hypothetical tax increase ($0.25 per drink) would average less than $10.00. Drinkers with higher household incomes and non-Hispanic white drinkers would pay higher per capita costs than people with lower incomes and racial/ethnic minorities. CONCLUSION: State-specific tax increases would cost more for excessive drinkers, those with higher incomes, and non-Hispanic whites. Costs to nonexcessive drinkers would be modest. Findings are relevant to developing evidence-based public health practice for a leading preventable cause of death.

Use of a disposable vascular pressure device to guide balloon inflation of resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta: a bench study.

Resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta (REBOA) for rapid hemorrhage control is increasingly being used in trauma management. Its beneficial hemodynamic effects on unstable patients beyond temporal hemostasis has led to growing interest in its use in other patient populations, such as during cardiac arrest from nontraumatic causes. The ability to insert the catheters without fluoroscopic guidance makes the technique available in the prehospital setting. However, in addition to correct positioning, challenges include reliably achieving aortic occlusion while minimizing the risk of balloon rupture. Without fluoroscopic control, inflation of the balloon relies on estimated aortic diameters and on the disappearing pulse in the contralateral femoral artery. In the case of cardiac arrest or absent palpable pulses, balloon inflation is associated with excess risk of overinflation and adverse events (vessel damage, balloon rupture). In this bench study, we examined how the pressure in the balloon is related to the surrounding blood pressure and the balloon's contact with the vessel wall in two sets of experiments, including a pulsatile circulation model. With this data, we developed a rule of thumb to guide balloon inflation of the ER-REBOA catheter with a simple disposable pressure-reading device (COMPASS). We recommend slowly filling the balloon with saline until the measured balloon pressure is 160 mmHg, or 16 mL of saline have been used. If after 16 mL the balloon pressure is still below 160 mmHg, saline should be added in 1-mL increments, which increases the pressure target about 10 mmHg at each step, until the maximum balloon pressure is reached at 240 mmHg (= 24 mL inflation volume). A balloon pressure greater than 250 mmHg indicates overinflation. With this rule and a disposable pressure-reading device (COMPASS), ER-REBOA balloons can be safely filled in austere environments where fluoroscopy is unavailable. Pressure monitoring of the balloon allows for recognition of unintended deflation or rupture of the balloon.

The use of resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta (REBOA) for non-traumatic cardiac arrest: A review.

Resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta (REBOA) has been proposed as a novel approach to managing non-traumatic cardiac arrest (NTCA). During cardiac arrest, cardiac output ceases and perfusion of vital organs is compromised. Traditional advanced cardiac life support (ACLS) measures and cardiopulmonary resuscitation are often unable to achieve return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC). During insertion of REBOA a balloon-tipped catheter is placed into the femoral artery and advanced in a retrograde manner into the aorta while the patient is undergoing cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR). The balloon is then inflated to fully occlude the aorta. The literature surrounding the use of aortic occlusion in non-traumatic cardiac arrest is limited to animal studies, case reports and one recent non-controlled feasibility trial. In both human and animal studies, preliminary data show that REBOA may improve coronary and cerebral perfusion pressures and key physiologic parameters during cardiac arrest resuscitation, and animal data have demonstrated improved rates of ROSC. Multiple questions remain before REBOA can be considered as an adjunct to ACLS. If demonstrated to be effective clinically, REBOA represents a potentially cost-effective and generalizable intervention that may improve quality of life for patients with non-traumatic cardiac arrest.

Increased Sensitivity of Focused Cardiac Ultrasound for Pulmonary Embolism in Emergency Department Patients With Abnormal Vital Signs.

BACKGROUND: Focused cardiac ultrasound (FOCUS) is insensitive for pulmonary embolism (PE). Theoretically, when a clot is large enough to cause vital sign abnormalities, it is more likely to show signs of right ventricular dysfunction on FOCUS, although this has not been well quantified. A rapid bedside test that could quickly and reliably exclude PE in patients with abnormal vital signs could be of high utility in emergency department (ED) patients. We hypothesized that in patients with tachycardia or hypotension, the sensitivity of FOCUS for PE would increase substantially. METHODS: We performed a prospective observational multicenter cohort study involving a convenience sample of patients from six urban academic EDs. Patients suspected to have PE with tachycardia (heart rate [HR] ≥ 100 beats/min) or hypotension (systolic blood pressure [sBP] < 90 mm Hg) underwent FOCUS before computed tomography angiography (CTA). FOCUS included assessment for right ventricular dilation, McConnell's sign, septal flattening, tricuspid regurgitation, and tricuspid annular plane systolic excursion. If any of these were abnormal, FOCUS was considered positive, while if all were normal, FOCUS was considered negative. We a priori planned a subgroup analysis of all patients with a HR ≥ 110 beats/min (regardless of their sBP). We then determined the diagnostic test characteristics of FOCUS for PE in the entire patient population and in the predefined subgroup, based on CTA as the criterion standard. Inter-rater reliability of FOCUS was determined by blinded review of images by an emergency physician with fellowship training in ultrasound. RESULTS: A total of 143 subjects were assessed for enrollment and 136 were enrolled; four were excluded because they were non-English-speaking and three because of inability to obtain any FOCUS windows. The mean (±SD) age of enrolled subjects was 56 (±7) years, mean (±SD) HR was 114 (±12) beats/min, and 37 (27.2%) subjects were diagnosed with PE on CTA. In all subjects, FOCUS was 92% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 78% to 98%) sensitive and 64% specific (95% CI = 53% to 73%) for PE. In the subgroup of 98 subjects with a HR ≥ 110 beats/min, FOCUS was 100% sensitive (95% CI = 88% to 100%) and 63% specific (95% CI = 51% to 74%) for PE. There was substantial interobserver agreement for FOCUS (κ = 1.0, 95% CI = 0.31 to 1.0). CONCLUSIONS: A negative FOCUS examination may significantly lower the likelihood of the diagnosis of PE in most patients who are suspected of PE and have abnormal vital signs. This was especially true in those patients with a HR ≥ 110 beats/min. Our results suggest that FOCUS can be an important tool in the initial evaluation of ED patients with suspected PE and abnormal vital signs.

The impact of a 25-cent-per-drink alcohol tax increase.

BACKGROUND: Excessive alcohol consumption causes 79,000 deaths annually in the U.S., shortening the lives of those who die from it by approximately 30 years. Although alcohol taxation is an effective measure to reduce excessive consumption and related harm, some argue that increasing alcohol taxes places an unfair economic burden on "responsible" drinkers and socially disadvantaged people. PURPOSE: To examine the impact of a hypothetic tax increase based on alcohol consumption and sociodemographic characteristics of current drinkers, individually and in aggregate. METHODS: Data from the 2008 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System survey were analyzed from 2010 to 2011 to determine the net financial impact of a hypothetic 25-cent-per-drink tax increase on current drinkers in the U.S. Higher-risk drinkers were defined as those whose past-30-day consumption included binge drinking, heavy drinking, drinking in excess of the U.S. Dietary Guidelines, and alcohol-impaired driving. RESULTS: Of U.S. adults who consumed alcohol in the past 30 days, 50.4% (or approximately 25% of the total U.S. population) were classified as higher-risk drinkers. The tax increase would result in a 9.2% reduction in alcohol consumption, including an 11.4% reduction in heavy drinking. Compared with lower-risk drinkers, higher-risk drinkers would pay 4.7 times more in net increased annual per capita taxes, and 82.7% of the net increased annual aggregate taxes. Lower-risk drinkers would pay less than $30 in net increased taxes annually. In aggregate, groups who paid the most in net tax increases included those who were white, male, aged 21-50 years, earning ≥$50,000 per year, employed, and had a college degree. CONCLUSIONS: A 25-cent-per-drink alcohol tax increase would reduce excessive drinking, and higher-risk drinkers would pay the substantial majority of the net tax increase.