Screening for Excessive Alcohol Consumption in Emergency Departments: A Nationwide Assessment of Emergency Department Physicians.

OBJECTIVE: To assess current screening practices for excessive alcohol consumption, as well as perceived barriers, perceptions, and attitudes toward performing this screening among emergency department (ED) physicians. DESIGN: A brief online assessment of screening practices for excessive drinking was disseminated electronically to a representative panel of ED physicians from November 2016 to January 2017. Descriptive statistics were calculated on the frequency of alcohol screening, factors affecting screening, and attitudes toward screening. SETTING: An online assessment was sent to a national panel of ED physicians. PARTICIPANTS: A panel of ED physicians who volunteered to be part of the American College of Emergency Physicians Emergency Medicine Practice Research Network survey panel. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: The primary outcome measures were the percentage of respondents who reported screening for excessive alcohol consumption and the percentage of respondents using a validated excessive alcohol consumption screening tool. RESULTS: Of the 347 ED physicians evaluated (38.6% response rate), approximately 16% reported "always/usually," 70% "sometimes," and 14% "never" screening adult patients (≥18 years) for excessive alcohol use. Less than 20% of the respondents who screened for excessive drinking used a recommended screening tool. Only 10.5% of all respondents (15.4% "always," 9.5% "sometimes" screened) received an electronic health record (EHR) reminder to screen for excessive alcohol use. Key barriers to screening included limited time (66.2%) and treatment options for patients with drinking problems (43.1%). CONCLUSIONS: Only 1 in 6 ED physicians consistently screened their patients for excessive drinking. Increased use of EHR reminders and other systems interventions (eg, electronic screening and brief intervention) could help improve the delivery of screening and follow-up services for excessive drinkers in EDs.

Trends in Total Binge Drinks per Adult Who Reported Binge Drinking - United States, 2011-2017.

Each year, excessive drinking accounts for one in 10 deaths among U.S. adults aged 20-64 years (1), and approximately 90% of adults who report excessive drinking* binge drink (i.e., consume five or more drinks for men or four or more drinks for women on a single occasion) (2). In 2015, 17.1% of U.S. adults aged ≥18 years reported binge drinking approximately once a week and consumed an average of seven drinks per binge drinking episode, resulting in 17.5 billion total binge drinks, or 467 total binge drinks per adult who reported binge drinking (3). CDC analyzed 2011-2017 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS) data to assess trends in total annual binge drinks per adult who reported binge drinking in the United States overall and in the individual states. The age-adjusted† total annual number of binge drinks per adult who reported binge drinking increased significantly from 472 in 2011 to 529 in 2017. Total annual binge drinks per adult who reported binge drinking also increased significantly from 2011 to 2017 among those aged 35-44 years (26.7%, from 468 to 593) and 45-64 years (23.1%, from 428 to 527). The largest percentage increases in total binge drinks per adult who reported binge drinking during this period were observed among those without a high school diploma (45.8%) and those with household incomes <$25,000 (23.9%). Strategies recommended by the Community Preventive Services Task Force§ for reducing excessive drinking (e.g., regulating alcohol outlet density) might reduce binge drinking and related health risks.

Deaths and Years of Potential Life Lost From Excessive Alcohol Use - United States, 2011-2015.

Excessive alcohol use is a leading cause of preventable death in the United States (1) and costs associated with it, such as those from losses in workplace productivity, health care expenditures, and criminal justice, were $249 billion in 2010 (2). CDC used the Alcohol-Related Disease Impact (ARDI) application* to estimate national and state average annual alcohol-attributable deaths and years of potential life lost (YPLL) during 2011-2015, including deaths from one's own excessive drinking (e.g., liver disease) and from others' drinking (e.g., passengers killed in alcohol-related motor vehicle crashes). This study found an average of 95,158 alcohol-attributable deaths (261 deaths per day) and 2.8 million YPLL (29 years of life lost per death, on average) in the United States each year. Of all alcohol-attributable deaths, 51,078 (53.7%) were caused by chronic conditions, and 52,921 (55.6%) involved adults aged 35-64 years. Age-adjusted alcohol-attributable deaths per 100,000 population ranged from 20.8 in New York to 53.1 in New Mexico. YPLL per 100,000 population ranged from 631.9 in New York to 1,683.5 in New Mexico. Implementation of effective strategies for preventing excessive drinking, including those recommended by the Community Preventive Services Task Force (e.g., increasing alcohol taxes and regulating the number and concentration of alcohol outlets), could reduce alcohol-attributable deaths and YPLL.†.

Deaths and Years of Potential Life Lost From Excessive Alcohol Use - United States, 2011-2015.

Excessive alcohol use is a leading cause of preventable death in the United States (1) and costs associated with it, such as those from losses in workplace productivity, health care expenditures, and criminal justice, were $249 billion in 2010 (2). CDC used the Alcohol-Related Disease Impact (ARDI) application* to estimate national and state average annual alcohol-attributable deaths and years of potential life lost (YPLL) during 2011-2015, including deaths from one's own excessive drinking (e.g., liver disease) and from others' drinking (e.g., passengers killed in alcohol-related motor vehicle crashes). This study found an average of 93,296 alcohol-attributable deaths (255 deaths per day) and 2.7 million YPLL (29 years of life lost per death, on average) in the United States each year. Of all alcohol-attributable deaths, 51,078 (54.7%) were caused by chronic conditions, and 52,361 (56.0%) involved adults aged 35-64 years. Age-adjusted alcohol-attributable deaths per 100,000 population ranged from 20.3 in New Jersey and New York to 52.3 in New Mexico. YPLL per 100,000 population ranged from 613.8 in New York to 1,651.7 in New Mexico. Implementation of effective strategies for preventing excessive drinking, including those recommended by the Community Preventive Services Task Force (e.g., increasing alcohol taxes and regulating the number and concentration of alcohol outlets), could reduce alcohol-attributable deaths and YPLL.†.

Measuring Alcohol Outlet Density: An Overview of Strategies for Public Health Practitioners.

CONTEXT: Excessive alcohol use is responsible for 88 000 deaths in the United States annually and cost the United States $249 billion in 2010. There is strong scientific evidence that regulating alcohol outlet density is an effective intervention for reducing excessive alcohol consumption and related harms, but there is no standard method for measuring this exposure. PROGRAM: We overview the strategies available for measuring outlet density, discuss their advantages and disadvantages, and provide examples of how they can be applied in practice. IMPLEMENTATION: The 3 main approaches for measuring density are container-based (eg, number of outlets in a county), distance-based (eg, average distance between a college and outlets), and spatial access-based (eg, weighted distance between town center and outlets). EVALUATION: While container-based measures are the simplest to calculate and most intuitive, distance-based or spatial access-based measures are unconstrained by geopolitical boundaries and allow for assessment of clustering (an amplifier of certain alcohol-related harms). Spatial access-based measures can also be adjusted for population size/demographics but are the most resource-intensive to produce. DISCUSSION: Alcohol outlet density varies widely across and between locations and over time, which is why it is important to measure it. Routine public health surveillance of alcohol outlet density is important to identify problem areas and detect emerging ones. Distance- or spatial access-based measures of alcohol outlet density are more resource-intensive than container-based measures but provide a much more accurate assessment of exposure to alcohol outlets and can be used to assess clustering, which is particularly important when assessing the relationship between density and alcohol-related harms, such as violent crime.

Enhanced Enforcement of Laws to Reduce Alcohol Overservice Among Licensed Establishments in New Mexico, 2004-2008.

Limited information exists about the effectiveness of interventions to enforce laws prohibiting alcohol sales to intoxicated patrons in licensed establishments. New Mexico Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System data were used to evaluate an intervention on binge drinking intensity in licensed (eg, bars) versus unlicensed (eg, homes) locations. The proportion of binge drinkers in licensed locations who consumed 8 or more drinks on a binge drinking occasion decreased from 42.1% in 2004-2005 to 22.6% in 2007-2008 (adjusted odds ratio, 0.4; 95% confidence interval, 0.2-0.9), while the proportion in unlicensed locations was essentially unchanged. Enhanced enforcement of overservice laws may reduce excessive drinking in licensed establishments.

Evaluating Behavioral Health Surveillance Systems.

In 2015, more than 27 million people in the United States reported that they currently used illicit drugs or misused prescription drugs, and more than 66 million reported binge drinking during the previous month. Data from public health surveillance systems on drug and alcohol abuse are crucial for developing and evaluating interventions to prevent and control such behavior. However, public health surveillance for behavioral health in the United States has been hindered by organizational issues and other factors. For example, existing guidelines for surveillance evaluation do not distinguish between data systems that characterize behavioral health problems and those that assess other public health problems (eg, infectious diseases). To address this gap in behavioral health surveillance, we present a revised framework for evaluating behavioral health surveillance systems. This system framework builds on published frameworks and incorporates additional attributes (informatics capabilities and population coverage) that we deemed necessary for evaluating behavioral health-related surveillance. This revised surveillance evaluation framework can support ongoing improvements to behavioral health surveillance systems and ensure their continued usefulness for detecting, preventing, and managing behavioral health problems.

Current and Binge Drinking Among High School Students - United States, 1991-2015.

Excessive drinking accounted for approximately 4,300 deaths each year among persons aged <21 years during 2006-2010,* and underage drinking cost the United States $24.3 billion in 2010 (1). CDC analyzed data from the national Youth Risk Behavior Survey (YRBS) for the years 1991-2015 to examine trends in drinking by U.S. high school students, and from the 2015 YRBS to assess the usual source of alcohol consumed† and binge drinking intensity (i.e., the average number of drinks consumed per binge drinking occasion).§ During 1991-2007, the prevalence of current drinking¶ among high school students declined significantly, from 50.8% (1991) to 44.7% (2007), and then significantly declined to 32.8% in 2015. The prevalence of binge drinking** increased from 31.3% in 1991 to 31.5% in 1999, and then significantly declined to 17.7% in 2015. Most high school students who drank were binge drinkers (57.8%), and 43.8% of binge drinkers consumed eight or more drinks in a row. Despite progress, current drinking and binge drinking are common among high school students, and many students who binge drink do so at high intensity (i.e., eight or more drinks in a row). Widespread use of evidence-based strategies for preventing excessive drinking (e.g., increasing alcohol taxes, regulating alcohol outlet density, and having commercial host liability laws) could help reduce underage drinking and related harms.††.

Vital signs: alcohol poisoning deaths - United States, 2010-2012.

BACKGROUND: Alcohol poisoning is typically caused by binge drinking at high intensity (i.e., consuming a very large amount of alcohol during an episode of binge drinking). Approximately 38 million U.S. adults report binge drinking an average of four times per month and consuming an average of eight drinks per episode. METHODS: CDC analyzed data for 2010­2012 from the National Vital Statistics System to assess average annual alcohol poisoning deaths and death rates (ICD-10 codes X45 and Y15; underlying cause of death) in the United States among persons aged ≥15 years, by sex, age group, race/ethnicity, and state. RESULTS: During 2010­2012, an annual average of 2,221 alcohol poisoning deaths (8.8 deaths per 1 million population) occurred among persons aged ≥15 years in the United States. Of those deaths, 1,681 (75.7%) involved adults aged 35­64 years, and 1,696 (76.4%) involved men. Although non-Hispanic whites accounted for the majority of alcohol poisoning deaths (67.5%; 1,500 deaths), the highest age-adjusted death rate was among American Indians/Alaska Natives (49.1 per 1 million). The age-adjusted rate of alcohol poisoning deaths in states ranged from 5.3 per 1 million in Alabama to 46.5 per 1 million in Alaska. CONCLUSIONS: On average, six persons, mostly adult men, die from alcohol poisoning each day in the United States. Alcohol poisoning death rates vary substantially by state. IMPLICATIONS FOR PUBLIC HEALTH PRACTICE: Evidence-based strategies for preventing excessive drinking (e.g., regulating alcohol outlet density and preventing illegal alcohol sales in retail settings) could reduce alcohol poisoning deaths by reducing the prevalence, frequency, and intensity of binge drinking.

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.

Changes in density of on-premises alcohol outlets and impact on violent crime, Atlanta, Georgia, 1997-2007.

INTRODUCTION: Regulating alcohol outlet density is an evidence-based strategy for reducing excessive drinking. However, the effect of this strategy on violent crime has not been well characterized. A reduction in alcohol outlet density in the Buckhead neighborhood of Atlanta from 2003 through 2007 provided an opportunity to evaluate this effect. METHODS: We conducted a community-based longitudinal study to evaluate the impact of changes in alcohol outlet density on violent crime in Buckhead compared with 2 other cluster areas in Atlanta (Midtown and Downtown) with high densities of alcohol outlets, from 1997 through 2002 (preintervention) to 2003 through 2007 (postintervention). The relationship between exposures to on-premises retail alcohol outlets and violent crime were assessed by using annual spatially defined indices at the census block level. Multilevel regression models were used to evaluate the relationship between changes in exposure to on-premises alcohol outlets and violent crime while controlling for potential census block-level confounders. RESULTS: A 3% relative reduction in alcohol outlet density in Buckhead from 1997-2002 to 2003-2007 was associated with a 2-fold greater reduction in exposure to violent crime than occurred in Midtown or Downtown, where exposure to on-premises retail alcohol outlets increased. The magnitude of the association between exposure to alcohol outlets and violent crime was 2 to 5 times greater in Buckhead than in either Midtown or Downtown during the postintervention period. CONCLUSIONS: A modest reduction in alcohol outlet density can substantially reduce exposure to violent crime in neighborhoods with high density of alcohol outlets. Routine monitoring of community exposure to alcohol outlets could also inform the regulation of alcohol outlet density, consistent with Guide to Community Preventive Services recommendations.

Vital signs: communication between health professionals and their patients about alcohol use--44 states and the District of Columbia, 2011.

INTRODUCTION: Excessive alcohol use accounted for an estimated 88,000 deaths in the United States each year during 2006-2010, and $224 billion in economic costs in 2006. Since 2004, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) has recommended alcohol misuse screening and behavioral counseling (also known as alcohol screening and brief intervention [ASBI]) for adults to address excessive alcohol use; however, little is known about the prevalence of its implementation. ASBI will also be covered by many health insurance plans because of the Affordable Care Act. METHODS: CDC analyzed Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS) data from a question added to surveys in 44 states and the District of Columbia (DC) from August 1 to December 31, 2011, about patient-reported communication with a health professional about alcohol. Elements of ASBI are traditionally delivered via conversation. Weighted state-level prevalence estimates of this communication were generated for 166,753 U.S. adults aged ≥18 years by selected demographic characteristics and drinking behaviors. RESULTS: The prevalence of ever discussing alcohol use with a health professional was 15.7% among U.S. adults overall, 17.4% among current drinkers, and 25.4% among binge drinkers. It was most prevalent among those aged 18-24 years (27.9%). However, only 13.4% of binge drinkers reported discussing alcohol use with a health professional in the past year, and only 34.9% of those who reported binge drinking ≥10 times in the past month had ever discussed alcohol with a health professional. State-level estimates of communication about alcohol ranged from 8.7% in Kansas to 25.5% in DC. CONCLUSIONS: Only one of six U.S. adults, including binge drinkers, reported ever discussing alcohol consumption with a health professional, despite public health efforts to increase ASBI implementation. IMPLICATIONS FOR PUBLIC HEALTH PRACTICE: Increased implementation of ASBI, including systems-level changes such as integration into electronic health records processes, might reduce excessive alcohol consumption and the harms related to it. Routine surveillance of ASBI by states and communities might support monitoring and increasing its implementation.

Contribution of excessive alcohol consumption to deaths and years of potential life lost in the United States.

INTRODUCTION: Excessive alcohol consumption is a leading cause of premature mortality in the United States. The objectives of this study were to update national estimates of alcohol-attributable deaths (AAD) and years of potential life lost (YPLL) in the United States, calculate age-adjusted rates of AAD and YPLL in states, assess the contribution of AAD and YPLL to total deaths and YPLL among working-age adults, and estimate the number of deaths and YPLL among those younger than 21 years. METHODS: We used the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's Alcohol-Related Disease Impact application for 2006-2010 to estimate total AAD and YPLL across 54 conditions for the United States, by sex and age. AAD and YPLL rates and the proportion of total deaths that were attributable to excessive alcohol consumption among working-age adults (20-64 y) were calculated for the United States and for individual states. RESULTS: From 2006 through 2010, an annual average of 87,798 (27.9/100,000 population) AAD and 2.5 million (831.6/100,000) YPLL occurred in the United States. Age-adjusted state AAD rates ranged from 51.2/100,000 in New Mexico to 19.1/100,000 in New Jersey. Among working-age adults, 9.8% of all deaths in the United States during this period were attributable to excessive drinking, and 69% of all AAD involved working-age adults. CONCLUSIONS: Excessive drinking accounted for 1 in 10 deaths among working-age adults in the United States. AAD rates vary across states, but excessive drinking remains a leading cause of premature mortality nationwide. Strategies recommended by the Community Preventive Services Task Force can help reduce excessive drinking and harms related to it.

Prevalence of alcohol dependence among US adult drinkers, 2009-2011.

INTRODUCTION: Excessive alcohol consumption is responsible for 88,000 deaths annually and cost the United States $223.5 billion in 2006. It is often assumed that most excessive drinkers are alcohol dependent. However, few studies have examined the prevalence of alcohol dependence among excessive drinkers. The objective of this study was to update prior estimates of the prevalence of alcohol dependence among US adult drinkers. METHODS: Data were analyzed from the 138,100 adults who responded to the National Survey on Drug Use and Health in 2009, 2010, or 2011. Drinking patterns (ie, past-year drinking, excessive drinking, and binge drinking) were assessed by sociodemographic characteristics and alcohol dependence (assessed through self-reported survey responses and defined as meeting ≥3 of 7 criteria for dependence in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition). RESULTS: Excessive drinking, binge drinking, and alcohol dependence were most common among men and those aged 18 to 24. Binge drinking was most common among those with annual family incomes of $75,000 or more, whereas alcohol dependence was most common among those with annual family incomes of less than $25,000. The prevalence of alcohol dependence was 10.2% among excessive drinkers, 10.5% among binge drinkers, and 1.3% among non-binge drinkers. A positive relationship was found between alcohol dependence and binge drinking frequency. CONCLUSION: Most excessive drinkers (90%) did not meet the criteria for alcohol dependence. A comprehensive approach to reducing excessive drinking that emphasizes evidence-based policy strategies and clinical preventive services could have an impact on reducing excessive drinking in addition to focusing on the implementation of addiction treatment services.

Distribution of Drinks Consumed by U.S. Adults by Average Daily Alcohol Consumption: A Comparison of 2 Nationwide Surveys.

INTRODUCTION: Estimates of alcohol consumption in the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System are generally lower than those in other surveys of U.S. adults. This study compares the estimates of adults' drinking patterns and the distribution of drinks consumed by average daily alcohol consumption from 2 nationwide telephone surveys. METHODS: The 2014-2015 National Alcohol Survey (n=7,067) and the 2015 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (n=408,069) were used to assess alcohol consumption among adults (≥18 years), analyzed in 2019. The weighted prevalence of binge-level drinking and the distribution of drinks consumed by average daily alcohol consumption (low, medium, high) were assessed for the previous 12 months using the National Alcohol Survey and the previous 30 days using the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System, stratified by respondents' characteristics. RESULTS: The prevalence of binge-level drinking in a day was 26.1% for the National Alcohol Survey; the binge drinking prevalence was 17.4% for the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System. The prevalence of high average daily alcohol consumption among current drinkers was 8.2% for the National Alcohol Survey, accounting for 51.0% of total drinks consumed, and 3.3% for the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System, accounting for 27.7% of total drinks consumed. CONCLUSIONS: National Alcohol Survey yearly prevalence estimates of binge-level drinking in a day and high average daily consumption were consistently greater than Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System monthly binge drinking and high average daily consumption prevalence estimates. When planning and evaluating prevention strategies, the impact of different survey designs and methods on estimates of excessive drinking and related harms is important to consider.

Binge Drinking and Prescription Opioid Misuse in the U.S., 2012-2014.

INTRODUCTION: Prescription opioids were responsible for approximately 17,000 deaths in the U.S. in 2016. One in five prescription opioid deaths also involve alcohol. Drinkers who misuse prescription opioids (i.e., use without a prescription or use only for the experience or feeling it causes) are at a heightened risk of overdose. However, little is known about the relationship between drinking patterns and prescription opioid misuse. METHODS: Data were analyzed from 160,812 individuals (aged ≥12 years) who responded to questions about prescription opioid misuse and alcohol consumption in the 2012, 2013, or 2014 National Survey on Drug Use and Health (analyzed in 2017-2018). The prevalence of self-reported past-30-days prescription opioid misuse was assessed by sociodemographic characteristics, other substance use (i.e., cigarettes, marijuana), and drinking patterns. Multiple logistic regression analyses were used to calculate AORs. RESULTS: From 2012 to 2014, 1.6% (95% CI=1.5, 1.7) of all individuals aged ≥12 years (estimated 4.2 million) and 3.5% (95% CI=3.3, 3.8) of binge drinkers (estimated 2.2 million) reported prescription opioid misuse. Prescription opioid misuse was more common among binge drinkers than among nondrinkers (AOR=1.7, 95% CI=1.5, 1.9). Overall, the prevalence of prescription opioid misuse increased significantly with binge drinking frequency (p-value<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: More than half of the 4.2 million people who misused prescription opioids during 2012-2014 were binge drinkers, and binge drinkers had nearly twice the odds of misusing prescription opioids, compared with nondrinkers. Widespread use of evidence-based strategies for preventing binge drinking might reduce opioid misuse and overdoses involving alcohol.

Patterns of alcohol consumption and alcohol-impaired driving in the United States.

BACKGROUND: Alcohol-related motor vehicle crashes kill approximately 17,000 Americans annually and were associated with more than $51 billion in total costs in 2000. Relatively little is known about the drinking patterns of alcohol-impaired (AI) drivers in the United States. METHODS: 2006 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS) was analyzed for alcohol consumption and self-reported AI driving among U.S. adults aged > or =18 years for all states. Alcohol consumption was divided into 4 categories: binge/heavy, binge/nonheavy, nonbinge/heavy, and nonbinge/nonheavy. Binge drinking was defined as > or =5 drinks for men or > or =4 drinks for women on one or more occasions in the past month, and heavy drinking was defined as average daily consumption of >2 drinks/day (men) or >1 drink/day (women). The prevalence of AI driving was examined by drinking pattern and by demographic characteristics. Logistic regression analysis was used to assess the association between drinking patterns and AI driving. RESULTS: Five percent of drinkers were engaged in AI driving during the past 30 days. Overall, 84% of AI drivers were binge drinkers and 88% of AI driving episodes involved binge drinkers. By drinking category, binge/nonheavy drinkers accounted for the largest percentage of AI drivers (49.4%), while binge/heavy drinkers accounted for the most episodes of AI driving (51.3%). The adjusted odds of AI driving were 20.1 (95% CI: 16.7, 24.3) for binge/heavy, 8.2 (6.9, 9.7) for binge/nonheavy, and 3.9 (2.4, 6.3) for nonbinge/heavy drinkers, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: There is a strong association between binge drinking and AI driving. Most AI drivers and almost half of all AI driving episodes involve persons who are not heavy drinkers (based on average daily consumption). Implementing effective interventions to prevent binge drinking could substantially reduce AI driving.

Annual Total Binge Drinks Consumed by U.S. Adults, 2015.

INTRODUCTION: Binge drinking (four or more drinks for women, five or more drinks for men on an occasion) accounts for more than half of the 88,000 U.S. deaths resulting from excessive drinking annually. Adult binge drinkers do so frequently and at high intensity; however, there are known disparities in binge drinking that are not well characterized by any single binge-drinking measure. A new measure of total annual binge drinks was used to assess these disparities at the state and national levels. METHODS: Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System 2015 data (analyzed in 2016) were used to estimate the prevalence, frequency, intensity, and total binge drinks among U.S. adults. Total annual binge drinks was calculated by multiplying annual binge-drinking episodes by binge-drinking intensity. RESULTS: In 2015, a total of 17.1% of U.S. adults (37.4 million) reported an annual average of 53.1 binge-drinking episodes per binge drinker, at an average intensity of 7.0 drinks per binge episode, resulting in 17.5 billion total binge drinks, or 467.0 binge drinks per binge drinker. Although binge drinking was more common among young adults (aged 18-34 years), half of the total binge drinks were consumed by adults aged ≥35 years. Total binge drinks per binge drinker were substantially higher among those with lower educational levels and household incomes than among those with higher educational levels and household incomes. CONCLUSIONS: U.S. adult binge drinkers consume about 17.5 billion total binge drinks annually, or about 470 binge drinks/binge drinker. Monitoring total binge drinks can help characterize disparities in binge drinking and help plan and evaluate effective prevention strategies.

What do binge drinkers drink? Implications for alcohol control policy.

BACKGROUND: Although binge drinking (drinking five or more drinks on an occasion) is an important public health problem, little is known about which beverage types are consumed by binge drinkers. This knowledge could guide prevention efforts because beer, wine, and liquor are taxed, marketed, and distributed differently. METHODS: Data from 14,150 adult binge drinkers who responded to the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System binge-drinking module in 2003 and 2004 were analyzed. Information pertained to the amount of alcohol consumed during a binge drinker's most recent binge episode, including beverage-specific consumption. RESULTS: Overall, 74.4% of binge drinkers consumed beer exclusively or predominantly, and those who consumed at least some beer accounted for 80.5% of all binge alcohol consumption. By beverage type, beer accounted for 67.1%, liquor for 21.9%, and wine accounted for 10.9% of binge drinks consumed. Beer also accounted for most of the alcohol consumed by those at highest risk of causing or incurring alcohol-related harm, including people aged 18-20 years (67.0% of drinks were beer); those with three or more binge episodes per month (70.7%); those drinking eight or more drinks per binge episode (69.9%); those binging in public places (64.4%); and those who drove during or within 2 hours of binge drinking (67.1%). CONCLUSIONS: Beer accounted for two thirds of all alcohol consumed by binge drinkers and accounted for most alcohol consumed by those at greatest risk of causing or incurring alcohol-related harm. Lower excise taxes and relatively permissive sales and marketing practices for beer as compared with other beverage types may account for some of these findings. These findings suggest that equalizing alcohol control policies at more stringent levels would be an effective way to prevent excessive drinking.

Health care access among U.S. adults who drink alcohol excessively: missed opportunities for prevention.

INTRODUCTION: Excessive alcohol consumption kills approximately 75,000 people annually in the United States. Although alcohol screening among primary care patients is recommended by the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, it is rarely performed. It is unclear whether low screening rates are due to limited access to health care, missed screening opportunities during patient visits, or both. METHODS: Data came from the 2002 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System, a population-based telephone survey of noninstitutionalized U.S. adults. Current health insurance status and a history of a recent medical checkup (within 2 years) were assessed in relation to alcohol consumption status. Excessive drinkers included those who reported binge drinking (consuming five or more drinks on one or more occasions in the past month), heavy drinking (consuming more than 60 drinks in the past month for men or more than 30 for women), or both. RESULTS: The prevalence of excessive drinking among the general population (17%) was only slightly higher than the prevalence among those with current health insurance (15%) or a recent checkup (14%). Among excessive drinkers, 79% had current health insurance and 78% had a recent checkup. Although excessive drinkers were somewhat less likely to have health insurance or a recent checkup compared with nonexcessive drinkers and nondrinkers, these differences were less pronounced after stratifying by age. Excessive drinkers with the lowest rates of health insurance were young, Hispanic, less educated, and unemployed. However, most excessive drinkers who lacked insurance or a checkup were employed. CONCLUSION: Most excessive drinkers were insured and had a recent medical checkup, suggesting that low screening rates among excessive drinkers are mostly due to missed screening opportunities rather than a lack of screening opportunities. Systems approaches to address these missed opportunities should be aggressively implemented.