Immediate impact of minimum unit pricing on alcohol purchases in Scotland: controlled interrupted time series analysis for 2015-18

Abstract

Objective To assess the immediate impact of the introduction of minimum unit pricing in Scotland on household alcohol purchases. Design Controlled interrupted time series analysis. Setting Purchase data from Kantar Worldpanel’s household shopping panel for 2015-18. Participants 5325 Scottish households, 54 807 English households as controls, and 10 040 households in northern England to control for potential cross border effects. Interventions Introduction of a minimum price of 50p (€0.55; $0.61) per UK unit (6.25p per gram) for the sale of alcohol in Scotland on 1 May 2018. Main outcome measures Price per gram of alcohol, number of grams of alcohol purchased from off-trade by households, and weekly household expenditure on alcohol. Results The introduction of minimum unit pricing in Scotland was associated with an increase in purchase price of 0.64p per gram of alcohol (95% confidence interval 0.54 to 0.75), a reduction in weekly purchases of 9.5 g of alcohol per adult per household (5.1 to 13.9), and a non-significant increase in weekly expenditure on alcohol per household of 61p (−5 to 127). The increase in purchase price was higher in lower income households and in households that purchased the largest amount of alcohol. The reduction in purchased grams of alcohol was greater in lower income households and only occurred in the top fifth of households by income that purchased the greatest amount of alcohol, where the reduction was 15 g of alcohol per week (6 to 24). Changes in weekly expenditure were not systematically related to household income but increased with increasing household purchases. Conclusions In terms of immediate impact, the introduction of minimum unit pricing appears to have been successful in reducing the amount of alcohol purchased by households in Scotland. The action was targeted, in that reductions of purchased alcohol only occurred in the households that bought the most alcohol.

Global Burden of Alcohol Use Disorders and Alcohol Liver Disease

“…While effective and cost-effective policies already do exist to reduce alcohol-attributable burden [67][68][69], two additional considerations should be focused on: first, each measure must be examined to ensure it does not widen the gap between socioeconomic strata and, second, the measures should target heavy drinking occasions. Thus, in addition to the raising taxes on alcohol, restricting its availability, and banning its advertisement, the current "best buys" for alcohol control-measures such as minimum pricing per unit-should be considered, as they have shown to have a strong effect on the drinking behaviour of heavy drinkers in lower socioeconomic strata [70].…”

Alcohol Use is a Key Factor in Recent Decreases in Life Expectancy in the United States

“…Such a conclusion would suggest the need for the introduction of effective alcohol policies—to at the very least not increase the affordability of alcohol as has been the tendency over the past decades (Kerr et al, ). This could be achieved via alcohol taxation increases and—in the event that decision makers shy away from such measures for fear of losing votes or for other reasons—through the implementation of minimum unit prices for alcohol, the introduction of which has recently been shown to be particularly effective for heavy alcohol consumers in lower socioeconomic strata (O'Donnell et al, ), the strata most highly affected by recent increases in alcohol‐related mortality.…”

Effect of UK plain tobacco packaging and minimum pack size legislation on tobacco and nicotine product switching behaviour

“…KWP is a longitudinal panel of approximately 30 000 households recruited using stratified sampling to be representative of the population of Great Britain in relation to region, household size, age of main shopper and socioeconomic status, who use barcode scanners to scan receipts for all online and off-line purchases brought into the home (non-barcode purchases can also be included). More details of the dataset have been provided elsewhere [8,9]. For this study we had access to the 11 695 households who provided data indicating that they had purchased cigarettes, RYO tobacco, cigars/cigarillos and pipe tobacco, electronic cigarettes (ecigarettes) and nicotine replacement therapy (NRT).…”

“…However, our results on purchase and price trends for legal pack sizes presented here have shown that even though consumers switched to bigger pack size cigarette products, they paid a lower average price per cigarette, closer to that of the 11 to 19 cigarette packs available before the new policy was implemented, by moving down by one price quartile to cheaper products. We recognize that Nielsen Scantrack data are more comprehensive in terms of the number of products included [8], but KWP is representative of consumers' purchasing behaviour. Trends in prices by price quartile observed in this study were consistent with those observed in studies using alternative methods for price segmentation [3,10,17].…”