Although many researchers in the field of alcohol abuse and alcoholism are driven by issues and values related to the quality of life, legislators and public policy makers are not necessarily driven by the same issues. Their actions are more likely to be motivated by fiscal issues.
Specific examples of this have occurred in the last few years in Washington, DC. First, Public Law 98-509 called for the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (NIAAA) to develop a national plan to combat alcohol abuse and alcoholism. Congress charged NIAAA with studying the costs and the economic implications of alcohol abuse in addition to studying policy. The charge was also to examine tangible goals and objectives for reducing those costs, to identify specific needs that were necessary to achieve the goals and objectives, to determine the cost of those needs (that is, needs for personnel, research, strengthening the treatment service sector, and prevention) and to estimate the savings that U.S. society could expect from achieving those goals.
By achieving just the trauma-related objectives for motor vehicle crashes and injuries, the United States would save $6 billion a year. More savings would be achieved should the other prevalence- and incidence-related costs be reduced. There is an economic payoff to prevention, and there will be a payoff to treatment. Although economic information is not as important as are issues of life and the quality of life to researchers in this field, it can be very useful in motivating those persons who must enable researchers to do more to fight accidents and injuries.