2006) in the endorsement of hazardous use, which was sufficient in itself to establish a diagnosis of DSM-IV abuse but not DSM-5 moderate AUD. These findings closely mirrored those of Agrawal et al. (2011), reflecting the fact that all the cases lost for overall AUD under the DSM-5 came from the DSM-IV category of abuse. The higher proportions of women and race/ethnic minorities in the category of moderate AUD indicate a need to examine screening and treatment approaches formerly targeted at DSM-IV abuse for their appropriateness to a more diverse audience. In addition, the higher rates of anxiety disorder, physiological dependence and craving within DSM-5 moderate AUD relative to abuse suggest that the revised disorder would derive greater benefit from screening for dual diagnoses and may be more amenable to medication for all eviating craving and withdrawal symptoms. Finally, the lower proportion of cases with private health insurance coverage may have some ramifications for reimbursement; however, rates of treatment for those with either abuse or moderate AUD are so low that any shift in coverage would likely have a minimal impact.
