In 2011, Maryland upped the tax rate on alcohol. Projected to raise an additional $85 million a year for public schools, researchers recently discovered that the extra expense might also have had some unintended consequences: A new study, published this week in the American Journal of Preventative Medicine, shows that gonorrhea infections fell by roughly 24 percent after the tax was implemented—equal to about 1,600 fewer cases each year.

A team of researchers led by Stephanie Staras, an assistant professor at University of Florida’s College of Medicine, used data from National Notifiable Disease Surveillance System to assess transmission rates for 102 months before the tax increase and 18 months afterward.

They found that in just a year and a half after the tax—which was increased from 6 to 9 percent adding an estimated $0.03 on the dollar to the price of booze—there were 2,400 less cases of gonorrhea. The researchers used three control groups from other states in the US to test their assumptions and found that, even though Maryland initially had higher rates of the STD than the controls, the state’s numbers were the only ones that fell after 2011.

“If policymakers are looking for methods to protect young people from harmful STIs, they should consider raising alcohol taxes, which have decreased remarkably over the years due to inflation,” lead researcher Staras says in a statement released with the study.

She explains that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommend condom distribution as way to crackdown on gonorrhea (and other STDs) but she believes her team’s findings show that alcohol tax increases are just as effective. Plus, they both raise revenue and cut costs.

The study highlights that in just a year and a half, the reduced numbers of gonorrhea cases saved around $519,600 in medical expenses. “Even more-dramatic reductions in suffering and health costs would likely be seen if alcohol tax increases were more similar to the five times higher 2008 Maryland tobacco tax increase,” the researchers write in their report.

Still, some questions remain about whether or not their results actually reflect cause and effect, and not just a correlation. The tax increase did not have the same impact on chlamydia rates, which actually rose slightly.

“To me, it seems clear this study was designed as a way to confirm this pre-conceived bias,” Marc Kilmer, a health care policy analyst at the Maryland Public Policy Institute, told The Baltimore Sun. Admitting that he is against increased taxes, he explains that he often observes Maryland residents popping over the border to Delaware for less expensive liquor:

Kilmer said the study did not address issues more central to the debate over the tax. The Eastern Shore Republican said the research “is good at generating headlines but falls short of producing useful public policy information.” “My objections to the alcohol tax were based far more on effects to the economy rather than on STD rates,” he said. “It doesn’t change my view of the alcohol tax any.”

But the researchers stand by their findings, emphasizing that chlamydia is often underreported and commonly lacks symptoms. They explain that gonorrhea is also a better indicator because infections are more likely to be concentrated in a geographical location amongst high-risk populations who don’t practice safe sex, which helps highlight how a small change—like higher alcohol prices—changes behavior.

Plus, the study also included previously reported data that showed similar results. When Illinois increased its alcohol excise tax in 2009, both gonorrhea and chlamydia rates fell.

The researchers call for more investigation into the connection between the expense of alcohol and STD rates, but, in the mean time, are pushing policy-makers to consider tax increases: