The economic costs of alcohol-related harms at the local level in New South Wales.

INTRODUCTION: Alcohol is a harmful, toxic and addictive substance that causes many diseases and injuries. Alcohol use also incurs a financial cost to the health care system and wider economy. This project aimed to undertake a cost impact analysis of alcohol-related harms at the local level in New South Wales (NSW). The alcohol-related harms costing model is an interactive tool designed for use by local health districts, stakeholders such as Liquor and Gaming NSW, NSW Independent Liquor and Gaming Authority and community stakeholders. METHODS: Costs included in the analysis were alcohol-related hospitalisations, deaths, crimes, emergency department attendances, outpatient presentations and their impacts on productivity. Two local government areas (LGA) were used as case studies to demonstrate local impacts. RESULTS: In 2019-2020, the total cost of alcohol-related harms for NSW was estimated at $9 billion, at a rate of $120.3 million per 100,000 population. The total costs were comprised of alcohol-attributable premature mortality ($8.3 billion), non-fatal health care costs ($275 million) and crime costs ($457 million). A comparative analysis of two case study LGAs estimated that alcohol-related harms cost $195 million for the Northern Beaches LGA and $351 million for the Central Coast LGA. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: This research has developed a 'proof-of-concept' model to estimate the cost of alcohol-related harms at the local level in Australia, empowering health agencies and local community stakeholders to use economic evidence in their submissions in response to new liquor licence applications and other policies that impact their local community. This economic evidence can be used to improve the quality of decisions on alcohol regulation and policies. There are a number of future research opportunities that would enhance the economic evidence available to liquor licensing decision-makers.

A comparative analysis of the cost-utility of the Philippine tax on sweetened beverages as proposed and as implemented.

Background: In response to increasing overweight and obesity, the Philippine government introduced a tax on sweetened beverages (SBs) in 2018. Evidence suggests that the beverage industry influenced the final tax design, making it more favourable for industry than the initially proposed bill. This study aimed to compare the relative health and economic benefits of the proposed SB tax with the implemented SB tax. Methods: Philippine dietary consumption data were combined with price elasticity data from Mexico and data from Australia adapted to the Philippine context to estimate reductions in SB purchases and changes in body mass index (BMI) following the implementation of the tax. A multi-state, multiple-cohort Markov model was used to estimate the change in health-adjusted life years (HALYs) due to reduction in the epidemiology of obesity-related diseases, healthcare cost savings and government taxation revenue, resulting from both the proposed and implemented tax policies, over the lifetime of the 2018 Philippine population. Findings: The proposed and implemented taxes were modelled to be dominant (cost-saving and improving health). Intervention costs were modelled to be PHP305.2 million (M) (approximately US$6M). Compared to the proposed tax, the implemented tax was modelled to result in a 43.0% smaller reduction in targeted beverage intake (51.1 ml/person/day vs. 89.7 ml/person/day), a 43.5% smaller reduction in BMI (0.35 kg/m2 vs. 0.62 kg/m2), 39.7% fewer HALYs gained (2,503,118 vs. 4,149,030), 39.9% fewer healthcare cost savings (PHP16.4 billion (B) vs. PHP27.3B), and 27.7% less government taxation revenue (PHP426.3B vs. PHP589.4B). Interpretation: While the implemented tax in the Philippines will benefit population health, it is likely to yield less benefit than the proposed tax. The influence of the food and beverage industry on policy processes has the potential to lessen the benefits of population NCD prevention policies. Funding: OH was supported to conduct this research by an Australian Government Research Training Program Stipend Scholarship. The funding body had no role in data collection and analysis, or manuscript preparation.

Modeled health economic and equity impact on dental caries and health outcomes from a 20% sugar sweetened beverages tax in Australia.

Dental caries is the most prevalent oral disease across the life course. This study modeled the population health and economic impact of a 20% sugar sweetened beverages tax (SSB) for preventing dental caries compared to no intervention (societal and healthcare perspective). A cost-effectiveness analysis according to quintiles of area-level socioeconomic disadvantage was performed for the 2020 Australian population (0-100 years old) using a closed cohort Markov model. A qualitative assessment of implementation considerations (e.g., acceptability, equity, sustainability) was undertaken. Health outcomes were modeled as decayed teeth prevented and disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) averted. The 10-year and lifetime scenarios were modeled with probabilistic sensitivity analysis (Monte Carlo simulation, 2000 cycles). The 10-year scenario from a societal perspective yielded cost-savings of AUD$63.5M, healthcare cost-savings of AUD$42.2M, 510,977 decayed teeth averted and 98.1 DALYs averted. The lifetime scenario resulted in societal cost savings of AUD$176.6M, healthcare cost-savings of AUD$122.5M, 1,309,211 decayed teeth averted and 254.9 DALYs averted. Modeling indicated 71.5% and 74.5% cost-effectiveness for the 10-year and lifetime scenarios, respectively. A three-fold health benefit for the least advantaged was found compared to the most advantaged. A 20% SSB tax in Australia is cost-effective and promotes health equity.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of sedentary behaviour interventions in offices to reduce sitting time in Australian desk-based workers: A modelling study.

OBJECTIVES: Sedentary behaviour (SB) is associated with increased incidence of chronic diseases such as type 2 diabetes (T2D), cardiovascular disease, cancers, and premature mortality. SB interventions in workplaces are effective in reducing sitting time. Previous economic evaluations have not specifically used changes in sitting time to estimate the long-term impact of SB on chronic disease-related health and cost outcomes. This research evaluated the cost-effectiveness of three hypothetical SB interventions: behavioural (BI), environmental (EI) and multi-component intervention (MI), implemented in the Australian context, using a newly developed epidemiological model that estimates the impact of SB as a risk factor on long-term population health and associated cost outcomes. METHOD: Pathway analysis was used to identify the resource items associated with implementing each of the three interventions using a limited societal perspective (included costs: health sector, individuals and industry; excluded costs: productivity). The effectiveness of the modelled interventions in reducing daily sitting time (informed by published meta-analyses) was modelled for the Australian working population aged 20-65 years. A multi-cohort Markov model was developed to simulate the 2019 Australian population and estimate the incidence, prevalence and mortality of five diseases causally related to excessive sitting time, over the life course. Monte-Carlo simulations were used to calculate each intervention's mean incremental costs and benefits (quantified as health adjusted life years HALYs) compared to a do-nothing comparator. RESULTS: When implemented at the national level, the interventions were estimated to reach 1,018 organisations with 1,619,239 employees. The estimated incremental cost of SB interventions was A$159M (BI), A$688M (EI) and A$438M (MI) over a year. Incremental health-adjusted life years (HALYs) gained by BI, EI and MI were 604, 919 and 349, respectively. The mean ICER for BI was A$251,863 per HALY gained, A$737,307 for EI and A$1,250,426 for MI. Only BI had any probability (2%) of being cost-effective at a willingness-to-pay threshold of A$50,000 per HALY gained from a societal perspective. CONCLUSION: SB interventions are not cost-effective when a reduction in sitting time is the outcome measure of interest. The cost-effectiveness results are heavily driven by the cost of the sit-stand desks and the small HALYs gained from reducing sitting time. Future research should focus on capturing non-health-benefits of these interventions, such as productivity, work satisfaction, and other health benefits: metabolic, physical, and musculoskeletal outcomes. Importantly, the health benefits of simultaneously reducing sitting time and increasing standing time for such interventions should be captured with the joint effects of these risk factors appropriately considered.

Cost-effectiveness of LiveLighter® - a mass media public education campaign for obesity prevention.

BACKGROUND: The Western Australian LiveLighter® program has implemented a series of mass media advertising campaigns that aim to encourage adults to achieve and maintain a healthy weight through healthy behaviours. This study aimed to assess the cost-effectiveness of the LiveLighter® campaign in preventing obesity-related ill health in the Western Australian population from the health sector perspective. METHODS: Campaign effectiveness (delivered over 12 months) was estimated from a meta-analysis of two cohort studies that surveyed a representative sample of the Western Australian population aged 25-49 years on discretionary food consumption one month pre- and one month post-campaign. Campaign costs were derived from campaign invoices and interviews with campaign staff. Long-term health (measured in health-adjusted life years (HALYs)) and healthcare cost-savings resulting from reduced obesity-related diseases were modelled over the lifetime of the population using a validated multi-state lifetable Markov model (ACE-Obesity Policy model). All cost and health outcomes were discounted at 7% and presented in 2017 values. Uncertainty analyses were undertaken using Monte-Carlo simulations. RESULTS: The 12-month intervention was estimated to cost approximately A$2.46 million (M) (95% uncertainty interval (UI): 2.26M; 2.67M). The meta-analysis indicated post-campaign weekly reduction in sugary drinks consumption of 0.78 serves (95% UI: 0.57; 1.0) and sweet food of 0.28 serves (95% UI: 0.07; 0.48), which was modelled to result in average weight reduction of 0.58 kilograms (95%UI: 0.31; 0.92), 204 HALYs gained (95%UI: 103; 334), and healthcare cost-savings of A$3.17M (95%UI: A$1.66M; A$5.03M). The mean incremental cost-effectiveness ratio showed that LiveLighter® was dominant (cost-saving and health promoting; 95%UI: dominant; A$7 703 per HALY gained). The intervention remained cost-effective in all sensitivity analyses conducted. CONCLUSION: The LiveLighter® campaign is likely to represent very good value-for-money as an obesity prevention intervention in Western Australia and should be included as part of an evidence-based obesity prevention strategy.

Preventive health resource allocation decision-making processes and the use of economic evidence in an Australian state government-A mixed methods study.

CONTEXT: Recommended best practice for resource allocation decisions by governments include a stepwise process guided by economic evidence. However, the use of economic evidence in preventive health decision-making, which often impacts on multiple sectors of government, is under-researched. This study aimed to explore the resource allocation decision-making processes for preventive health interventions in the New South Wales (NSW) Government in Australia, and specifically examined the barriers and facilitators to the use of economic evidence from the perspective of multiple government departments. METHODS: This mixed methods study was conducted using semi-structured interviews with NSW Treasury representatives (n = 4), a focus group of NSW Ministry of Health representatives (n = 9), and a quantitative questionnaire of all participants. The schedule for the interviews and focus group was based on resource allocation guidance documents from Australian government agencies. Deductive content analysis was undertaken, guided by the Multiple Streams Framework. FINDINGS: NSW Treasury participants believed that decision-making processes where economic efficiency was the key guiding principle was the ideal approach. However, the NSW Ministry of Health participants identified that for preventive health decision-making, economic evidence was not used to inform their own choices but was typically only used to convince other agencies of the merits of proposed initiatives when seeking approval. The key barriers to the use of economic evidence were the lack of capacity within the NSW Ministry of Health to understand and undertake economic evaluations; a lack of collaboration between NSW Treasury and preventive health decision-makers within the NSW Ministry of Health; and deficient processes and governance mechanisms that do not facilitate or incentivise effective inter-sectoral decision-making. CONCLUSIONS: Institutional structures for resource allocation decision-making regarding preventive health result in processes that contrast with best practice recommendations. The multiple challenges to collaborative decision-making across agencies require organisational change to promote a whole-of-government approach.

Economic evaluation of an incentive-based program to increase physical activity and reduce sedentary behaviour in middle-aged adults.

BACKGROUND: Incentive-based programs represent a promising approach for health insurers to encourage health-promoting behaviours. However, little is known about the value for money of such programs. This study aimed to determine the cost-effectiveness of the ACHIEVE (Active CHoices IncEntiVE) program designed to incentivise increased physical activity and reduced sedentary behaviour in middle-aged adults. METHODS:  A within-trial cost-efficacy analysis was conducted. Benefits were assessed by evaluating paired t-tests from participants' pre- and post- trial Body Mass Index (BMI) (kg/m2), sitting time (minutes/day) and metabolic equivalents (METS) minutes. A health sector perspective was adopted for the assessment of costs. Pathway analysis was used to determine the resource use associated with the intervention, with costs expressed in Australian dollars (A$) for the 2015 reference year. A long-term cost-effectiveness analysis was undertaken which extended the analysis time horizon and the trial population to the relevant eligible Australian population. Within this analysis, the 16-week intervention was modelled for roll-out across Australia over a 1-year time horizon targeting people with private health insurance who are insufficiently active and highly sedentary. Improved health related quality of life quantified in Health-Adjusted Life Years (HALYs) (based on the health impacts of increased metabolic equivalent (MET) minutes and reduced body mass index (BMI) and cost-offsets (resulting from reductions in obesity and physical inactivity-related diseases) were tracked until the cohort reached age 100 years or death. A 3% discount rate was used and all outcomes were expressed in 2010 values. Simulation modelling techniques were used to present 95% uncertainty intervals around all outputs. RESULTS:  The within-trial cost-efficacy analysis indicated that the ACHIEVE intervention cost approximately A$77,432. The cost per participant recruited was A$944. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) for MET increase per person per week was A$0.61; minute of sedentary time reduced per participant per day was A$5.15 and BMI unit loss per participant was A$763. The long-term cost effectiveness analysis indicated that if the intervention was scaled-up to all eligible Australians, approximately 265,095 participants would be recruited to the program at an intervention cost of A$107.4 million. Health care cost savings were A$33.4 million. Total HALYs gained were 2,709. The mean ICER was estimated at A$27,297 per HALY gained which is considered cost-effective in the Australian setting. CONCLUSION:  The study findings suggest that financial incentives to promote physical activity and reduce sedentary behaviour are likely to be cost-effective. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry: ACTRN12616000158460 (10/02/2016).

Cost-Benefit and Cost-Utility Analyses to Demonstrate the Potential Value-for-Money of Supermarket Shelf Tags Promoting Healthier Packaged Products in Australia.

The supermarket environment impacts the healthiness of food purchased and consumed. Shelf tags that alert customers to healthier packaged products can improve the healthiness of overall purchases. This study assessed the potential value-for-money of implementing a three-year shelf tag intervention across all major supermarket chains in Australia. Cost-benefit analyses (CBA) and cost-utility analyses (CUA) were conducted based on results of a 12-week non-randomised controlled trial of a shelf tag intervention in seven Australian supermarkets. The change in energy density of all packaged foods purchased during the trial was used to estimate population-level changes in mean daily energy intake. A multi-state, multiple-cohort Markov model estimated the subsequent obesity-related health and healthcare cost outcomes over the lifetime of the 2019 Australian population. The CBA and CUA took societal and healthcare sector perspectives, respectively. The intervention was estimated to produce a mean reduction in population body weight of 1.09 kg. The net present value of the intervention was approximately AUD 17 billion (B). Over 98% of the intervention costs were borne by supermarkets. CUA findings were consistent with the CBA-the intervention was dominant, producing both health benefits and cost-savings. Shelf tags are likely to offer excellent value-for-money from societal and healthcare sector perspectives.

Modelling the potential health and economic benefits of reducing population sitting time in Australia.

BACKGROUND: Strong evidence indicates that excessive time spent sitting (sedentary behaviour) is detrimentally associated with multiple chronic diseases. Sedentary behaviour is prevalent among adults in Australia and has increased during the COVID-19 pandemic. Estimating the potential health benefits and healthcare cost saving associated with reductions in population sitting time could be useful for the development of public health initiatives. METHODS: A sedentary behaviour model was developed and incorporated into an existing proportional, multi-state, life table Markov model (ACE-Obesity Policy model). This model simulates the 2019 Australian population (age 18 years and above) and estimates the incidence, prevalence and mortality of five diseases associated with sedentary behaviour (type 2 diabetes, stroke, endometrial, breast and colorectal cancer). Key model inputs included population sitting time estimates from the Australian National Health Survey 2014-2015, healthcare cost data from the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (2015) and relative risk estimates assessed by conducting literature reviews and meta-analyses. Scenario analyses estimated the potential change in disease incidence as a result of changes in population sitting time. This, in turn, resulted in estimated improvements in long term health outcomes (Health-adjusted life years (HALYs)) and healthcare cost-savings. RESULTS: According to the model, if all Australian adults sat no more than 4 h per day, the total HALYs gained would be approximately 17,211 with health care cost savings of approximately A$185 million over one year. Under a more feasible scenario, where sitting time was reduced in adults who sit 4 or more hours per day by approximately 36 min per person per day (based on the results of the Stand Up Victoria randomised controlled trial), potential HALYs gained were estimated to be 3,670 and healthcare cost saving could reach A$39 million over one year. CONCLUSIONS: Excessive sedentary time results in considerable population health burden in Australia. This paper describes the development of the first Australian sedentary behaviour model that can be used to predict the long term consequences of interventions targeted at reducing sedentary behaviour through reductions in sitting time. These estimates may be used by decision makers when prioritising healthcare resources and investing in preventative public health initiatives.

Potential financial impact on television networks of a ban on alcohol advertising during sports broadcasts in Australia.

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to assess the potential financial impacts on Australian television networks of a ban on alcohol advertising during sports broadcasts. METHODS: We analysed television advertising data from Nielsen, a commercial market research company. The data included details of all advertisements (ads) for the 10 highest-spending alcohol brands on free-to-air television networks in the five largest capital cities in Australia over a 12-month period (November 2018-October 2019). We estimated alcohol advertising spend during sports broadcasts. Financial value per network was estimated using ad duration and total spend per channel. RESULTS: There were 10,660 alcohol ads (average of 75 minutes per week) shown during sports broadcasts, amounting to A$14.4 million in revenue to television networks. Forty-five per cent of these ads were at children's viewing times. Channel Seven received the largest amount of alcohol advertising revenue (A$20.8 million), of which A$10.8 million (52.0%) was during sports broadcasts (0.5% of its total advertising revenue). CONCLUSIONS: Alcohol advertising during sports broadcasts is pervasive but contributes a relatively small proportion of revenue for television networks. IMPLICATIONS FOR PUBLIC HEALTH: A ban on alcohol advertising during sport broadcasts is unlikely to have major financial impacts on broadcasters, whilst the health and social benefits are potentially substantial.

Economics of sedentary behaviour: A systematic review of cost of illness, cost-effectiveness, and return on investment studies.

AIMS: METHODS: RESULTS: We identified nine articles (conducted in Australia (n = 5), Europe (n = 3) and China (n = 1)); three reported healthcare costs associated with excessive sedentary time, whilst six were economic evaluations of interventions targeting sedentary behaviour. Healthcare costs associated with excessive sedentary time as reported in cost of illness studies were substantial; however, none explored non-health sector costs. In contrast, all full economics evaluations adopted a societal perspective; however, costs included differed depending on the intervention context. One sedentary behaviour intervention in children was cost-saving. The five interventions targeting occupational sitting time of adults in office workplaces were cost-effective. Physical environmental changes such as sit-stand desks, active workstations etc., were the key cost driver. CONCLUSIONS: Sedentary behaviour is likely associated with excess healthcare costs, although future research should also explore costs across other sectors. Cost-effectiveness evidence of sedentary behaviour reduction interventions in workplaces is limited but consistent. Key gaps relate to the economic credentials of interventions targeting children, and modelling of long-term health benefits of interventions.

A cost-benefit analysis framework for preventive health interventions to aid decision-making in Australian governments.

BACKGROUND: Australian governments are increasingly mandating the use of cost-benefit analysis (CBA) to inform the efficient allocation of government resources. CBA is likely to be useful when evaluating preventive health interventions that are often cross-sectoral in nature and require Cabinet approval prior to implementation. This study outlines a CBA framework for the evaluation of preventive health interventions that balances the need for consistency with other agency guidelines whilst adhering to guidelines and conventions for health economic evaluations. METHODS: We analysed CBA and other evaluation guidance documents published by Australian federal and New South Wales (NSW) government departments. Data extraction compared the recommendations made by different agencies and the impact on the analysis of preventive health interventions. The framework specifies a reference case and sensitivity analyses based on the following considerations: (1) applied economic evaluation theory; (2) consistency between CBA across different government departments; (3) the ease of moving from a CBA to a more conventional cost-effectiveness/cost-utility analysis framework often used for health interventions; (4) the practicalities of application; and (5) the needs of end users being both Cabinet decision-makers and health policy-makers. RESULTS: Nine documents provided CBA or relevant economic evaluation guidance. There were differences in terminology and areas of agreement and disagreement between the guidelines. Disagreement between guidelines involved (1) the community included in the societal perspective; (2) the number of options that should be appraised in ex ante analyses; (3) the appropriate time horizon for interventions with longer economic lives; (4) the theoretical basis and value of the discount rate; (5) parameter values for variables such as the value of a statistical life; and (6) the summary measure for decision-making. CONCLUSIONS: This paper addresses some of the methodological challenges that have hindered the use of CBA in prevention by outlining a framework that is consistent with treasury department guidelines whilst considering the unique features of prevention policies. The effective use and implementation of a preventive health CBA framework is likely to require considerable investment of time and resources from state and federal government departments of health and treasury but has the potential to improve decision-making related to preventive health policies and programmes.

Systematic Review to Update 'Value of a Statistical Life' Estimates for Australia.

The value of a statistical life (VSL) estimates individuals' willingness to trade wealth for mortality risk reduction. This economic parameter is often a major component of the quantified benefits estimated in the evaluation of government policies related to health and safety. This study reviewed the literature to update the VSL recommended for Australian policy appraisals. A systematic literature review was conducted to capture Australian primary studies and international review papers reporting VSL estimates published from 2007 to January 2019. International estimates were adjusted for income differences and the median VSL estimate was extracted from each review study. VSL estimates were used to calculate the value of a statistical life year. Of the 18 studies that met the inclusion criteria, two studies were primary Australian studies with a weighted mean VSL of A$7.0 million in 2017 values. The median VSL in the review studies was A$7.3 million. For Australian public policy appraisals, we recommend the consideration of a base case VSL for people of all ages and across all risk contexts of A$7.0 million. Sensitivity analyses could use a high value of A$7.3 million and a low value that reflects the value (A$4.3 million) currently recommended by the Australian government.

The 'Eat Well @ IGA' healthy supermarket randomised controlled trial: process evaluation.

BACKGROUND: Successful implementation and long-term maintenance of healthy supermarkets initiatives are crucial to achieving potential population health benefits. Understanding barriers and enablers of implementation of real-world trials will enhance wide-scale implementation. This process evaluation of a healthy supermarket intervention sought to describe (i) customer, retailer and stakeholder perspectives on the intervention; (ii) intervention implementation; and (iii) implementation barriers and enablers. METHODS: Eat Well @ IGA was a 12-month randomised controlled trial conducted in 11 Independent Grocers of Australia (IGA) chain supermarkets in regional Victoria, Australia (5 intervention and 6 wait-listed control stores). Intervention components included trolley and basket signage, local area and in-store promotion, and shelf tags highlighting the healthiest packaged foods. A sequential mixed-methods process evaluation was undertaken. Customer exit surveys investigated demographics, and intervention recall and perceptions. Logistic mixed-models estimated associations between customer responses and demographics, with store as random effect. Supermarket staff surveys investigated staff demographics, interactions with customers, and intervention component feedback. Semi-structured stakeholder interviews with local government, retail and academic partners explored intervention perceptions, and factors which enabled or inhibited implementation, maintenance and scalability. Interviews were inductively coded to identify key themes. RESULTS: Of 500 customers surveyed, 33%[95%CI:23,44] recalled the Eat Well @ IGA brand and 97%[95%CI:93,99] agreed that IGA should continue its efforts to encourage healthy eating. The 82 staff surveyed demonstrated very favourable intervention perceptions. Themes from 19 interviews included that business models favour sales of unhealthy foods, and that stakeholder collaboration was crucial to intervention design and implementation. Staff surveys and interviews highlighted the need to minimise staff time for project maintenance and to regularly refresh intervention materials to increase and maintain salience among customers. CONCLUSIONS: This process evaluation found that interventions to promote healthy diets in supermarkets can be perceived as beneficial by retailers, customers, and government partners provided that barriers including staff time and intervention salience are addressed. Collaborative partnerships in intervention design and implementation, including retailers, governments, and academics, show potential for encouraging long-term sustainability of interventions. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN, ISRCTN37395231 Registered 4 May 2017.

A Systematic Review of Economic Evaluations of Health-Promoting Food Retail-Based Interventions.

BACKGROUND: While the number of retail interventions with impacts on diet- and/or health-related outcomes is increasing, the economic evaluation literature is limited. This review investigated (i) the cost-effectiveness of health-promoting food retail interventions and (ii) key assumptions adopted in these evaluations. METHODS: A systematic review of published academic studies was undertaken (CRD42020153763). Fourteen databases were searched. Eligible studies were identified, analysed, and reported following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guidelines. RESULTS: Eight studies that evaluated 30 retail interventions were included in the review. Common outcomes reported were cost per healthy food item purchased/served or cost per disability-adjusted life year (DALY) averted. Four studies undertook cost-utility analyses and half of these studies concluded that retail interventions were cost-effective in improving health outcomes. Most studies did not state any assumptions regarding compensatory behaviour (i.e., purchases/consumption of non-intervention foods or food purchases/consumption from non-intervention settings) and presumed that sales data were indicative of consumption. CONCLUSION: The cost-effectiveness of retail-based health-promoting interventions is inconclusive. Future health-promoting retail interventions should regularly include an economic evaluation which addresses key assumptions related to compensatory behaviour and the use of sales data as a proxy for consumption.

Assessing the Cost-Effectiveness of Interventions That Simultaneously Prevent High Body Mass Index and Eating Disorders.

Eating disorders (ED) are among the top three most common debilitating illnesses in adolescent females, while high Body Mass Index (BMI) is one of the five leading modifiable risk factors for preventable disease burden. The high prevalence of eating and weight-related problems in adolescence is of great concern, particularly since this is a period of rapid growth and development. Here, we comment on the current evidence for the prevention of EDs and high BMI and the importance of assessing the cost-effectiveness of interventions that integrate the prevention of EDs and high BMI in this population. There is evidence that there are effective interventions targeted at children, adolescents and young adults that can reduce the prevalence of risk factors associated with the development of EDs and high BMI concurrently. However, optimal decision-making for the health of younger generations involves considering the value for money of these effective interventions. Further research investigating the cost-effectiveness of potent and sustainable integrated preventive interventions for EDs and high BMI will provide decision makers with the necessary information to inform investment choices.

Priority-setting for obesity prevention-The Assessing Cost-Effectiveness of obesity prevention policies in Australia (ACE-Obesity Policy) study.

The aim of the ACE-Obesity Policy study was to assess the economic credentials of a suite of obesity prevention policies across multiple sectors and areas of governance for the Australian setting. The study aimed to place the cost-effectiveness results within a broad decision-making context by providing an assessment of the key considerations for policy implementation. The Assessing Cost-Effectiveness (ACE) approach to priority-setting was used. Systematic literature reviews were undertaken to assess the evidence of intervention effectiveness on body mass index and/or physical activity for selected interventions. A standardised evaluation framework was used to assess the cost-effectiveness of each intervention compared to a 'no intervention' comparator, from a limited societal perspective. A multi-state life table Markov cohort model was used to estimate the long-term health impacts (quantified as health adjusted life years (HALYs)) and health care cost-savings resulting from each intervention. In addition to the technical cost-effectiveness results, qualitative assessments of implementation considerations were undertaken. All 16 interventions evaluated were found to be cost-effective (using a willingness-to-pay threshold of AUD50,000 per HALY gained). Eleven interventions were dominant (health promoting and cost-saving). The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for the non-dominant interventions ranged from AUD1,728 to 28,703 per HALY gained. Regulatory interventions tended to rank higher on their cost-effectiveness results, driven by lower implementation costs. However, the program-based policy interventions were generally based on higher quality evidence of intervention effectiveness. This comparative analysis of the economic credentials of obesity prevention policies for Australia indicates that there are a broad range of policies that are likely to be cost-effective, although policy options vary in strength of evidence for effectiveness, affordability, feasibility, acceptability to stakeholders, equity impact and sustainability. Implementation of these policies will require sustained co-ordination across jurisdictions and multiple government sectors in order to generate the predicted health benefits for the Australian population.

Increasing the Price of Alcohol as an Obesity Prevention Measure: The Potential Cost-Effectiveness of Introducing a Uniform Volumetric Tax and a Minimum Floor Price on Alcohol in Australia.

The objective of this study was to estimate, from an obesity prevention perspective, the cost-effectiveness of two potential policies that increase the price of alcohol in Australia: a volumetric tax applied to all alcohol (Intervention 1) and a minimum unit floor price (Intervention 2). Estimated changes in alcoholic drink consumption and corresponding changes in energy intake were calculated using the 2011-12 Australian Health Survey data, published price elasticities, and nutrition information. The incremental changes in body mass index (BMI), BMI-related disease outcomes, healthcare costs, and Health Adjusted Life Years (HALYs) were estimated using a validated model. Costs associated with each intervention were estimated for government and industry. Both interventions were estimated to lead to reductions in mean alcohol consumption (Intervention 1: 20.7% (95% Uncertainty Interval (UI): 20.2% to 21.1%); Intervention 2: 9.2% (95% UI: 8.9% to 9.6%); reductions in mean population body weight (Intervention 1: 0.9 kg (95% UI: 0.84 to 0.96); Intervention 2: 0.45 kg (95% UI: 0.42 to 0.48)); HALYs gained (Intervention 1: 566,648 (95% UI: 497,431 to 647,262); Intervention 2: 317,653 (95% UI: 276,334 to 361,573)); and healthcare cost savings (Intervention 1: $5.8 billion (B) (95% UI: $5.1B to $6.6B); Intervention 2: $3.3B (95% UI: $2.9B to $3.7B)). Intervention costs were estimated as $24M for Intervention 1 and $30M for Intervention 2. Both interventions were dominant, resulting in health gains and cost savings. Increasing the price of alcohol is likely to be cost-effective from an obesity prevention perspective in the Australian context, provided consumers substitute alcoholic beverages with low or no kilojoule alternatives.

The potential cost-effectiveness of mandatory restrictions on price promotions for sugar-sweetened beverages in Australia.

BACKGROUND: Restricting price promotions on unhealthy foods and beverages has been identified by governments as a promising approach for improving population diets. Using a limited societal perspective, this study assessed the potential cost-effectiveness of mandatory restrictions on price promotions for sugar-sweetened beverages (SSBs) in Australia. METHODS: Australian dietary consumption data, together with UK data on the SSB sales uplift associated with price promotions, were used to estimate reductions in SSB purchases and consequent changes in body mass index following the intervention. A multi-state, multiple-cohort Markov model was used to estimate the obesity-related health and cost impacts over the lifetime of the 2010 Australian population. Costs included passing legislation, assisting retailer implementation, and compliance monitoring. RESULTS: The intervention was estimated to result in a mean change in daily energy intake of -12.52 kJ (95% Uncertainty Interval, UI: -15.91 to -9.58) per person, which translated to a mean body weight change of -0.11 kg (95%UI: -0.14 to -0.08) per person. Total Health Adjusted Life Years gained were estimated at 34,260 (95%UI: 24,922-45,504). Estimated costs were AUD17.0 million, with estimated healthcare cost savings of AUD376.0 million. The intervention was considered dominant (cost-saving and health promoting). The intervention remained cost-effective if retailers reduced average non-discounted SSB prices in response to the intervention by less than 5.36%. CONCLUSIONS: Restricting price promotions on SSBs is likely to be highly cost-effective, although its impact would depend on how industry and shoppers respond. Although Australian data are used, these results are likely to be transferable and highly relevant to the UK context. Policies for restricting price promotions should be considered as part of a comprehensive obesity prevention strategy.

The economic cost of preventable disease in Australia: a systematic review of estimates and methods.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this literature review was to establish the economic burden of preventable disease in Australia in terms of attributable health care costs, other costs to government and reduced productivity. METHODS: A systematic review was conducted to establish the economic cost of preventable disease in Australia and ascertain the methods used to derive these estimates. Nine databases and the grey literature were searched, limited to the past 10 years, and the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis) guidelines were followed to identify, screen and report on eligible studies. RESULTS: Eighteen studies were included. There were at least three studies examining the attributable costs and economic impact for each risk factor. The greatest costs were related to the productivity impacts of preventable risk factors. Estimates of the annual productivity loss that could be attributed to individual risk factors were between $840 million and $14.9 billion for obesity; up to $10.5 billion due to tobacco; between $1.1 billion and $6.8 billion for excess alcohol consumption; up to $15.6 billion due to physical inactivity and $561 million for individual dietary risk factors. Productivity impacts were included in 15 studies and the human capital approach was the method most often employed (14 studies) to calculate this. CONCLUSIONS: Substantial economic burden is caused by lifestyle-related risk factors. Implications for public health: The significant economic burden associated with preventable disease provides an economic rationale for action to reduce the prevalence of lifestyle-related risk factors. New analysis of the economic burden of multiple risk factors concurrently is needed.