Correction: Modelled health benefits of a sugar-sweetened beverage tax across different socioeconomic groups in Australia: A cost-effectiveness and equity analysis.

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1002326.].

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.

Cost-effectiveness of community-based childhood obesity prevention interventions in Australia.

OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study is to examine, from a limited societal perspective, the cost-effectiveness of community-based obesity prevention interventions (CBIs)-defined as a programme of community-level strategies to promote healthy eating and physical activity for Australian children (aged 5-18 years). METHODS: The effectiveness of CBIs was determined by undertaking a literature review and meta-analysis. Commonly implemented strategies to increase physical activity and improve nutrition were costed (in 2010 Australian dollars) to determine the average cost of a generic programme. A multiple cohort Markov model that simulates diseases associated with overweight and obesity was used to estimate the health benefits, measured as health-adjusted life years (HALYs) and healthcare-related cost offsets from diseases averted due to exposure to the intervention. Health and cost outcomes were estimated over the lifetime of the target population. Monte-Carlo simulation was used to assess second-order uncertainty of input parameters to estimate mean incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER) with 95% uncertainty intervals (UIs). Scenario analyses tested variations in programme intensity, target population, and duration of effect. RESULTS: The meta-analysis revealed a small but significant difference in BMI z-score (mean difference of - 0.07 (95% UI: - 0.13 to - 0.01)) favouring the CBI community compared with the control. The estimated net cost of implementing CBIs across all local government areas (LGAs) in Australia was AUD426M (95% UI: AUD3M to AUD823M) over 3 years. This resulted in 51,792 HALYs gained (95% UI: 6816 to 96,972) over the lifetime of the cohort. The mean ICER was AUD8155 per HALY gained (95% UI: AUD237 to AUD81,021), with a 95% probability of being cost-effective at a willingness to pay threshold of AUD50,000 per HALY. CONCLUSIONS: CBIs are cost-effective obesity prevention initiatives; however, implementation across Australia will be (relatively) expensive when compared with current investments in preventive health.

Erratum: Cost-Effectiveness of Product Reformulation in Response to the Health Star Rating Food Labelling System in Australia; Nutrients 2018, 10, 614.

The authors have requested that the following changes be made to their paper [...].

Cost-Effectiveness of Product Reformulation in Response to the Health Star Rating Food Labelling System in Australia.

The Health Star Rating (HSR) system is a voluntary front-of-pack labelling (FoPL) initiative endorsed by the Australian government in 2014. This study examines the impact of the HSR system on pre-packaged food reformulation measured by changes in energy density between products with and without HSR. The cost-effectiveness of the HSR system was modelled using a proportional multi-state life table Markov model for the 2010 Australian population. We evaluated scenarios in which the HSR system was implemented on a voluntary and mandatory basis (i.e., HSR uptake across 6.7% and 100% of applicable products, respectively). The main outcomes were health-adjusted life years (HALYs), net costs, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs). These were calculated with accompanying 95% uncertainty intervals (95% UI). The model predicted that HSR-attributable reformulation leads to small changes [corrected] in mean population energy intake (voluntary: -0.98 kJ/day; mandatory: -11.81 kJ/day). [corrected]. These are likely to result in changes in mean body weight (voluntary: -0.01 kg [95% UI: -0.012 to -0.006]; mandatory: -0.11 kg [95% UI: -0.14 to -0.07, and HALYs gained [corrected] (voluntary: 4207 HALYs gained [corrected] [95% UI: 2438 to 6081]; mandatory: 49,949 HALYs gained [95% UI: 29,291 to 72,153]). The HSR system [corrected] could be considered cost-effective relative to a willingness-to-pay threshold of A$50,000 per HALY (incremental cost effectiveness ratio for voluntary: [corrected] A$1728 per HALY [95% UI: dominant to 10,445] and mandatory: A$4752 per HALY [95% UI: dominant to 16,236]).

Modelled health benefits of a sugar-sweetened beverage tax across different socioeconomic groups in Australia: A cost-effectiveness and equity analysis.

BACKGROUND: A sugar-sweetened beverage (SSB) tax in Mexico has been effective in reducing consumption of SSBs, with larger decreases for low-income households. The health and financial effects across socioeconomic groups are important considerations for policy-makers. From a societal perspective, we assessed the potential cost-effectiveness, health gains, and financial impacts by socioeconomic position (SEP) of a 20% SSB tax for Australia. METHODS AND FINDINGS: Australia-specific price elasticities were used to predict decreases in SSB consumption for each Socio-Economic Indexes for Areas (SEIFA) quintile. Changes in body mass index (BMI) were based on SSB consumption, BMI from the Australian Health Survey 2011-12, and energy balance equations. Markov cohort models were used to estimate the health impact for the Australian population, taking into account obesity-related diseases. Health-adjusted life years (HALYs) gained, healthcare costs saved, and out-of-pocket costs were estimated for each SEIFA quintile. Loss of economic welfare was calculated as the amount of deadweight loss in excess of taxation revenue. A 20% SSB tax would lead to HALY gains of 175,300 (95% CI: 68,700; 277,800) and healthcare cost savings of AU$1,733 million (m) (95% CI: $650m; $2,744m) over the lifetime of the population, with 49.5% of the total health gains accruing to the 2 lowest quintiles. We estimated the increase in annual expenditure on SSBs to be AU$35.40/capita (0.54% of expenditure on food and non-alcoholic drinks) in the lowest SEIFA quintile, a difference of AU$3.80/capita (0.32%) compared to the highest quintile. Annual tax revenue was estimated at AU$642.9m (95% CI: $348.2m; $1,117.2m). The main limitations of this study, as with all simulation models, is that the results represent only the best estimate of a potential effect in the absence of stronger direct evidence. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates that from a 20% tax on SSBs, the most HALYs gained and healthcare costs saved would accrue to the most disadvantaged quintiles in Australia. Whilst those in more disadvantaged areas would pay more SSB tax, the difference between areas is small. The equity of the tax could be further improved if the tax revenue were used to fund initiatives benefiting those with greater disadvantage.

Cost-effectiveness of investing in sidewalks as a means of increasing physical activity: a RESIDE modelling study.

BACKGROUND: Studies consistently find that supportive neighbourhood built environments increase physical activity by encouraging walking and cycling. However, evidence on the cost-effectiveness of investing in built environment interventions as a means of promoting physical activity is lacking. In this study, we assess the cost-effectiveness of increasing sidewalk availability as one means of encouraging walking. METHODS: Using data from the RESIDE study in Perth, Australia, we modelled the cost impact and change in health-adjusted life years (HALYs) of installing additional sidewalks in established neighbourhoods. Estimates of the relationship between sidewalk availability and walking were taken from a previous study. Multistate life table models were used to estimate HALYs associated with changes in walking frequency and duration. Sensitivity analyses were used to explore the impact of variations in population density, discount rates, sidewalk costs and the inclusion of unrelated healthcare costs in added life years. RESULTS: Installing and maintaining an additional 10 km of sidewalk in an average neighbourhood with 19 000 adult residents was estimated to cost A$4.2 million over 30 years and gain 24 HALYs over the lifetime of an average neighbourhood adult resident population. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was A$176 000/HALY. However, sensitivity results indicated that increasing population densities improves cost-effectiveness. CONCLUSIONS: In low-density cities such as in Australia, installing sidewalks in established neighbourhoods as a single intervention is unlikely to cost-effectively improve health. Sidewalks must be considered alongside other complementary elements of walkability, such as density, land use mix and street connectivity. Population density is particularly important because at higher densities, more residents are exposed and this improves the cost-effectiveness. Health gain is one of many benefits of enhancing neighbourhood walkability and future studies might consider a more comprehensive assessment of its social value (eg, social cohesion, safety and air quality).