What is the cost-effectiveness of menu calorie labelling on reducing obesity-associated cancer burdens? An economic evaluation of a federal policy intervention among 235 million adults in the USA.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the impact of menu calorie labelling on reducing obesity-associated cancer burdens in the USA. DESIGN: Cost-effectiveness analysis using a Markov cohort state-transition model. SETTING: Policy intervention. PARTICIPANTS: A modelled population of 235 million adults aged ≥20 years in 2015-2016. INTERVENTIONS: The impact of menu calorie labelling on reducing 13 obesity-associated cancers among US adults over a lifetime was evaluated for: (1) effects on consumer behaviours; and (2) additional effects on industry reformulation. The model integrated nationally representative demographics, calorie intake from restaurants, cancer statistics and estimates on associations of policy with calorie intake, dietary change with body mass index (BMI) change, BMI with cancer rates, and policy and healthcare costs from published literature. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Averted new cancer cases and cancer deaths and net costs (in 2015 US$) among the total population and demographic subgroups were determined. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios from societal and healthcare perspectives were assessed and compared with the threshold of US$150 000 per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained. Probabilistic sensitivity analyses incorporated uncertainty in input parameters and generated 95% uncertainty intervals (UIs). RESULTS: Considering consumer behaviour alone, this policy was associated with 28 000 (95% UI 16 300 to 39 100) new cancer cases and 16 700 (9610 to 23 600) cancer deaths averted, 111 000 (64 800 to 158 000) QALYs gained, and US$1480 (884 to 2080) million saved in cancer-related medical costs among US adults. The policy was associated with net cost savings of US$1460 (864 to 2060) million and US$1350 (486 to 2260) million from healthcare and societal perspectives, respectively. Additional industry reformulation would substantially increase policy impact. Greater health gains and cost savings were predicted among young adults, Hispanic and non-Hispanic Black individuals. CONCLUSIONS: Study findings suggest that menu calorie labelling is associated with lower obesity-related cancer burdens and reduced healthcare costs. Policymakers may prioritise nutrition policies for cancer prevention in the USA.

Cost-effectiveness Analysis of Nutrition Facts Added-Sugar Labeling and Obesity-Associated Cancer Rates in the US.

Importance: Obesity-associated cancer burdens are increasing in the US. Nutrition policies, such as the Nutrition Facts added-sugar labeling, may reduce obesity-associated cancer rates. Objective: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of Nutrition Facts added-sugar labeling and obesity-associated cancer rates in the US. Design, Setting, and Participants: A probabilistic cohort state-transition model was used to conduct an economic evaluation of added-sugar labeling and 13 obesity-associated cancers among 235 million adults aged 20 years or older by age, sex, and race/ethnicity over a median follow-up of 34.4 years. Policy associations were considered in 2 scenarios: with consumer behaviors and with additional industry reformulation. The model integrated nationally representative population demographics, diet, and cancer statistics; associations of policy intervention with diet, diet change and body mass index, and body mass index with cancer risk; and policy and health-related costs from established sources. Data were analyzed from January 8, 2019, to May 6, 2020. Main Outcomes and Measures: Net costs and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio were estimated from societal and health care perspectives. Probabilistic sensitivity analyses incorporated uncertainty in input parameters and generated 95% uncertainty intervals (UIs). Results: Based on consumer behaviors, the policy was associated with a reduction of 30 000 (95% UI, 21 600-39 300) new cancer cases and 17 100 (95% UI, 12 400-22 700) cancer deaths, a gain of 116 000 (95% UI, 83 800-153 000) quality-adjusted life-years, and a saving of $1600 million (95% UI, $1190 million-$2030 million) in medical costs associated with cancer care among US adults over a lifetime. The policy was associated with a savings of $704 million (95% UI, $44.5 million-$1450 million) from the societal perspective and $1590 million (95% UI, $1180 million-$2020 million) from the health care perspective. Additional industry reformulation to reduce added-sugar amounts in packaged foods and beverages would double the impact. Greater health gains and cost savings were expected among young adults, women, and non-Hispanic Black individuals than other population subgroups. Conclusions and Relevance: These findings suggest that the added-sugar labeling is associated with reduced costs and lower rates of obesity-associated cancers. Policymakers may consider and prioritize nutrition policies for cancer prevention in the US.

Cost-Effectiveness of a National Sugar-Sweetened Beverage Tax to Reduce Cancer Burdens and Disparities in the United States.

BACKGROUND: Sugar-sweetened beverage (SSB) consumption contributes to obesity, a risk factor for 13 cancers. Although SSB taxes can reduce intake, the health and economic impact on reducing cancer burdens in the United States are unknown, especially among low-income Americans with higher SSB intake and obesity-related cancer burdens. METHODS: We used the Diet and Cancer Outcome Model, a probabilistic cohort state-transition model, to project health gains and economic benefits of a penny-per-ounce national SSB tax on reducing obesity-associated cancers among US adults aged 20 years and older by income. RESULTS: A national SSB tax was estimated to prevent 22 075 (95% uncertainty interval [UI] = 16 040-28 577) new cancer cases and 13 524 (95% UI = 9841-17 681) cancer deaths among US adults over a lifetime. The policy was estimated to cost $1.70 (95% UI = $1.50-$1.95) billion for government implementation and $1.70 (95% UI = $1.48-$1.96) billion for industry compliance, while saving $2.28 (95% UI = $1.67-$2.98) billion cancer-related healthcare costs. The SSB tax was highly cost-effective from both a government affordability perspective (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio [ICER] = $1486, 95% UI = -$3516-$9265 per quality-adjusted life year [QALY]) and a societal perspective (ICER = $13 220, 95% UI = $3453-$28 120 per QALY). Approximately 4800 more cancer cases and 3100 more cancer deaths would be prevented, and $0.34 billion more healthcare cost savings would be generated among low-income (federal poverty-to-income ratio [FPIR] ≤ 1.85) than higher-income individuals (FPIR > 1.85). CONCLUSIONS: A penny-per-ounce national SSB tax is cost-effective for cancer prevention in the United States, with the largest health gains and economic benefits among low-income Americans.

Reducing sugary drink intake through youth empowerment: results from a pilot-site randomized study.

BACKGROUND: Efficacious strategies to reduce sugar-sweetened beverage (SSB) consumption among youth are needed. This pilot study assessed the feasibility and preliminary efficacy of a community-based youth empowerment intervention to reduce SSB consumption and obesity risk among a low-income, ethnically diverse sample of youth. METHODS: The H2GO! intervention was pilot-tested in an afterschool setting (Boys and Girls Clubs (BGC)) in Massachusetts, USA. One site was randomized to receive the intervention; the other site received standard programming. Youth ages 9-12 years and their parents/caregivers were eligible to participate. A total of N = 110 parent-child pairs (N = 55 parent-child pairs per site) were recruited. The 6-week intervention consisted of group-based weekly sessions delivered by trained BGC staff and youth-led activities that engaged parents. Child outcomes included self-reported SSB and water intake and measured body mass index z scores (zBMI). Parent outcomes included self-reported SSB and water intake, SSB purchasing, and availability of SSBs at home. Outcomes were measured at baseline, 2 months, and 6 months. Generalized linear and logistic regression models were used to estimate intervention effects over time. RESULTS: The final analytic study sample consisted of 100 child participants (38% Black, 20% Hispanic, 13% White, 12% Multiracial, 11% Asian) and 87 parent participants (78.2% female; 78.2% reporting eligibility for the free-or-reduced price lunch program). 6-month retention rates were ≥ 82%. Intervention attendance rates among intervention child participants (N = 51) averaged 78.1% (SD = 10.3). Over half (56.0%) of child participants were overweight or obese at baseline. Relative to the comparison site, intervention site child participants had decreased SSB intake (ß = - 1.64; 95% CI: 2.52, - 0.76), increased water intake (ß = 1.31; 95% CI: 0.38, 2.23), and decreased zBMI (- 0.23 units; 95% CI: - 0.31, - 0.14) over 6 months (p < 0.001). Intervention parent participants also reported decreased SSB intake (ß = - 1.76; 95% CI: - 2.56, - 0.96) and increased water intake (ß = 1.75; 95% CI: 1.11, 2.40) than comparison parent participants at 6 months (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Findings demonstrate the potential of a youth empowerment intervention on reducing SSB intake and zBMI among a diverse sample. Findings will guide a larger cluster-randomized controlled trial to test intervention efficacy on preventing childhood obesity, as well as inform future interventions that aim to target additional diet and physical activity behaviors through youth empowerment. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02890056 . Registered 31 August 2016.