Michael W Long1, Michele Polacsek2, Pamela Bruno2, Catherine M Giles3, Zachary J Ward4, Angie L Cradock3, Steven L Gortmaker3. 1. Department of Prevention and Community Health, Milken Institute School of Public Health, George Washington University, Washington, DC. Electronic address: michael_long@gwu.edu. 2. Department of Public Health, College of Health Professions, University of New England, Portland, ME. 3. Department of Social and Behavioral Sciences, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, MA. 4. Center for Health Decision Science, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, MA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the potential cost-effectiveness of and stakeholder perspectives on a sugar-sweetened beverage (SSB) excise tax and a Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) policy that would not allow SSB purchases in Maine, US. DESIGN: A cost-effectiveness simulation model combined with stakeholder interviews. SETTING: Maine, US. PARTICIPANTS: Microsimulation of the Maine population in 2015 and interviews with stakeholders (n = 14). Study conducted from 2013 to 2017. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Health care cost savings, net costs, and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) from 2017 to 2027. Stakeholder positions on policies. Retail SSB cost and implementation cost data were collected. ANALYSIS: Childhood Obesity Intervention Cost-Effectiveness Study project microsimulation model with uncertainty analysis to estimate cost-effectiveness. Thematic stakeholder interview coding. RESULTS: Over 10 years, the SSB and SNAP policies were projected to reduce health care costs by $78.3 million (95% uncertainty interval [UI], $31.7 million-$185 million) and $15.3 million (95% UI, $8.32 million-$23.9 million), respectively. The SSB and SNAP policies were projected to save 3,560 QALYs (95% UI, 1,447-8,361) and 749 QALYs (95% UI, 415-1,168), respectively. Stakeholders were more supportive of SSB taxes than the SNAP policy because of equity concerns associated with the SNAP policy. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS: Cost-effectiveness analysis provided evidence of potential health improvement and cost savings to state-level stakeholders weighing broader implementation considerations.
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the potential cost-effectiveness of and stakeholder perspectives on a sugar-sweetened beverage (SSB) excise tax and a Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) policy that would not allow SSB purchases in Maine, US. DESIGN: A cost-effectiveness simulation model combined with stakeholder interviews. SETTING: Maine, US. PARTICIPANTS: Microsimulation of the Maine population in 2015 and interviews with stakeholders (n = 14). Study conducted from 2013 to 2017. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Health care cost savings, net costs, and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) from 2017 to 2027. Stakeholder positions on policies. Retail SSB cost and implementation cost data were collected. ANALYSIS: Childhood Obesity Intervention Cost-Effectiveness Study project microsimulation model with uncertainty analysis to estimate cost-effectiveness. Thematic stakeholder interview coding. RESULTS: Over 10 years, the SSB and SNAP policies were projected to reduce health care costs by $78.3 million (95% uncertainty interval [UI], $31.7 million-$185 million) and $15.3 million (95% UI, $8.32 million-$23.9 million), respectively. The SSB and SNAP policies were projected to save 3,560 QALYs (95% UI, 1,447-8,361) and 749 QALYs (95% UI, 415-1,168), respectively. Stakeholders were more supportive of SSB taxes than the SNAP policy because of equity concerns associated with the SNAP policy. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS: Cost-effectiveness analysis provided evidence of potential health improvement and cost savings to state-level stakeholders weighing broader implementation considerations.
Authors: Karl M F Emmert-Fees; Florian M Karl; Peter von Philipsborn; Eva A Rehfuess; Michael Laxy Journal: Adv Nutr Date: 2021-10-01 Impact factor: 8.701
Authors: Alyssa J Moran; Yuxuan Gu; Sasha Clynes; Attia Goheer; Christina A Roberto; Anne Palmer Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2020-10-15 Impact factor: 3.390