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

Modelling the impacts of volumetric and minimum unit pricing for alcohol on social harms in Australia

AIMS

Alcohol pricing policies may reduce alcohol-related harms, yet little work has been done to model their effectiveness beyond health outcomes especially in Australia. We aim to estimate the impacts of four taxation and minimum unit pricing (MUP) interventions on selected social harms across sex and age subgroups in Australia.

METHODS

We used econometrics and epidemiologic simulations using demand elasticity and risk measures. We modelled four policies including (A) uniform excise rates (UER) (based on alcohol units) (B) MUP $1.30 on all alcoholic beverages (C) UER + 10 % (D) MUP$ 1.50. People who consumed alcohol were classified as (a) moderate (≤ 14 Australian standard drinks (SDs) per week) (b) Hazardous (15-42 SDs per week for men and 14-35 ASDs for women) and (c) Harmful (> 42 SDs per week for men and > 35 ASDs for women). Outcomes were sickness absence, sickness presenteeism, unemployment, antisocial behaviours, and police-reported crimes. We used relative risk functions from meta-analysis, cohort study, cross-sectional survey, or attributable fractions from routine criminal records. We applied the potential impact fraction to estimate the reduction in social harms by age group and sex after implementation of pricing policies.

RESULTS

All four modelled pricing policies resulted in a decrease in the overall mean baseline of current alcohol consumption, primarily due to fewer people drinking harmful amounts. These policies also reduced the total number of crimes and workplace harms compared to the current taxation system. These reductions were consistent across all age and sex subgroups. Specifically, sickness absence decreased by 0.2-0.4 %, alcohol-related sickness presenteeism by 7-9 %, unemployment by 0.5-0.7 %, alcohol-related antisocial behaviours by 7.3-11.1 %, and crimes by 4-6 %. Of all the policies, the implementation of a $1.50 MUP resulted in the largest reductions across most outcome measures.

CONCLUSION

Our results highlight that alcohol pricing policies can address the burden of social harms in Australia. However, pricing policies should just form part of a comprehensive alcohol policy approach along with other proven policy measures such as bans on aggressive marketing of alcoholic products and enforcing the restrictions on the availability of alcohol through outlet density regulation or reduced hours of sale to have a more impact on social harms.

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.

Which drinkers have changed their alcohol consumption due to energy content concerns? An Australian survey

Background

Alcohol is a discretionary, energy dense, dietary component. Compared to non-drinkers, people who consume alcohol report higher total energy intake and may be at increased risk of weight gain, overweight, and obesity, which are key preventable risk factors for illness. However, accurate consumer knowledge of the energy content in alcohol is low. To inform future behaviour change interventions among drinkers, this study investigated individual characteristics associated with changing alcohol consumption due to energy-related concerns.

Methods

An online survey was undertaken with 801 Australian adult drinkers (18–59 years, 50.2% female), i.e. who consumed alcohol at least monthly. In addition to demographic and health-related characteristics, participants reported past-year alcohol consumption, past-year reductions in alcohol consumption, frequency of harm minimisation strategy use (when consuming alcohol), and frequency of changing alcohol consumption behaviours because of energy-related concerns.

Results

When prompted, 62.5% of participants reported changing alcohol consumption for energy-related reasons at least ‘sometimes’. Women, those aged 30–44 years, metropolitan residents, those with household income $80,001–120,000, and risky/more frequent drinkers had increased odds of changing consumption because of energy-related concerns, and unemployed respondents had reduced odds.

Conclusions

Results indicate that some sociodemographic groups are changing alcohol consumption for energy-related reasons, but others are not, representing an underutilised opportunity for health promotion communication. Further research should investigate whether messaging to increase awareness of alcohol energy content, including through systems-based policy actions such as nutritional/energy product labelling, would motivate reduced consumption across a broader range of drinkers.

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.