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. 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. 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.

Objective: To estimate the costs of health care and lost productivity attributable to overweight and obesity in New Zealand (NZ) in 2006. Methods: A prevalence‐based approach to costing was used in which costs were calculated for all cases of disease in the year 2006. Population attributable fractions (PAFs) were calculated based on the relative risks obtained from large cohort studies and the prevalence of overweight and obesity. For each disease, the PAF was multiplied by the total health care cost. The costs of lost productivity associated with premature mortality were estimated using both the Human Capital approach (HCA) and Friction Cost approach (FCA). Results: Health care costs attributable to overweight and obesity were estimated to be NZ$624m or 4.4% of New Zealand's total health care expenditure in 2006. The costs of lost productivity using the FCA were estimated to be NZ$98m and NZ$225m using the HCA. The combined costs of health care and lost productivity using the FCA were $722m and $849m using the HCA. Conclusion: The cost burden of overweight and obesity in NZ is considerable. Implications: Policies and interventions are urgently needed to reduce the prevalence of obesity thereby decreasing these substantial costs.

Television (TV) advertising of food and beverages high in fat, sugar and salt (HFSS) influences food preferences and consumption. Children from lower socioeconomic position (SEP) have higher exposure to TV advertising due to more time spent watching TV. This paper sought to estimate the cost-effectiveness of legislation to restrict HFSS TV advertising until 9:30 pm, and to examine how health benefits and healthcare cost-savings differ by SEP. Cost-effectiveness modelling was undertaken (i) at the population level, and (ii) by area-level SEP. A multi-state multiple-cohort lifetable model was used to estimate obesity-related health outcomes and healthcare cost-savings over the lifetime of the 2010 Australian population. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were reported, with assumptions tested through sensitivity analyses. An intervention restricting HFSS TV advertising would cost AUD5.9M (95% UI AUD5.8M–AUD7M), resulting in modelled reductions in energy intake (mean 115 kJ/day) and body mass index (BMI) (mean 0.352 kg/m²). The intervention is likely to be cost-saving, with 1.4 times higher total cost-savings and 1.5 times higher health benefits in the most disadvantaged socioeconomic group (17,512 HALYs saved (95% UI 10,372–25,155); total cost-savings AUD126.3M (95% UI AUD58.7M–196.9M) over the lifetime) compared to the least disadvantaged socioeconomic group (11,321 HALYs saved (95% UI 6812–15,679); total cost-savings AUD90.9M (95% UI AUD44.3M–136.3M)). Legislation to restrict HFSS TV advertising is likely to be cost-effective, with greater health benefits and healthcare cost-savings for children with low SEP.

Interventions targeting portion size and energy density of food and beverage products have been identified as a promising approach for obesity prevention. This study modelled the potential cost-effectiveness of: a package size cap on single-serve sugar sweetened beverages (SSBs) >375 mL (package size cap), and product reformulation to reduce energy content of packaged SSBs (energy reduction). The cost-effectiveness of each intervention was modelled for the 2010 Australia population using a multi-state life table Markov model with a lifetime time horizon. Long-term health outcomes were modelled from calculated changes in body mass index to their impact on Health-Adjusted Life Years (HALYs). Intervention costs were estimated from a limited societal perspective. Cost and health outcomes were discounted at 3%. Total intervention costs estimated in AUD 2010 were AUD 210 million. Both interventions resulted in reduced mean body weight (package size cap: 0.12 kg; energy reduction: 0.23 kg); and HALYs gained (package size cap: 73,883; energy reduction: 144,621). Cost offsets were estimated at AUD 750.8 million (package size cap) and AUD 1.4 billion (energy reduction). Cost-effectiveness analyses showed that both interventions were “dominant”, and likely to result in long term cost savings and health benefits. A package size cap and kJ reduction of SSBs are likely to offer excellent “value for money” as obesity prevention measures in Australia.

Objectives: To assess current approaches to inclusion of equity in economic analysis of public health interventions and to recommend best approaches and future directions. Methods: We conducted a systematic review of studies that have used socioeconomic position (SEP) in cost-effectiveness analyses. Studies were identified using MedLine, EconLit and HEED and were evaluated based on their SEP specific inputs and methods of quantification of the health and financial inequalities. Results: Twenty-nine relevant studies were identified. The majority of studies comparing two or more interventions left interpretation of the size of the health and financial inequality differences to the reader. Newer approaches include: i) use of health inequality measures to quantify health inequalities; ii) inclusion of financial impacts, such as out-of-pocket expenditures; and iii) use of equity weights. The challenge with these approaches is presenting results that policy makers can easily interpret. Conclusions: Using CEA techniques to generate new information about the health equity implications of alternative policy options has not been widely used, but should be considered to inform future decision making. Implications for public health: Inclusion of equity in economic analysis would facilitate a more nuanced comparison of interventions in relation to efficiency, equity and financial impact.

Over one third of Australians’ daily energy intake is from discretionary foods and drinks. While many health promotion efforts seek to limit discretionary food intake, the population health impact of reductions in the consumption of different types of discretionary foods (e.g., sugar-sweetened beverages (SSBs), confectionery, sweet biscuits) has not been quantified. This study estimated the potential reductions in body weight, obesity-related disease incidence, and healthcare cost savings associated with consumption of one less serving per week of different discretionary foods. Reductions in the different types of discretionary food were modelled individually to estimate the impact on energy consumption and population body weight by 5-year age and sex groups. It was assumed that one serving of discretionary food each week was replaced with either a serving of fruit or popcorn, and a serving (375 mL) of SSBs was replaced with coffee, tea, or milk. Proportional multi-state multiple-cohort Markov modelling estimated likely resultant health adjusted life years (HALYs) gained and healthcare costs saved over the lifetime of the 2010 Australian population. A reduction of one serving of SSBs (375 mL) had the greatest potential impact in terms of weight reduction, particularly in ages 19–24 years (mean 0.31 kg, 95% UI: 0.23 kg to 0.37 kg) and overall healthcare cost savings of AUD 793.4 million (95% UI: 589.1 M to 976.1 M). A decrease of one serving of sweet biscuits had the second largest potential impact on weight change overall, with healthcare cost savings of $640.7 M (95% CI: $402.6 M to $885.8 M) and the largest potential weight reduction amongst those aged 75 years and over (mean 0.21 kg, 95% UI: 0.14 kg to 0.27 kg). The results demonstrate that small reductions in discretionary food consumption are likely to have substantial health benefits at the population level. Moreover, the study highlights that policy responses to improve population diets may need to be tailored to target different types of foods for different population groups.