IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/hlthec/v32y2023i11p2568-2582.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Modeled health economic and equity impact on dental caries and health outcomes from a 20% sugar sweetened beverages tax in Australia

Author

Listed:
  • Tan Minh Nguyen
  • Utsana Tonmukayakul
  • Long Khanh‐Dao Le
  • Ankur Singh
  • Anita Lal
  • Jaithri Ananthapavan
  • Hanny Calache
  • Cathrine Mihalopoulos

Abstract

Dental caries is the most prevalent oral disease across the life course. This study modeled the population health and economic impact of a 20% sugar sweetened beverages tax (SSB) for preventing dental caries compared to no intervention (societal and healthcare perspective). A cost‐effectiveness analysis according to quintiles of area‐level socioeconomic disadvantage was performed for the 2020 Australian population (0–100 years old) using a closed cohort Markov model. A qualitative assessment of implementation considerations (e.g., acceptability, equity, sustainability) was undertaken. Health outcomes were modeled as decayed teeth prevented and disability‐adjusted life years (DALYs) averted. The 10‐year and lifetime scenarios were modeled with probabilistic sensitivity analysis (Monte Carlo simulation, 2000 cycles). The 10‐year scenario from a societal perspective yielded cost‐savings of AUD$63.5M, healthcare cost‐savings of AUD$42.2M, 510,977 decayed teeth averted and 98.1 DALYs averted. The lifetime scenario resulted in societal cost savings of AUD$176.6M, healthcare cost‐savings of AUD$122.5M, 1,309,211 decayed teeth averted and 254.9 DALYs averted. Modeling indicated 71.5% and 74.5% cost‐effectiveness for the 10‐year and lifetime scenarios, respectively. A three‐fold health benefit for the least advantaged was found compared to the most advantaged. A 20% SSB tax in Australia is cost‐effective and promotes health equity.

Suggested Citation

  • Tan Minh Nguyen & Utsana Tonmukayakul & Long Khanh‐Dao Le & Ankur Singh & Anita Lal & Jaithri Ananthapavan & Hanny Calache & Cathrine Mihalopoulos, 2023. "Modeled health economic and equity impact on dental caries and health outcomes from a 20% sugar sweetened beverages tax in Australia," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 32(11), pages 2568-2582, November.
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:hlthec:v:32:y:2023:i:11:p:2568-2582
    DOI: 10.1002/hec.4739
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1002/hec.4739
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1002/hec.4739?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Anurag Sharma & Katharina Hauck & Bruce Hollingsworth & Luigi Siciliani, 2014. "The Effects Of Taxing Sugar‐Sweetened Beverages Across Different Income Groups," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 23(9), pages 1159-1184, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Jakina Debnam, 2017. "Selection Effects and Heterogeneous Demand Responses to the Berkeley Soda Tax Vote," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 99(5), pages 1172-1187.
    2. John Gibson & Steven Tucker & Geua Boe-Gibson, 2019. "Testing an Information Intervention: Experimental Evidence on the Effect of Jamie Oliver on Fizzy Drinks Demand," Working Papers in Economics 19/08, University of Waikato.
    3. Hasan, Syed & Ratna, Nazmun & Shakur, Shamim, 2019. "Exchange rate, remittances and expenditure of foreign-born households: evidence from Australia," GLO Discussion Paper Series 331, Global Labor Organization (GLO).
    4. Fabrice Etilé & Sebastien Lecocq & Christine Boizot-Szantai, 2018. "The Incidence of Soft-Drink Taxes on Consumer Prices and Welfare: Evidence from the French " Soda Tax"," PSE Working Papers halshs-01808198, HAL.
    5. Lin, Biing-Hwan & Dong, Diansheng & Carlson, Andrea & Rahkovsky, Ilya, 2017. "Potential dietary outcomes of changing relative prices of healthy and less healthy foods: The case of ready-to-eat breakfast cereals," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 68(C), pages 77-88.
    6. Fabrice Etilé & Sébastien Lecocq & Christine Boizot-Szantai, 2021. "Market heterogeneity and the distributional incidence of soft-drink taxes: evidence from France [Regressive sin taxes, with an application to the optimal soda tax]," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 48(4), pages 915-939.
    7. Emily Wang & Christian Rojas & Francesca Colantuoni, 2017. "Heterogeneous Behavior, Obesity, and Storability in the Demand for Soft Drinks," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 99(1), pages 18-33.
    8. Brendan Collins & Simon Capewell & Martin O’Flaherty & Hannah Timpson & Abdul Razzaq & Sylvia Cheater & Robin Ireland & Helen Bromley, 2015. "Modelling the Health Impact of an English Sugary Drinks Duty at National and Local Levels," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(6), pages 1-13, June.
    9. Gomo, Charity & Birg, Laura, 2018. "The economic and health impact of a tax on sugar sweetened beverages (SSBs) in South Africa," University of Göttingen Working Papers in Economics 356, University of Goettingen, Department of Economics.
    10. Peter Lloyd & Donald MacLaren, 2019. "Should We Tax Sugar and If So How?," Australian Economic Review, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research, vol. 52(1), pages 19-40, March.
    11. Fabrice Etilé & Anurag Sharma, 2015. "Do High Consumers of Sugar‐Sweetened Beverages Respond Differently to Price Changes? A Finite Mixture IV‐Tobit Approach," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 24(9), pages 1147-1163, September.
    12. Haeck, Catherine & Lawson, Nicholas & Poirier, Krystel, 2022. "Estimating consumer preferences for different beverages using the BLP approach," Economics & Human Biology, Elsevier, vol. 46(C).
    13. SERSE Valerio,, 2019. "Do sugar taxes affect the right consumers ?," LIDAM Discussion Papers CORE 2019017, Université catholique de Louvain, Center for Operations Research and Econometrics (CORE).
    14. Blake, Miranda R. & Lancsar, Emily & Peeters, Anna & Backholer, Kathryn, 2019. "Sugar-sweetened beverage price elasticities in a hypothetical convenience store," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 225(C), pages 98-107.
    15. Caro, Juan Carlos & Ng, Shu Wen & Taillie, Lindsey Smith & Popkin, Barry M., 2017. "Designing a tax to discourage unhealthy food and beverage purchases: The case of Chile," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 71(C), pages 86-100.
    16. Daniel John Zizzo & Melanie Parravano & Ryota Nakamura & Suzanna Forwood & Marc Suhrcke, 2021. "The impact of taxation and signposting on diet: an online field study with breakfast cereals and soft drinks," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 24(4), pages 1294-1324, December.
    17. Jonathan Pincus, 2018. "Grattan Institute's Case for Sugar Tax Is Not Proven," Australian Economic Review, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research, vol. 51(1), pages 41-51, March.
    18. John Creedy, 2016. "Sugar Taxes and Changes in Total Calorie Consumption: A Simple Framework," Treasury Working Paper Series 16/06, New Zealand Treasury.
    19. Pourya Valizadeh & Shu Wen Ng, 2021. "Would A National Sugar‐Sweetened Beverage Tax in the United States Be Well Targeted?," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 103(3), pages 961-986, May.
    20. Sriparna Ghosh & Joshua C. Hall, 2018. "The Political Economy of Soda Taxation," Economics Bulletin, AccessEcon, vol. 38(2), pages 1045-1051.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:wly:hlthec:v:32:y:2023:i:11:p:2568-2582. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/jhome/5749 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.