Cost-Effectiveness Of A Workplace Ban On Sugar-Sweetened Beverage Sales: A Microsimulation Model

Abstract

Sugar-sweetened beverages (SSBs) increase chronic disease risk. We estimated the impact on employee health and health care spending of banning SSB sales in California-based health care organizations. We used survey data from a large, multisite health care organization in California, sampling 2,276 employees three months before and twelve months after a workplace SSB sales ban was imposed. We incorporated the survey data into a simulation model to estimate chronic disease incidence and costs. We estimated that an SSB ban as effective as the one observed would save about $300,000 per 10,000 people over ten years among similar employers, as a result of averted health care and productivity spending—after both SSB sales losses and non-SSB beverage sales gains were accounted for. Sales bans would typically need to reduce SSB consumption by 2.2 ounces per person per day for lost revenue to be fully offset if there were no increase in non-SSB beverage sales.

Taxes to Unhealthy Food and Beverages and Oral Health in Mexico: An Observational Study

“…Our results show statistically significant improvements on caries rates associated with the implementation of the taxes on unhealthy food and beverages, which are the first health benefits observed, and add to the health effects predicted by modeling studies. Higher benefits in caries rates could be expected if in addition to taxation, other cost-effective measures were implemented such as workplace bans to SSB [Basu et al, 2020] and front-of pack labeling [Jevdjevic et al, 2020] which was implemented in Mexico since October 2020 [Secretaría de Economía, 2020].…”

Economic Evaluations of Preventive Interventions for Dental Caries and Periodontitis: A Systematic Review

“…The majority of universal interventions were reported to be cost-effective or cost-saving. These universal interventions included various forms of topical fluorides [55,67,68,[70][71][72][73][74][75][76][77][78][79][80][81][82][83][84][85], interventions targeting the reduction of sugar consumption such as SSBs taxation or ban on selling SSBs at the workplace [86][87][88][89], increasing use of chewing sugar-free gum [90], and bacterial screening saliva test for virulent levels of mutans streptococci [91]. For interleukin-1 genetic screening to prevent periodontitis for persons aged 35 years, the ICER was calculated but the cost-effectiveness was not stated [53].…”

“…Direct treatment costs-restorations, extractions and other direct costs for dental caries and periodontitis [70,88,110] 3 (5%) Direct treatment costs for periodontitis only [53,108,109] 3 (5%) Cost categories-societal perspective Direct societal costs-N/R [87] 1 (2%) Direct societal costs (intervention only) [42,55,67,68,71,72,75,76,78,79,83,86,89,95,96,99] 15 (25%) Direct and indirect societal costs (productivity costs lost, travel costs, etc.) [40,44,57,69,70,73,74 [40,46,59] 3 (5%) Restorative/extraction/episode of pain/hospital/event averted [43,47,63,95,123] 5 (8%) Retained-tooth per year [49,62,109,110] 4 (7%) Tooth loss averted [108] 1 (2%) [42,48,60,…”

“…N total number of studies/interventions, N/R not reported, CBA cost-benefit analysis, CMA cost-minimisation analysis, CEA cost-effectiveness analysis, CUA cost-utility analysis, dmfs/DMFS + number of decayed, missing, and filled teeth surfaces for the deciduous or permanent dentition, dmft/DMFT + number of decayed, missing, and filled teeth for the deciduous or permanent dentition, ds/DS + number of decayed teeth surfaces for the deciduous or permanent dentition, dt/DT + number of decayed teeth for the deciduous or permanent dentition, + lower-case letters refer to the deciduous dentition and upper-case letters refer to the permanent dentition, DALY disability-adjusted life years, QATY quality-adjusted tooth years, QALY quality-adjusted life years *Four studies performed model-based and trial-based economic evaluations [40,42,64,65] # Four studies did not report the intervention costs [54,87,88,90] ˆIncludes dental outcomes exclusively for occlusal or proximal surfaces Table 4 The quality appraisal results using the Drummond 10-point checklist [34] N number of studies…”

Healthy beverage initiatives in higher education: an untapped strategy for health promotion

“…Those exposed to the SSB sales ban and the brief motivational intervention had greater reductions in SSB intake and improvements in cardio metabolic health (decreases in waist circumference, total cholesterol, insulin and insulin resistance) than those who were exposed to the sales ban alone. In a cost analysis, the ban was projected to lead to healthcare savings over time (31) , and a separate study found that the initiative is likely to reduce the university's footprint of greenhouse gas emissions (32) .…”