ReviewAmerican journal of preventive medicine2015
Cost Effectiveness of a Sugar-Sweetened Beverage Excise Tax in the U.S.
Review in American journal of preventive medicine, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 104 papers, 12 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
104 citing papers in PubMed, 12 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Modeling and empirical evidence of the impact of implementation of sugar sweetened-beverages tax to reduce non-communicable diseases prevalence: a systematic review.Frontiers in nutrition · 2024Pooled it
- Effect of sugar-sweetened beverage taxation on sugars intake and dental caries: an umbrella review of a global perspective.BMC public health · 2023Pooled it
- Modelling health and economic impact of nutrition interventions: a systematic review.European journal of clinical nutrition · 2023Pooled it
- Impact of soda tax on beverage price, sale, purchase, and consumption in the US: a systematic review and meta-analysis of natural experiments.Frontiers in public health · 2023Pooled it
- The Cost Effectiveness of Taxation of Sugary Foods and Beverages: A Systematic Review of Economic Evaluations.Applied health economics and health policy · 2022Pooled it
- How to dampen the surge of non-communicable diseases in Southeast Asia: insights from a systematic review and meta-analysis.Health policy and planning · 2022Pooled it
- Taxing sugar-sweetened beverages as a policy to reduce overweight and obesity in countries of different income classifications: a systematic review.Public health nutrition · 2021Pooled it
- Sugar sweetened beverages attributable disease burden and the potential impact of policy interventions: a systematic review of epidemiological and decision models.BMC public health · 2021Pooled it
- Impact of sugar-sweetened beverage taxes on purchases and dietary intake: Systematic review and meta-analysis.Obesity reviews : an official journal of the International Association for the Study of Obesity · 2019Pooled it
- A Systematic Review of Methods, Study Quality, and Results of Economic Evaluation for Childhood and Adolescent Obesity Intervention.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2019Pooled it
- Policy lessons from health taxes: a systematic review of empirical studies.BMC public health · 2017Pooled it
- Using cost-effectiveness analysis to prioritize policy and programmatic approaches to physical activity promotion and obesity prevention in childhood.Preventive medicine · 2017Pooled it
- Sugar-Sweetened Beverage Health Warnings and Purchases: A Randomized Controlled Trial.American journal of preventive medicine · 2019Trial
- Evaluating Mongolia's Sugar-Sweetened Beverage Tax: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis.Applied health economics and health policy · 2026Article
- Who pays and Who benefits? A distributional health-economic evaluation of strengthening the UK soft drinks industry levy.The European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care · 2026Article
- Understanding sugar-sweetened beverage tax implementation globally: a 34-year, population-based observational study in 183 countries.The Lancet. Global health · 2026Observational
- Cost-Effectiveness and Health Equity Improvements From Excluding Sugar-Sweetened Beverages From the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program.American journal of preventive medicine · 2026Article
- Health and environmental evidence, challenges, and sustainable strategies of Planetary Health Diet: A mixed-methods review.Eco-Environment & Health · 2026Review
- Market and welfare effects of a nationwide sugar-sweetened beverage tax in the U.S.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
- A Model to Assess the Costs and Consequences of Changes in Diet and Nutrition From Potential Population-Wide Policies: The Microsimulation of Nutrition, Diabetes, and Cardiovascular Disease (MONDAC).Preventing chronic disease · 2025Article
44 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introductionReducing sugar-sweetened beverage consumption through taxation is a promising public health response to the obesity epidemic in the U.S. This study quantifies the expected health and economic benefits of a national sugar-sweetened beverage excise tax of $0.01/ounce over 10 years.
methodsA cohort model was used to simulate the impact of the tax on BMI. Assuming ongoing implementation and effect maintenance, quality-adjusted life-years gained and disability-adjusted life-years and healthcare costs averted were estimated over the 2015-2025 period for the 2015 U.S. POPULATION: Costs and health gains were discounted at 3% annually. Data were analyzed in 2014.
resultsImplementing the tax nationally would cost $51 million in the first year. The tax would reduce sugar-sweetened beverage consumption by 20% and mean BMI by 0.16 (95% uncertainty interval [UI]=0.06, 0.37) units among youth and 0.08 (95% UI=0.03, 0.20) units among adults in the second year for a cost of $3.16 (95% UI=$1.24, $8.14) per BMI unit reduced. From 2015 to 2025, the policy would avert 101,000 disability-adjusted life-years (95% UI=34,800, 249,000); gain 871,000 quality-adjusted life-years (95% UI=342,000, 2,030,000); and result in $23.6 billion (95% UI=$9.33 billion, $54.9 billion) in healthcare cost savings. The tax would generate $12.5 billion in annual revenue (95% UI=$8.92, billion, $14.1 billion).
conclusionsThe proposed tax could substantially reduce BMI and healthcare expenditures and increase healthy life expectancy. Concerns regarding the potentially regressive tax may be addressed by reduced obesity disparities and progressive earmarking of tax revenue for health promotion.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.