Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28196089›Full record

ArticlePLoS medicine2017

Taxes and Subsidies for Improving Diet and Population Health in Australia: A Cost-Effectiveness Modelling Study.

Linda J Cobiac, King Tam, Lennert Veerman, Tony Blakely

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PLoS medicine, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 76 papers, 6 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
76citing papers in PubMed, 6 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

76 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Article
  11. Diet Cost and Affordability in Queensland: A Two-Year Cross-Sectional Study.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2026
    Article
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

16 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Linda J CobiacCentre for Health Policy, School of Population and Global Health, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-2271-6494
King TamSchool of Public Health, The University of Queensland, Herston, Queensland, Australia.ORCID 0000-0003-1465-6468
Lennert VeermanSchool of Public Health, The University of Queensland, Herston, Queensland, Australia.
Tony BlakelyBurden of Disease Epidemiology, Equity and Cost-Effectiveness Programme, Department of Public Health, University of Otago, Wellington, Wellington, New Zealand.ORCID 0000-0002-6995-4369

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAn increasing number of countries are implementing taxes on unhealthy foods and drinks to address the growing burden of dietary-related disease, but the cost-effectiveness of combining taxes on unhealthy foods and subsidies on healthy foods is not well understood. METHODS AND

findingsUsing a population model of dietary-related diseases and health care costs and food price elasticities, we simulated the effect of taxes on saturated fat, salt, sugar, and sugar-sweetened beverages and a subsidy on fruits and vegetables, over the lifetime of the Australian population. The sizes of the taxes and subsidy were set such that, when combined as a package, there would be a negligible effect on average weekly expenditure on food (<1% change). We evaluated the cost-effectiveness of the interventions individually, then determined the optimal combination based on maximising net monetary benefit at a threshold of AU$50,000 per disability-adjusted life year (DALY). The simulations suggested that the combination of taxes and subsidy might avert as many as 470,000 DALYs (95% uncertainty interval [UI]: 420,000 to 510,000) in the Australian population of 22 million, with a net cost-saving of AU$3.4 billion (95% UI: AU$2.4 billion to AU$4.6 billion; US$2.3 billion) to the health sector. Of the taxes evaluated, the sugar tax produced the biggest estimates of health gain (270,000 [95% UI: 250,000 to 290,000] DALYs averted), followed by the salt tax (130,000 [95% UI: 120,000 to 140,000] DALYs), the saturated fat tax (97,000 [95% UI: 77,000 to 120,000] DALYs), and the sugar-sweetened beverage tax (12,000 [95% UI: 2,100 to 21,000] DALYs). The fruit and vegetable subsidy (-13,000 [95% UI: -44,000 to 18,000] DALYs) was a cost-effective addition to the package of taxes. However, it did not necessarily lead to a net health benefit for the population when modelled as an intervention on its own, because of the possible adverse cross-price elasticity effects on consumption of other foods (e.g., foods high in saturated fat and salt). The study suggests that taxes and subsidies on foods and beverages can potentially be combined to achieve substantial improvements in population health and cost-savings to the health sector. However, the magnitude of health benefits is sensitive to measures of price elasticity, and further work is needed to incorporate potential benefits or harms associated with changes in other foods and nutrients that are not currently modelled, such as red and processed meats and fibre.

conclusionsWith potentially large health benefits for the Australian population and large benefits in reducing health sector spending on the treatment of non-communicable diseases, the formulation of a tax and subsidy package should be given a more prominent role in Australia's public health nutrition strategy.

Indexed as

BeveragesCost-Benefit AnalysisDietModels, TheoreticalAustraliaFinancing, GovernmentHumansPublic HealthTaxes

Identifiers

PMID28196089
PMCPMC5308803

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.