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.
Highlights
Sugar-sweetened beverages (SSBs) increase chronic disease risk
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
Incidence by age and sex is detailed in appendix exhibit 3, and mortality in appendix exhibit 4.26 Given these conditions, a population of 10,000 people accrued 62,850 quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) over ten years, for an average of 0.63 QALYs per person per year of life lived and 205,414 QALYs over their lifetime, for an average of 0.54 QALYs per person per year of life lived
Summary
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. Sugar-sweetened beverages (SSBs), including carbonated sodas, sweetened teas, and energy drinks, are associated with elevated disease risks.[1] Studies have shown that SSB consumption can be reduced using taxes.[2,3,4,5,6] Public health commentators have likened SSBs to tobacco products, which have been subject to complementary policies such as restrictions on purchasing to reduce consumption.[7,8] Political will has sometimes been lacking to impose SSB taxes.[9] An alternative approach of banning SSB sales has been instituted in schools.[10] SSB sales bans offer a potentially more stringent limitation on sales than less universal interventions, such as limiting the number of vending machines stocked with SSBs or eliminating SSBs at one retailer,[11,12] which have produced modest cardiometabolic effects.[13,14,15,16,17,18,19]. A substudy of 214 employees evaluated by physical examination revealed declines in waist circumference.[23]
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
