Cost-Effectiveness of a Potential Policy to Ban Alcohol Advertising in Australia: A Modeling Study
Author(s)
Phuong K. Nguyen, PhD1, Mary Rose Angeles, Master1, Moosa Alsubhi, Master1, Leopold N. Aminde, PhD, MD2, Mary N. Wanjau, PhD2, Amila Suranga Malawige, Master2, Linda Cobiac, PhD2, Mishel Shahid, PhD2, Lennert Veerman, PhD2, Jaithri Ananthapavan, PhD1;
1Deakin University, Deakin Health Economics, School of Health and Social Development, Faculty of Health , Melbourne, Australia, 2Griffith University, School of Medicine and Dentistry, Gold Coast, Australia
1Deakin University, Deakin Health Economics, School of Health and Social Development, Faculty of Health , Melbourne, Australia, 2Griffith University, School of Medicine and Dentistry, Gold Coast, Australia
Presentation Documents
OBJECTIVES: Alcohol consumption is a significant public health issue in Australia, linked to adverse health outcomes and substantial economic burdens. The World Health Organization recommends comprehensive restrictions on alcohol advertising as one of the most cost-effective strategies to reduce alcohol-related harm. Despite this, only four economic evaluations of such policies currently exist. This study evaluates the cost-effectiveness of a nationwide ban on alcohol advertising across all media platforms in Australia.
METHODS: A scoping review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials estimated the intervention's effectiveness in reducing alcohol consumption. Costs—including policy development, community consultations, and industry revenue losses—were calculated using a micro-costing approach from a societal perspective (2020 AUD, discounted at 5%). The Alcohol Policy (TAP) model, a Markov-type multi-state life table model, was employed to simulate the intervention's impact on population health and healthcare costs. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were derived by dividing incremental costs by health-adjusted life years (HALYs) gained, with a threshold of $50,000 per HALY.
RESULTS: The meta-analysis of six studies indicated a mean reduction of 1.54 g (95% confidence interval 0.46 to 2.02) of pure alcohol consumption in the non-exposed group compared to the exposed group, translating to an average 10% reduction from baseline consumption for males and females aged 18 to 45 years. The total cost of the intervention was estimated at $1.59 billion (95 % uncertainty interval UI $0.61 to $2.58 billion) over 20 years, with 97% of this cost borne by the industry due to profit losses associated with reduced consumption. HALYs gained were projected at 104,000, and the ICER was $3,880 (95% UI dominant to $41,100). The intervention remained cost-effective across all scenarios.
CONCLUSIONS: A comprehensive alcohol advertising ban in Australia appears highly cost-effective, offering significant population health benefits at minimal governmental cost by reducing alcohol-related disease and injury treatment expenditures.
METHODS: A scoping review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials estimated the intervention's effectiveness in reducing alcohol consumption. Costs—including policy development, community consultations, and industry revenue losses—were calculated using a micro-costing approach from a societal perspective (2020 AUD, discounted at 5%). The Alcohol Policy (TAP) model, a Markov-type multi-state life table model, was employed to simulate the intervention's impact on population health and healthcare costs. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were derived by dividing incremental costs by health-adjusted life years (HALYs) gained, with a threshold of $50,000 per HALY.
RESULTS: The meta-analysis of six studies indicated a mean reduction of 1.54 g (95% confidence interval 0.46 to 2.02) of pure alcohol consumption in the non-exposed group compared to the exposed group, translating to an average 10% reduction from baseline consumption for males and females aged 18 to 45 years. The total cost of the intervention was estimated at $1.59 billion (95 % uncertainty interval UI $0.61 to $2.58 billion) over 20 years, with 97% of this cost borne by the industry due to profit losses associated with reduced consumption. HALYs gained were projected at 104,000, and the ICER was $3,880 (95% UI dominant to $41,100). The intervention remained cost-effective across all scenarios.
CONCLUSIONS: A comprehensive alcohol advertising ban in Australia appears highly cost-effective, offering significant population health benefits at minimal governmental cost by reducing alcohol-related disease and injury treatment expenditures.
Conference/Value in Health Info
2025-05, ISPOR 2025, Montréal, Quebec, CA
Value in Health, Volume 28, Issue S1
Code
EE397
Topic
Economic Evaluation
Disease
No Additional Disease & Conditions/Specialized Treatment Areas, STA: Nutrition