Suchergebnisse

BACKGROUND: Excessive sodium consumption is one of the leading dietary risk factors for non-communicable diseases, including cardiovascular disease (CVD), mediated by high blood pressure. Brazil has implemented voluntary sodium reduction targets with food industries since 2011. This study aimed to analyse the potential health and economic impact of these sodium reduction targets in Brazil from 2013 to 2032. METHODS: We developed a microsimulation of a close-to-reality synthetic population (IMPACT(NCD-BR)) to evaluate the potential health benefits of setting voluntary upper limits for sodium content as part of the Brazilian government strategy. The model estimates CVD deaths and cases prevented or postponed, and disease treatment costs. Model inputs were informed by the 2013 National Health Survey, the 2008–2009 Household Budget Survey, and high-quality meta-analyses, assuming that all individuals were exposed to the policy proportionally to their sodium intake from processed food. Costs included costs of the National Health System on CVD treatment and informal care costs. The primary outcome measures of the model are cardiovascular disease cases and deaths prevented or postponed over 20 years (2013–2032), stratified by age and sex. RESULTS: The study found that the application of the Brazilian voluntary sodium targets for packaged foods between 2013 and 2032 could prevent or postpone approximately 110,000 CVD cases (95% uncertainty intervals (UI): 28,000 to 260,000) among men and 70,000 cases among women (95% UI: 16,000 to 170,000), and also prevent or postpone approximately 2600 CVD deaths (95% UI: − 1000 to 11,000), 55% in men. The policy could also produce a net cost saving of approximately US$ 220 million (95% UI: US$ 54 to 520 million) in medical costs to the Brazilian National Health System for the treatment of CHD and stroke and save approximately US$ 71 million (95% UI: US$ 17 to170 million) in informal costs. CONCLUSION: Brazilian voluntary sodium targets could generate substantial health and economic ...

Distributional cost effectiveness analysis is a new method that can help to redesign prevention programmes by explicitly modelling the distribution of health opportunity costs as well as the distribution of health benefits. Previously we modelled cardiovascular disease (CVD) screening audit data from Liverpool, UK to see if the city could redesign its cardiovascular screening programme to enhance its cost effectiveness and equity. Building on this previous analysis, we explicitly examined the distribution of health opportunity costs and we looked at new redesign options co-designed with stakeholders. We simulated four plausible scenarios: a) no CVD screening, b) 'current' basic universal CVD screening as currently implemented, c) enhanced universal CVD screening with 'increased' population-wide delivery, and d) 'universal plus targeted' with top-up delivery to the most deprived fifth. We also compared assumptions around whether displaced health spend would come from programmes that might benefit the poor more and how much health these programmes would generate. The main outcomes were net health benefit and change in the slope index of inequality (SII) in QALYs per 100,000 person years. 'Universal plus targeted' dominated 'increased' and 'current' and also reduced health inequality by −0.65 QALYs per 100,000 person years. Results are highly sensitive to assumptions about opportunity costs and, in particular, whether funding comes from health care or local government budgets. By analysing who loses as well as who gains from expenditure decisions, distributional cost effectiveness analysis can help decision makers to redesign prevention programmes in ways that improve health and reduce health inequality. ; Peer reviewed

Distributional cost effectiveness analysis is a new method that can help to redesign prevention programmes by explicitly modelling the distribution of health opportunity costs as well as the distribution of health benefits. Previously we modelled cardiovascular disease (CVD) screening audit data from Liverpool, UK to see if the city could redesign its cardiovascular screening programme to enhance its cost effectiveness and equity. Building on this previous analysis, we explicitly examined the distribution of health opportunity costs and we looked at new redesign options co-designed with stakeholders. We simulated four plausible scenarios: a) no CVD screening, b) 'current' basic universal CVD screening as currently implemented, c) enhanced universal CVD screening with 'increased' population-wide delivery, and d) 'universal plus targeted' with top-up delivery to the most deprived fifth. We also compared assumptions around whether displaced health spend would come from programmes that might benefit the poor more and how much health these programmes would generate. The main outcomes were net health benefit and change in the slope index of inequality (SII) in QALYs per 100,000 person years. 'Universal plus targeted' dominated 'increased' and 'current' and also reduced health inequality by −0.65 QALYs per 100,000 person years. Results are highly sensitive to assumptions about opportunity costs and, in particular, whether funding comes from health care or local government budgets. By analysing who loses as well as who gains from expenditure decisions, distributional cost effectiveness analysis can help decision makers to redesign prevention programmes in ways that improve health and reduce health inequality.

BACKGROUND: The NHS Health Check Programme is a risk-reduction programme offered to all adults in England aged 40–74 years. Previous studies mainly focused on patient perspectives and programme delivery; however, delivery varies, and costs are substantial. We were therefore working with key stakeholders to develop and co-produce an NHS Health Check Programme modelling tool (workHORSE) for commissioners to quantify local effectiveness, cost-effectiveness, and equity. Here we report on Workshop 1, which specifically aimed to facilitate engagement with stakeholders; develop a shared understanding of current Health Check implementation; identify what is working well, less well, and future hopes; and explore features to include in the tool. METHODS: This qualitative study identified key stakeholders across the UK via networking and snowball techniques. The stakeholders spanned local organisations (NHS commissioners, GPs, and academics), third sector and national organisations (Public Health England and The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence). We used the validated Hovmand "group model building" approach to engage stakeholders in a series of pre-piloted, structured, small group exercises. We then used Framework Analysis to analyse responses. RESULTS: Fifteen stakeholders participated in workshop 1. Stakeholders identified continued financial and political support for the NHS Health Check Programme. However, many stakeholders highlighted issues concerning lack of data on processes and outcomes, variability in quality of delivery, and suboptimal public engagement. Stakeholders' hopes included maximising coverage, uptake, and referrals, and producing additional evidence on population health, equity, and economic impacts. Key model suggestions focused on developing good-practice template scenarios, analysis of broader prevention activities at local level, accessible local data, broader economic perspectives, and fit-for-purpose outputs. CONCLUSIONS: A shared understanding of current implementations of the ...

POLICY POINTS: The World Health Organization has recommended sodium reduction as a "best buy" to prevent cardiovascular disease (CVD). Despite this, Congress has temporarily blocked the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) from implementing voluntary industry targets for sodium reduction in processed foods, the implementation of which could cost the industry around $16 billion over 10 years. We modeled the health and economic impact of meeting the two‐year and ten‐year FDA targets, from the perspective of people working in the food system itself, over 20 years, from 2017 to 2036. Benefits of implementing the FDA voluntary sodium targets extend to food companies and food system workers, and the value of CVD‐related health gains and cost savings are together greater than the government and industry costs of reformulation. CONTEXT: The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) set draft voluntary targets to reduce sodium levels in processed foods. We aimed to determine cost effectiveness of meeting these draft sodium targets, from the perspective of US food system workers. METHODS: We employed a microsimulation cost‐effectiveness analysis using the US IMPACT Food Policy model with two scenarios: (1) short term, achieving two‐year FDA reformulation targets only, and (2) long term, achieving 10‐year FDA reformulation targets. We modeled four close‐to‐reality populations: food system "ever" workers; food system "current" workers in 2017; and subsets of processed food "ever" and "current" workers. Outcomes included cardiovascular disease cases prevented and postponed as well as incremental cost‐effectiveness ratio per quality‐adjusted life year (QALY) gained from 2017 to 2036. FINDINGS: Among food system ever workers, achieving long‐term sodium reduction targets could produce 20‐year health gains of approximately 180,000 QALYs (95% uncertainty interval [UI]: 150,000 to 209,000) and health cost savings of approximately $5.2 billion (95% UI: $3.5 billion to $8.3 billion), with an incremental cost‐effectiveness ratio (ICER) ...