Brown V, Moodie M, Cobiac L, Mantilla Herrera A M, Carter R
Centre for Research Excellence in Obesity Policy and Food Systems, c/- Centre for Population Health Research, Faculty of Health, Deakin University, Geelong, VIC, 3220, Australia.
Deakin Health Economics, Centre for Population Health Research, School of Health and Social Development, Deakin University, Geelong, VIC, 3220, Australia.
BMC Public Health. 2017 May 4;17(1):359. doi: 10.1186/s12889-017-4271-2.
Reducing automobile dependence and improving rates of active transport may reduce the impact of obesogenic environments, thereby decreasing population prevalence of obesity and other diseases where physical inactivity is a risk factor. Increasing the relative cost of driving by an increase in fuel taxation may therefore be a promising public health intervention for obesity prevention.
A scoping review of the evidence for obesity or physical activity effect of changes in fuel price or taxation was undertaken. Potential health benefits of an increase in fuel excise taxation in Australia were quantified using Markov modelling to simulate obesity, injury and physical activity related health impacts of a fuel excise taxation intervention for the 2010 Australian population. Health adjusted life years (HALYs) gained and healthcare cost savings from diseases averted were estimated. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were reported and results were tested through sensitivity analysis.
Limited evidence on the effect of policies such as fuel taxation on health-related behaviours currently exists. Only three studies were identified reporting associations between fuel price or taxation and obesity, whilst nine studies reported associations specifically with physical activity, walking or cycling. Estimates of the cross price elasticity of demand for public transport with respect to fuel price vary, with limited consensus within the literature on a probable range for the Australian context. Cost-effectiveness modelling of a AUD0.10 per litre increase in fuel excise taxation using a conservative estimate of cross price elasticity for public transport suggests that the intervention would be cost-effective from a limited societal perspective (237 HALYs gained, AUD2.6 M in healthcare cost savings), measured against a comparator of no additional increase in fuel excise. Under "best case" assumptions, the intervention would be more cost-effective (3181 HALYs gained, AUD34.2 M in healthcare cost savings).
Exploratory analysis suggests that an intervention to increase fuel excise taxation may deliver obesity and physical activity related benefits. Whilst such an intervention has significant potential for cost-effectiveness, potential equity and acceptability impacts would need to be minimised. A better understanding of the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a range of transport interventions is required in order to achieve more physically active transport environments.
减少对汽车的依赖并提高主动出行率,可能会降低致胖环境的影响,从而降低肥胖症以及其他以缺乏身体活动为风险因素的疾病的人群患病率。因此,通过提高燃油税来增加驾车的相对成本,可能是一项很有前景的预防肥胖的公共卫生干预措施。
对燃油价格或税收变化对肥胖或身体活动影响的证据进行了范围综述。利用马尔可夫模型对澳大利亚2010年人口的燃油消费税干预措施所产生的肥胖、伤害及与身体活动相关的健康影响进行模拟,从而量化澳大利亚提高燃油消费税可能带来的健康益处。估算了因避免疾病而获得的健康调整生命年(HALYs)以及节省的医疗费用。报告了增量成本效益比(ICERs),并通过敏感性分析对结果进行了检验。
目前关于燃油税等政策对健康相关行为影响的证据有限。仅确定了三项研究报告了燃油价格或税收与肥胖之间的关联,而九项研究报告了与身体活动、步行或骑自行车的具体关联。公共交通需求对燃油价格的交叉价格弹性估计各不相同,对于澳大利亚背景下的可能范围,文献中尚未达成有限的共识。使用对公共交通交叉价格弹性的保守估计,对燃油消费税每升提高0.10澳元进行成本效益建模表明,从有限的社会角度来看,该干预措施将具有成本效益(获得237个HALYs,节省医疗费用260万澳元),与未额外提高燃油消费税的对照情况相比。在“最佳情况”假设下,该干预措施将更具成本效益(获得3181个HALYs,节省医疗费用3420万澳元)。
探索性分析表明,提高燃油消费税的干预措施可能会带来与肥胖和身体活动相关的益处。虽然这种干预措施具有显著的成本效益潜力,但需要将潜在的公平性和可接受性影响降至最低。为了实现更积极的交通环境,需要更好地了解一系列交通干预措施的有效性和成本效益。