Department of Health Services Research and Policy, Research School of Population Health, Australian National University, Canberra, Australian Capital Territory, Australia.
Health Economics Unit, Melbourne School of Population and Global Health, University of Melbourne, Parkville, Victoria, Australia.
Health Econ. 2022 Jan;31(1):197-214. doi: 10.1002/hec.4451. Epub 2021 Oct 29.
The obesity epidemic is a significant public policy issue facing the international community, resulting in substantial costs to individuals and society. Various policies have been suggested to reduce and prevent obesity, including those informed by standard economics (a key feature of which is the assumption that individuals are rational) and behavioral economics (which identifies and harness deviations from rationality). It is not known which policy interventions taxpayers find acceptable and would prefer to fund via taxation. We provide evidence from a discrete choice experiment on an Australian sample of 996 individuals to investigate social acceptability of eight policies: mass media campaign; traffic light nutritional labeling; taxing sugar sweetened beverages; prepaid cards to purchase healthy food; financial incentives to exercise; improved built environment for physical activity; bans on advertising unhealthy food and drink to children; and improved nutritional quality of food sold in public institutions. Latent class analysis revealed three classes differing in preferences and key respondent characteristics including capacity to benefit. Social acceptability of the eight policies at realistic levels of tax increases was explored using post-estimation analysis. Overall, 78% of the sample were predicted to choose a new policy, varying from 99% in those most likely to benefit from obesity interventions to 19% of those least likely to benefit. A policy informed by standard economics, traffic light labeling was the most popular policy, followed by policies involving regulation: bans on junk food advertising to children and improvement of food quality in public institutions. The least popular policies were behaviorally informed: prepaid cards for the purchase of only healthy foods, and financial incentives to exercise.
肥胖症的流行是国际社会面临的一个重大公共政策问题，给个人和社会带来了巨大的成本。已经提出了各种政策来减少和预防肥胖，包括基于标准经济学（其主要特征是假设个人是理性的）和行为经济学（确定和利用理性偏差）的政策。尚不清楚哪些政策干预措施是纳税人可以接受的，并且愿意通过税收来为其提供资金。我们利用澳大利亚 996 名个体的离散选择实验提供了证据，以调查八种政策的社会可接受性：大众媒体宣传；红绿灯营养标签；对含糖饮料征税；购买健康食品的预付卡；锻炼的经济激励；改善体育活动的建筑环境；禁止向儿童宣传不健康的食品和饮料；改善公立机构出售的食品的营养质量。潜在类别分析揭示了三个在偏好和关键受访者特征（包括受益能力）方面存在差异的类别。使用估计后的分析探讨了在税收增加的现实水平下，这八项政策的社会可接受性。总体而言，预计 78%的样本将选择一项新政策，在最有可能从肥胖干预中受益的人群中，这一比例高达 99%，而在最不可能受益的人群中，这一比例为 19%。一项基于标准经济学的政策——红绿灯标签是最受欢迎的政策，其次是涉及监管的政策：禁止向儿童宣传垃圾食品和改善公立机构的食品质量。最不受欢迎的政策是基于行为的政策：仅用于购买健康食品的预付卡，以及锻炼的经济激励。
