Dataset Information

Healthy diets ASAP - Australian Standardised Affordability and Pricing methods protocol.

ABSTRACT:

Background

This paper describes the rationale, development and final protocol of the Healthy Diets Australian Standardised Affordability and Pricing (ASAP) method which aims to assess, compare and monitor the price, price differential and affordability of healthy (recommended) and current (unhealthy) diets in Australia. The protocol is consistent with the International Network for Food and Obesity / non-communicable Diseases Research, Monitoring and Action Support's (INFORMAS) optimal approach to monitor food price and affordability globally.

Methods

The Healthy Diets ASAP protocol was developed based on literature review, drafting, piloting and revising, with key stakeholder consultation at all stages, including at a national forum.

Discussion

The protocol was developed in five parts. Firstly, for the healthy (recommended) and current (unhealthy) diet pricing tools; secondly for calculation of median and low-income household incomes; thirdly for store location and sampling; fourthly for price data collection, and; finally for analysis and reporting. The Healthy Diets ASAP protocol constitutes a standardised approach to assess diet price and affordability to inform development of nutrition policy actions to reduce rates of diet-related chronic disease in Australia. It demonstrates application of the INFORMAS optimum food price and affordability methods at country level. Its wide application would enhance monitoring and utility of dietary price and affordability data from a health perspective in Australia. The protocol could be adapted in other countries to monitor the price, price differential and affordability of current and healthy diets.

SUBMITTER: Lee AJ

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6161417 | biostudies-literature | 2018 Sep

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Healthy diets ASAP - Australian Standardised Affordability and Pricing methods protocol.

Lee Amanda J AJ Kane Sarah S Lewis Meron M Good Elizabeth E Pollard Christina M CM Landrigan Timothy J TJ Dick Mathew M

Nutrition journal 20180927 1

<h4>Background</h4>This paper describes the rationale, development and final protocol of the Healthy Diets Australian Standardised Affordability and Pricing (ASAP) method which aims to assess, compare and monitor the price, price differential and affordability of healthy (recommended) and current (unhealthy) diets in Australia. The protocol is consistent with the International Network for Food and Obesity / non-communicable Diseases Research, Monitoring and Action Support's (INFORMAS) optimal ap ...[more]

PMID: 30261887

Similar Datasets

Project description:Background/Aims EAT–Lancet Commission’s Planetary Health Diet proposed a diet that integrates nutrition and sustainability considerations, however its affordability is unknown in many country-specific contexts, including Australia. The aim of this study is to develop a healthy and sustainable food basket modelled on the Planetary Health Diet to determine the affordability of the Planetary Health Diet basket across various socio-economic groups, and compare this affordability with a food basket modelled on the typical current diet, in an Australian setting. Methods An Australian-specific Planetary Health Diet basket was developed for a reference household (2 adults and 2 children) modelled on the Planetary Health Diet reference diet, and compared to a previously-developed Typical Australian Diet basket. The cost of each food basket was determined by online supermarket shopping surveys in low, medium and high socio-economic areas in each Australian state. Basket affordability was determined for the reference household by comparing the basket cost to disposable income in each socio-economic group in each state. Mann-Whitney U tests then determined if there were significant differences between the median costs and the median affordability of both baskets. Results The Planetary Health Diet basket was shown to be less expensive and more affordable than the Typical Australian Diet basket nationally, in all metropolitan areas, in all socio-economic groups across Australia (median cost: Planetary Health Diet?=?AUD$188.21, Typical Australian Diet?=?AUD$224.36; median affordability: Planetary Health Diet?=?13%, Typical Australian Diet?=?16%; p =?<?0.05). Conclusions This study showed the Planetary Health Diet to be more affordable than the Typical Australian Diet for metropolitan-dwelling Australians. Implications These results can help to inform public health and food policy aimed at achieving a healthy and sustainable future for all Australians, including reductions in overweight/obesity rates and increased food security.

Project description:Affordability of different isocaloric healthy diets in Germany-an assessment of food prices for seven distinct food patterns Background: For decades, low-fat diets were recommended as the ideal food pattern to prevent obesity, type 2 diabetes and their long-term complications. Nowadays, several alternatives considering sources and quantity of protein, fat and carbohydrates have arisen and clinical evidence supports all of them for at least some metabolic outcomes. Given this variety in diets and the lack of a single ideal diet, one must evaluate if patients at risk, many of which having a lower income, can actually afford these diets. We modelled four-week food plans for a typical family of two adults and two school children based on seven different dietary patterns: highly processed standard omnivore diet (HPSD), freshly cooked standard omnivore diet (FCSD), both with German average dietary composition, low-protein vegan diet (VeganD), low-fat vegetarian diet (VegetD), low-fat omnivore diet (LFD), Mediterranean diet (MedD) and high-fat moderate-carb diet (MCD). The isocaloric diets were designed with typical menu variation for all meal times. We then assessed the lowest possible prices for all necessary grocery items in 12 different supermarket chains, avoiding organic foods, special offers, advertised exotic super foods and luxury articles. Prices for dietary patterns were compared in total, stratified by meal time and by food groups. Among all seven dietary patterns, price dispersion by supermarket chains was 12-16%. Lowest average costs were calculated for the VegetD and the FCSD, followed by HPSD, LFD, VeganD, MedD and-on top-MCD. VeganD, MedD and MCD were about 16%, 23% and 67% more expensive compared to the FCSD. Major food groups determining prices for all diets are vegetables, salads and animal-derived products. Calculations for social welfare severely underestimate expenses for any kind of diet. Food prices are a relevant factor for healthy food choices. Food purchasing is financially challenging for persons with very low income in Germany. Fresh-cooked plant-based diets are less pricy than the unhealthy HPSD. Diets with reduced carbohydrate content are considerably more expensive, limiting their use for people with low income. Minimum wage and financial support for long-term unemployed people in Germany are insufficient to assure a healthy lifestyle.

Project description:BackgroundThe perception that healthy foods are more expensive than unhealthy foods has been reported widely to be a key barrier to healthy eating. However, assessment of the relative cost of healthy and unhealthy foods and diets is fraught methodologically. Standardised approaches to produce reliable data on the cost of total diets and different dietary patterns, rather than selected foods, are lacking globally to inform policy and practice.MethodsThis paper reports the first application, in randomly selected statistical areas stratified by socio-economic status in two Australian cities, of the Healthy Diets Australian Standardized Affordability and Pricing (ASAP) method protocols: diet pricing tools based on national nutrition survey data and dietary guidelines; store sampling and location; determination of household incomes; food price data collection; and analysis and reporting. The methods were developed by the International Network on Food and Obesity/NCD Research, Monitoring and Action Support (INFORMAS) as a prototype of an optimum approach to assess, compare and monitor the cost and affordability of diets across different geographical and socio-economic settings and times.ResultsUnder current tax policy in Australia, healthy diets would be 15-17% less expensive than current (unhealthy) diets in all locations assessed. Nevertheless, healthy diets are likely to be unaffordable for low income households, costing more than 30% of disposable income in both cities surveyed. Households spent around 58% of their food budget on unhealthy food and drinks. Food costs were on average 4% higher in Canberra than Sydney, and tended to be higher in high socioeconomic locations.ConclusionsHealth and fiscal policy actions to increase affordability of healthy diets for low income households are required urgently. Also, there is a need to counter perceptions that current, unhealthy diets must be less expensive than healthy diets. The Healthy Diets ASAP methods could be adapted to assess the cost and affordability of healthy and unhealthy diets elsewhere.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Standardised packaging for factory made (FM) and roll your own (RYO) tobacco was fully implemented in the UK in May 2017. Around the same time, several changes to the tax system were applied (a Minimum Excise Tax (MET) for FM products and tax increases weighted towards RYO products). The tobacco industry claims that standardised packaging will lower prices (a disincentive for quitting) by commoditising the product, yet had itself taken advantage of the previous tax regime to achieve large profits from premium brands while also keeping some products' prices relatively low. Here we evaluate the impact of standardised packaging, the MET and the RYO focussed tax changes on price and industry profitability. METHODS AND FINDINGS:Nielsen electronic point of sale (EPOS) data (May 2015 to April 2018) were used to calculate real (inflation adjusted) monthly price per stick overall, by cigarette type (FM and RYO) and by seven market segments. Trend estimation, using additive mixed models, assessed weighted average price (weighted by volume of sales) and tobacco industry net revenue changes. The beginning and end of the data series were compared in terms of: (a) average monthly price growth, (b) average monthly net revenue growth, and (c) undershifting and overshifting patterns after tax changes. FM and RYO real prices changed little over the 3-year period-overall prices rose by about 1p per stick. There was no evidence of commoditisation with prices of all FM segments (but not RYO) rising faster after the implementation of standardised packaging than immediately beforehand. The prices of the cheapest FM brands rose with the implementation of the MET. RYO price increases did not close the gap to FM pricing levels despite RYO focussed tax increases. Tax changes following the implementation of standardised packaging and the MET were more widely and quickly passed on to smokers in the form of higher prices than the tax change pre-implementation. The main limitations are first that because we do not know the exact mechanism by which Nielsen scales up sample data to provide UK estimates, we could only use data for a set three year period during which the same adjustments are made. Second, the tax and standardised packaging events were sometimes too close in time to separate their consequences statistically. Third, tobacco prices may also be affected by external factors such as changes in smokers' disposable income or availability of electronic nicotine delivery systems. CONCLUSIONS:There was no long-term lowering of tobacco prices after the implementation of standardised packaging as predicted by the industry. The introduction of the MET was successful in increasing the price of the cheapest FM cigarettes and narrowing the price gap between FM brands. The RYO tax increases were, however, insufficient to narrow the price gap between RYO and FM. Overall, undershifting became less extensive indicating that tobacco industry manipulation of the tax system which had previously kept cheap products available had declined. This suggests that standardised packaging and a MET will likely contribute to further declines in UK tobacco use.

Project description:BackgroundPoor diet is the leading preventable risk factor contributing to the burden of disease globally and in Australia, and is inequitably distributed. As the price of healthy foods is a perceived barrier to improved diets, evidence on the cost and affordability of current (unhealthy) and recommended (healthy, more equitable and sustainable) diets is required to support policy action.MethodsThis study applied the Healthy Diets ASAP (Australian Standardised Affordability and Pricing) methods protocol to measure the cost, cost differential and affordability of current and recommended diets for a reference household in Queensland, Australia. Food prices were collected in 18 randomly selected locations stratified by area of socioeconomic disadvantage and remoteness. Diet affordability was calculated for three income categories.ResultsSurprisingly, recommended diets would cost 20% less than the current diet in Queensland as a whole. Households spent around 60% of their food budget on discretionary choices (that is, those not required for health that are high in saturated fat, added sugar, salt and/or alcohol). Queensland families would need to spend around 23% of their income on recommended diets. However, recommended diets would not be affordable in low socioeconomic or very remote areas, costing 30 and 35% of median household income respectively. The government supplements due to the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic would improve affordability of recommended diets by 29%.ConclusionsStudy findings highlight that while price is one factor affecting consumer food choice, other drivers such as taste, convenience, advertising and availability are important. Nevertheless, the study found that recommended diets would be unaffordable in very remote areas, and that low-income families are likely experiencing food stress, irrespective of where they live in Queensland. Policy actions, such as increasing to 20% the current 10% tax differential between basic healthy, and unhealthy foods in Australia, and supplementing incomes of vulnerable households, especially in remote areas, are recommended to help improve diet equity and sustainability, and health and wellbeing for all.

Project description:INTRODUCTION:California's Workers' Compensation System (CAWCS) Department of Industrial Relations questioned the adequacy of the current Medi-Cal fee-schedule pricing and requested analysis of alternatives that maximize price availability and maintain budget neutrality. OBJECTIVES:To compare CAWCS pharmacy-dispensed (PD) drug prices under alternative fee schedules, and identify combinations of alternative benchmarks that have prices available for the largest percentage of PD drugs and that best reach budget neutrality. METHODS:Claims transaction-level data (2011-2013) from CAWCS were used to estimate total annual PD pharmaceutical payments. Medi-Cal pricing data was from the Workman's Compensation Insurance System (WCIS). Average Wholesale Prices (AWP), Wholesale Acquisition Costs (WAC), Direct Prices (DP), Federal Upper Limit (FUL) prices, and National Average Drug Acquisition Costs (NADAC) were from Medi-Span. We matched National Drug Codes (NDCs), pricing dates, and drug quantity for comparisons. We report pharmacy-dispensed (PD) claims frequency, reimbursement matching rate, and paid costs by CAWCS as the reference price against all alternative price benchmarks. RESULTS:Of 12,529,977 CAWCS claims for pharmaceutical products 11.6% (1,462,814) were for PD drugs. Prescription drug cost for CAWCS was over $152M; $63.9M, $47.9M, and $40.6M in 2011-2013. Ninety seven percent of these CAWCS PD claims had a Medi-Cal price. Alternative mechanisms provided a price for fewer claims; NADAC 94.23%, AWP 90.94%, FUL 73.11%, WAC 66.98%, and DP 14.33%. Among CAWCS drugs with no Medi-Cal price in PD claims, AWP, WAC, NADAC, DP, and FUL provided prices for 96.7%, 63.14%, 24.82%, 20.83%, and 15.08% of claims. Overall CAWCS paid 100.52% of Medi-Cal, 60% of AWP, 97% of WAC, 309.53% of FUL, 103.83% of DP, and 136.27% of NADAC. CONCLUSIONS:CAWCS current Medi-Cal fee-schedule price list for PD drugs is more complete than all alternative fee-schedules. However, all reimbursement approaches would require combinations of pricing benchmarks. We suggest keeping primary reimbursement at 100% of Medi-Cal and for drugs without a primary Medi-Cal price calculating the maximum fee as 60% of AWP and then 97% of WAC. Alternatively, we suggest using NADAC as a primary fee-schedule followed by either 60% AWP and 97% WAC or AWP-40% for drugs with no NADAC price. Fee-schedules may not offer the best price and a formulary approach may provide more flexibility.

Dataset Information

Healthy diets ASAP - Australian Standardised Affordability and Pricing methods protocol.

Background

Methods

Discussion

Publications

Healthy diets ASAP - Australian Standardised Affordability and Pricing methods protocol.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets