Dataset Information

Fewer Cancer Cases in 4 Countries of the WHO European Region in 2018 through Increased Alcohol Excise Taxation: A Modelling Study.

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

Prevention of cancer has been identified as a major public health priority for Europe, and alcohol is a leading risk factor for various types of cancer. This contribution estimates the number of cancer cases that could have potentially been averted in 2018 in 4 European countries if an increase in alcohol excise taxation had been applied.

Methods

Current country and beverage-specific excise taxation of 4 member states of the WHO European Region (Germany, Italy, Kazakhstan, and Sweden) was used as a baseline, and the potential impacts of increases of 20, 50, and 100% to current excise duties were modelled. A sensitivity analysis was performed, replacing the current tax rates in the 4 countries by those levied in Finland. The resulting increase in tax was assumed to be fully incorporated into the consumer price, and beverage-specific price elasticities of demand were obtained from meta-analyses, assuming less elasticity for heavy drinkers. Model estimates were applied to cancer incidence rates for the year 2018.

Results

In the 4 countries, >35,000 cancer cases in 2018 were caused by alcohol consumption, with the highest rate of alcohol-attributable cancers recorded in Germany and the lowest in Sweden. An increase in excise duties on alcohol would have significantly reduced these numbers, with between 3 and 7% of all alcohol-attributable cancer cases being averted if taxation had been increased by 100%. If the 4 countries were to adopt an excise taxation level equivalent to the one currently imposed in Finland, an even higher proportion of alcohol-attributable cancers could be avoided, with Germany alone experiencing 1,600 fewer cancer cases in 1 year.

Discussion/conclusion

Increasing excise duties can markedly reduce cancer incidence in European countries.

SUBMITTER: Rovira P

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8220913 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND AND AIMS:The World Health Organization recommends increasing alcohol taxes as a 'best-buy' approach to reducing alcohol consumption and improving population health. Alcohol may be taxed based on sales value, product volume or alcohol content; however, duty structures and rates vary, both among countries and between beverage types. From a public health perspective, the best duty structure links taxation level to alcohol content, keeps pace with inflation and avoids substantial disparities between different beverage types. This data note compares current alcohol duty structures and levels throughout the 28 European Union (EU) Member States and how these vary by alcohol content, and also considers implications for public health. DESIGN AND SETTING:Descriptive analysis using administrative data, European Union, July 2018. MEASUREMENTS:Beverage-specific alcohol duty rates per UK alcohol unit (8 g ethanol) in pounds sterling at a range of different alcoholic strengths. FINDINGS:Only 50% of Member States levy any duty on wine and several levy duty on spirits and beer at or close to the EU minimum level. There is at least a 10-fold difference in the effective duty rate per unit between the highest- and lowest-duty countries for each beverage type. Duty rates for beer and spirits stay constant with strength in the majority of countries, while rates for wine and cider generally fall as strength increases. Duty rates are generally higher for spirits than other beverage types and are generally lowest in eastern Europe and highest in Finland, Sweden, Ireland and the United Kingdom. CONCLUSIONS:Different European Union countries enact very different alcohol taxation policies, despite a partially restrictive legal framework. There is only limited evidence that alcohol duties are designed to minimize public health harms by ensuring that drinks containing more alcohol are taxed at higher rates. Instead, tax rates appear to reflect national alcohol production and consumption patterns.

Project description:BackgroundAlcohol use and its burden constitute one of the largest public health challenges in the WHO European Region. Raising alcohol taxes is a cost-effective "best buy" measure to reduce alcohol consumption, but its implementation remains uneven. This paper provides an overview of existing tax structures in 50 countries and subregions of the Region, estimates their proportions of tax on retail prices of beer, wine, and spirits, and quantifies the number of deaths that could be averted annually if these tax shares were raised to a minimum level.MethodsReview of databases and statistical reports on taxes and mean retail prices of alcohol beverages in the Region. Affordability was calculated based on alcohol prices, adjusted for differences in purchasing power. Consumption changes and averted mortality were modelled assuming two scenarios. In Scenario 1, a minimum excise tax share level of 25% of the beverage-specific retail price was assumed for all countries. In Scenario 2, in addition to a minimum excise tax share level of 15% it was assumed that per unit of ethanol minimal retail prices were the same irrespective of alcoholic beverages (equalisation). Sensitivity analyses were conducted for different price elasticities.FindingsAlcohol is very affordable in the Region and alcohol taxes have clearly been under-utilized as a public health measure, constituting on average only 5·7%, 14·0% and 31·3% of the retail prices of wine, beer, and spirits, respectively. Tax shares were higher in the eastern part of the Region compared to the EU, where various countries did not have excise taxes on wine. Annually, the introduction of a minimum tax share of 25% (Scenario 1) could avert 40,033 (95% CI: 38,054-46,097) deaths in the WHO European Region (with 753,454,300 inhabitants older than 15 years of age). If a 15% tax share with equalisation were implemented (Scenario 2), 132,906 (95% CI: (124,691-151,674) deaths could be averted. All sensitivity analyses with different elasticities yielded outcomes close to those of the main analyses.InterpretationSimilar to tobacco taxes, increasing alcohol taxes should be considered to be a health-based measure aimed at saving lives. Many countries have hesitated to apply higher taxes to alcohol, but the present results show a clear health benefit as a result of implementing a minimum tax share.FundingThis work was supported by the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (1R01AA028224) and the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, Institute of Neurosciences, and Mental Health and Addiction (SMN-13950).

Project description:ObjectiveTo investigate whether a single optimal vaccination strategy exists across countries to deal with a future influenza pandemic by comparing the cost effectiveness of different strategies in various pandemic scenarios for three European countries.DesignEconomic and epidemic modelling study.SettingsGeneral populations in Germany, the Netherlands, and the United Kingdom.Data sourcesCountry specific patterns of social contact and demographic data.ModelAn age structured susceptible-exposed-infected-recovered transmission model that describes how an influenza A virus will spread in the populations of Germany, the Netherlands, and the United Kingdom.InterventionsComparison of four vaccination strategies: no vaccination, blanket vaccination, vaccination of elderly people (≥ 65 years), and vaccination of high transmitters (5-19 years). The four strategies were evaluated for scenarios in which a vaccine became available early or at the peak of the pandemic, and in which either everyone was initially susceptible or older age groups had pre-existing immunity.Main outcome measureCost per quality adjusted life years (QALYs) gained.ResultsAll vaccination strategies were cost effective (incremental cost per QALY gained, comparing intervention with non-intervention). In scenarios where the vaccine became available at the peak of the pandemic and there was pre-existing immunity among elderly people the incremental cost effectiveness ratios for vaccinating high transmitters were €7325 (£5815; $10,470) per QALY gained for Germany, €10,216 per QALY gained for the Netherlands, and €7280 per QALY gained for the United Kingdom. The most cost effective strategy not only differed across the pandemic scenarios but also between countries. Specifically, when the vaccine was available early in the pandemic and there was no pre-existing immunity, in Germany it would be most cost effective to vaccinate elderly people ( €940 per QALY gained), whereas it would be most cost effective to vaccinate high transmitters in both the Netherlands (€525 per QALY gained) and the United Kingdom (€163 per QALY gained). This difference in optimal strategies was due to differences in the demographic characteristics of the countries: Germany has a significantly higher proportion of elderly people compared with the Netherlands and the United Kingdom.ConclusionsNo single vaccination strategy was most cost effective across countries. With aging populations, pre-existing immunity in particular could be of crucial importance for the cost effectiveness of options to mitigate a future influenza pandemic.