Explore the vast range of titles available.

The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) provides approximately US$70 billion annually to support food purchases by low-income households, supporting approximately 1 in 7 Americans. In the 2018 Farm Bill, potential SNAP revisions to improve diets and health could include financial incentives, disincentives, or restrictions for certain foods. However, the overall and comparative impacts on health outcomes and costs are not established. We aimed to estimate the health impact, program and healthcare costs, and cost-effectiveness of food incentives, disincentives, or restrictions in SNAP. We used a validated microsimulation model (CVD-PREDICT), populated with national data on adult SNAP participants from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) 2009-2014, policy effects from SNAP pilots and food pricing meta-analyses, diet-disease effects from meta-analyses, and policy, food, and healthcare costs from published literature to estimate the overall and comparative impacts of 3 dietary policy interventions: (1) a 30% incentive for fruits and vegetables (F&V), (2) a 30% F&V incentive with a restriction of sugar-sweetened beverages (SSBs), and (3) a broader incentive/disincentive program for multiple foods that also preserves choice (SNAP-plus), combining 30% incentives for F&V, nuts, whole grains, fish, and plant-based oils and 30% disincentives for SSBs, junk food, and processed meats. Among approximately 14.5 million adults on SNAP at baseline with mean age 52 years, our simulation estimates that the F&V incentive over 5 years would prevent 38,782 cardiovascular disease (CVD) events, gain 18,928 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and save $1.21 billion in healthcare costs. Adding SSB restriction increased gains to 93,933 CVD events prevented, 45,864 QALYs gained, and $4.33 billion saved. For SNAP-plus, corresponding gains were 116,875 CVD events prevented, 56,056 QALYs gained, and $5.28 billion saved. Over a lifetime, the F&V incentive would prevent approximately 303,900 CVD events, gain 649,000 QALYs, and save $6.77 billion in healthcare costs. Adding SSB restriction increased gains to approximately 797,900 CVD events prevented, 2.11 million QALYs gained, and $39.16 billion in healthcare costs saved. For SNAP-plus, corresponding gains were approximately 940,000 CVD events prevented, 2.47 million QALYs gained, and $41.93 billion saved. From a societal perspective (including programmatic costs but excluding food subsidy costs as an intra-societal transfer), all 3 scenarios were cost-saving. From a government affordability perspective (i.e., incorporating food subsidy costs, including for children and young adults for whom no health gains were modeled), the F&V incentive was of low cost-effectiveness at 5 years (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio: $548,053/QALY) but achieved cost-effectiveness ($66,525/QALY) over a lifetime. Adding SSB restriction, the intervention was cost-effective at 10 years ($68,857/QALY) and very cost-effective at 20 years ($26,435/QALY) and over a lifetime ($5,216/QALY). The combined incentive/disincentive program produced the largest health gains and reduced both healthcare and food costs, with net cost-savings of $10.16 billion at 5 years and $63.33 billion over a lifetime. Results were consistent in probabilistic sensitivity analyses: for example, from a societal perspective, 1,000 of 1,000 iterations (100%) were cost-saving for all 3 interventions. Due to the nature of simulation studies, the findings cannot prove the health and cost impacts of national SNAP interventions. Leveraging healthier eating through SNAP could generate substantial health benefits and be cost-effective or cost-saving. A combined food incentive/disincentive program appears most effective and may be most attractive to policy-makers.

Large socio-economic disparities exist in US dietary habits and cardiovascular disease (CVD) mortality. While economic incentives have demonstrated success in improving dietary choices, the quantitative impact of different dietary policies on CVD disparities is not well established. We aimed to quantify and compare the potential effects on total CVD mortality and disparities of specific dietary policies to increase fruit and vegetable (F&V) consumption and reduce sugar-sweetened beverage (SSB) consumption in the US. Using the US IMPACT Food Policy Model and probabilistic sensitivity analyses, we estimated and compared the reductions in CVD mortality and socio-economic disparities in the US population potentially achievable from 2015 to 2030 with specific dietary policy scenarios: (a) a national mass media campaign (MMC) aimed to increase consumption of F&Vs and reduce consumption of SSBs, (b) a national fiscal policy to tax SSBs to increase prices by 10%, (c) a national fiscal policy to subsidise F&Vs to reduce prices by 10%, and (d) a targeted policy to subsidise F&Vs to reduce prices by 30% among Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) participants only. We also evaluated a combined policy approach, combining all of the above policies. Data sources included the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Program, National Vital Statistics System, National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, and published meta-analyses. Among the individual policy scenarios, a national 10% F&V subsidy was projected to be most beneficial, potentially resulting in approximately 150,500 (95% uncertainty interval [UI] 141,400-158,500) CVD deaths prevented or postponed (DPPs) by 2030 in the US. This far exceeds the approximately 35,100 (95% UI 31,700-37,500) DPPs potentially attributable to a 30% F&V subsidy targeting SNAP participants, the approximately 25,800 (95% UI 24,300-28,500) DPPs for a 1-y MMC, or the approximately 31,000 (95% UI 26,800-35,300) DPPs for a 10% SSB tax. Neither the MMC nor the individual national economic policies would significantly reduce CVD socio-economic disparities. However, the SNAP-targeted intervention might potentially reduce CVD disparities between SNAP participants and SNAP-ineligible individuals, by approximately 8% (10 DPPs per 100,000 population). The combined policy approach might save more lives than any single policy studied (approximately 230,000 DPPs by 2030) while also significantly reducing disparities, by approximately 6% (7 DPPs per 100,000 population). Limitations include our effect estimates in the model; these estimates use interventional and prospective observational studies (not exclusively randomised controlled trials). They are thus imperfect and should be interpreted as the best available evidence. Another key limitation is that we considered only CVD outcomes; the policies we explored would undoubtedly have additional beneficial effects upon other diseases. Further, we did not model or compare the cost-effectiveness of each proposed policy. Fiscal strategies targeting diet might substantially reduce CVD burdens. A national 10% F&V subsidy would save by far the most lives, while a 30% F&V subsidy targeting SNAP participants would most reduce socio-economic disparities. A combined policy would have the greatest overall impact on both mortality and socio-economic disparities.

Background Fiscal interventions are promising strategies to improve diets, reduce cardiovascular disease and diabetes (cardiometabolic diseases; CMD), and address health disparities. The aim of this study is to estimate the impact of specific dietary taxes and subsidies on CMD deaths and disparities in the US. Methods Using nationally representative data, we used a comparative risk assessment to model the potential effects on total CMD deaths and disparities of price subsidies (10%, 30%) on fruits, vegetables, whole grains, and nuts/seeds and taxes (10%, 30%) on processed meat, unprocessed red meats, and sugar-sweetened beverages. We modeled two gradients of price-responsiveness by education, an indicator of socioeconomic status (SES), based on global price elasticities (18% greater price-responsiveness in low vs. high SES) and recent national experiences with taxes on sugar-sweetened beverages (65% greater price-responsiveness in low vs. high SES). Results Each price intervention would reduce CMD deaths. Overall, the largest proportional reductions were seen in stroke, followed by diabetes and coronary heart disease. Jointly altering prices of all seven dietary factors (10% each, with 18% greater price-responsiveness by SES) would prevent 23,174 (95% UI 22,024–24,595) CMD deaths/year, corresponding to 3.1% (95% UI 2.9–3.4) of CMD deaths among Americans with a lower than high school education, 3.6% (95% UI 3.3–3.8) among high school graduates/some college, and 2.9% (95% UI 2.7–3.5) among college graduates. Applying a 30% price change and larger price-responsiveness (65%) in low SES, the corresponding reductions were 10.9% (95% UI 9.2–10.8), 9.8% (95% UI 9.1–10.4), and 6.7% (95% UI 6.2–7.6). The latter scenario would reduce disparities in CMD between Americans with lower than high school versus a college education by 3.5 (95% UI 2.3–4.5) percentage points. Conclusions Modest taxes and subsidies for key dietary factors could meaningfully reduce CMD and improve US disparities.

The burden of cardiovascular disease mortality remains large and unequal in the USA, and is mostly attributable to poor diet. Few data exist about the potential population level impact on inequalities of policies to improve diet such as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). We aimed to estimate reductions in cardiovascular disease mortality and inequalities achievable in the US population up to 2030 through dietary policies. We developed a US IMPACT (International Model for Policy Analysis of Agricultural Commodities and Trade) food policy model to estimate the number of deaths prevented or postponed (DPPs) achievable with four feasible scenarios that have been successfully implemented across the world: a national fruit and vegetables and sugar-sweetened beverage mass media campaign, fruit and vegetable price reductions of 10% universally and 30% to SNAP participants, and universal sugar-sweetened beverage price increase of 10%. We further modelled a combination of these policies. We stratified the US population by SNAP eligibility and participation. We estimated number of deaths using the incremental effect of each policy upon the target food groups. Then we estimated the effect upon cardiovascular disease mortality compared with existing baseline of continued trends. Probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted. A universal 10% price reduction of fruit and vegetables could prevent the most deaths—about 150 500 DPPs by 2030 (95% CI 137 800–160 500). This compares with approximately 23 000 DPPs (21 500–24 600) generated through a 1 year mass media campaign, or 21 400 DPPs (18 200–24 500) by a 10% price increase in sugar-sweetened beverages. A 30% price reduction in fruit and vegetables for SNAP participants could result in roughly 35 100 DPPs (31 800–37 700) and also achieve the biggest reduction in inequalities between SNAP participants and the ineligible population. The combined policy approach would save most lives (about 204 800 DPPs) while also reducing inequalities. Fiscal strategies targeting diet could contribute to reduce the unequal cardiovascular mortality burden in the USA. All four dietary policies would be effective, but a combination of the universal and targeted aspects of policies would be the most effective. Individually, a universal 10% reduction in the price of fruit and vegetables might save most lives, whereas a targeted, 30% price reduction for SNAP participants could reduce inequalities the most. National Institutes of Health (grant number R01HL115189). The funder had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the abstract.

As policy-makers search for ways to reduce poverty and income inequality, and to achieve sustainable income growth, they are being encouraged to focus on an emerging challenge to health, well-being and development: non-communicable diseases (NCDs). After all, 63% of all deaths worldwide currently stem from NCDs - chiefly cardiovascular diseases, cancers, chronic respiratory diseases and diabetes. These deaths are distributed widely among the world's population - from highincome to low-income countries and from young to old (about one-quarter of all NCD deaths occur below the age of 60, amounting to approximately 9 million deaths per year). NCDs have a large impact, undercutting productivity and boosting healthcare outlays. Moreover, the number of people affected by NCDs is expected to rise substantially in the coming decades, reflecting an ageing and increasing global population. With this in mind, the United Nations is holding its first High-Level Meeting on NCDs on 19-20 September 2011 - this is only the second time that a high-level UN meeting is being dedicated to a health topic (the first time being on HIV/ AIDS in 2001). Over the years, much work has been done estimating the human toll of NCDs, but work on estimating the economic toll is far less advanced. In this report, the World Economic Forum and the Harvard School of Public Health try to inform and stimulate further debate by developing new estimates of the global economic burden of NCDs in 2010, and projecting the size of the burden through 2030. Three distinct approaches are used to compute the economic burden: (1) the standard cost of illness method; (2) macroeconomic simulation and (3) the value of a statistical life. This report includes not only the four major NCDs (the focus of the UN meeting), but also mental illness, which is a major contributor to the burden of disease worldwide. This evaluation takes place in the context of enormous global health spending, serious concerns about already strained public finances and worries about lacklustre economic growth. The report also tries to capture the thinking of the business community about the impact of NCDs on their enterprises. Five key messages emerge: * First, NCDs already pose a substantial economic burden and this burden will evolve into a staggering one over the next two decades. For example, with respect to cardiovascular disease, chronic respiratory disease, cancer, diabetes and mental health, the macroeconomic simulations suggest a cumulative output loss of US$ 47 trillion over the next two decades. This loss represents 75% of global GDP in 2010 (US$ 63 trillion). It also represents enough money to eradicate two dollar-a-day poverty among the 2.5 billion people in that state for more than half a century. * Second, although high-income countries currently bear the biggest economic burden of NCDs, the developing world, especially middle-income countries, is expected to assume an ever larger share as their economies and populations grow. * Third, cardiovascular disease and mental health conditions are the dominant contributors to the global economic burden of NCDs. * Fourth, NCDs are front and centre on business leaders' radar. The World Economic Forum's annual Executive Opinion Survey (EOS), which feeds into its Global Competitiveness Report, shows that about half of all business leaders surveyed worry that at least one NCD will hurt their company's bottom line in the next five years, with similarly high levels of concern in low-, middle- and high-income countries - especially in countries where the quality of healthcare or access to healthcare is perceived to be poor. These NCD-driven concerns are markedly higher than those reported for the communicable diseases of HIV/AIDS, malaria and tuberculosis. * Fifth, the good news is that there appear to be numerous options available to prevent and control NCDs. For example, the WHO has identified a set of interventions they call \"Best Buys\". There is also considerable scope for the design and implementation of programmes aimed at behaviour change among youth and adolescents, and more costeffective models of care - models that reduce the care-taking burden that falls on untrained family members. Further research on the benefits of such interventions in relation to their costs is much needed. It is our hope that this report informs the resource allocation decisions of the world's economic leaders - top government officials, including finance ministers and their economic advisors - who control large amounts of spending at the national level and have the power to react to the formidable economic threat posed by NCDs.

Low-dose aspirin is of definite and substantial net benefit for many people who already have occlusive vascular disease. We have assessed the benefits and risks in primary prevention. We undertook meta-analyses of serious vascular events (myocardial infarction, stroke, or vascular death) and major bleeds in six primary prevention trials (95 000 individuals at low average risk, 660 000 person-years, 3554 serious vascular events) and 16 secondary prevention trials (17 000 individuals at high average risk, 43 000 person-years, 3306 serious vascular events) that compared long-term aspirin versus control. We report intention-to-treat analyses of first events during the scheduled treatment period. In the primary prevention trials, aspirin allocation yielded a 12% proportional reduction in serious vascular events (0·51% aspirin vs 0·57% control per year, p=0·0001), due mainly to a reduction of about a fifth in non-fatal myocardial infarction (0·18% vs 0·23% per year, p<0·0001). The net effect on stroke was not significant (0·20% vs 0·21% per year, p=0·4: haemorrhagic stroke 0·04% vs 0·03%, p=0·05; other stroke 0·16% vs 0·18% per year, p=0·08). Vascular mortality did not differ significantly (0·19% vs 0·19% per year, p=0·7). Aspirin allocation increased major gastrointestinal and extracranial bleeds (0·10% vs 0·07% per year, p<0·0001), and the main risk factors for coronary disease were also risk factors for bleeding. In the secondary prevention trials, aspirin allocation yielded a greater absolute reduction in serious vascular events (6·7% vs 8·2% per year, p<0.0001), with a non-significant increase in haemorrhagic stroke but reductions of about a fifth in total stroke (2·08% vs 2·54% per year, p=0·002) and in coronary events (4·3% vs 5·3% per year, p<0·0001). In both primary and secondary prevention trials, the proportional reductions in the aggregate of all serious vascular events seemed similar for men and women. In primary prevention without previous disease, aspirin is of uncertain net value as the reduction in occlusive events needs to be weighed against any increase in major bleeds. Further trials are in progress. UK Medical Research Council, British Heart Foundation, Cancer Research UK, and the European Community Biomed Programme.