Nationwide Effectiveness and Efficiency of the National Diabetes Prevention Policy Versus the Penny-per-Ounce Excise Tax Policy on Sugar-Sweetened Beverages

Diabetes has reached epidemic levels in the United States (US). This review compared two nationwide diabetes prevention policies: the National Diabetes Prevention Program (DPP) and the Penny-per-Ounce Excise (POE) tax policy on sugar-sweetened beverages (SSBs) based on their efficiency and efficacy in reducing the number of new cases of diabetes in the US. The study made a recommendation for the implementation of one or both policies based on the comparison. The national DPP focuses on screening for prediabetes in overweight/obese individuals and having positive subjects participate in a potentially insured one-year weight loss program with CDC-approved coaches. The POE tax on SSBs on the other hand is based on taxing SSBs with the objective that it will reduce new cases of diabetes due to a lower consumption of these beverages, or a switch to healthier alternatives. Studies that predicted the impact of either policy at the national level were used to compare both policies. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was calculated by dividing the difference in net costs saved by the difference in net effectiveness (diabetes cases prevented per year); thereby comparing both policies in terms of costs saved for each diabetes case prevented per year. Using only nationwide US predictions, it has been estimated that the POE tax on SSB will produce the most cost savings with a greater impact on reducing new cases of diabetes if implemented; therefore, this tax should be recommended, in addition to the already implemented DPP.