Figure 1.

Impact of nutrition policies under different scenarios.

Note: Under the scenario analyses, three modeling choices were varied: (1) the latency period, (2) approaches to project secular trends in cancer incidence, and (3) the policy effect size. For the 10% tax policy, (1) the conservative scenario: 3% effect size (uncertain range: 1%–5%), a 10-year latency period, and a historical trend from 1999–2013; (2) the base-case scenario: 9% effect size (5%–15%), a 5-year latency period, and a historical trend from 1999–2013; and (3) the optimistic scenario: 13% effect size (10%–15%), no latency period, and a constant trend as of 2013. For the warning label policy, (1) the conservative scenario: 4% effect size (2%–8%), a 10-year latency period, and a historical trend from 1999–2013; (2) the base-case scenario: 12.5% effect size (2%–23%), a 5-year latency period, and a historical trend from 1999–2013; and (3) the optimistic scenario: 20% effect size (15%–25%), no latency period, and a constant trend as of 2013. From a societal perspective, societal costs included savings from both healthcare costs and non-healthcare costs, including time costs associated with receiving medical care and productivity. Appendix Table 7 provides full results of the scenario analyses.

QALYs, quality-adjusted life years.