Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42444664›Full record

ArticleBMJ public health2026

Estimating the cost of not setting the Health Promotion Levy at 20% in South Africa: an extended cost-effectiveness analysis.

Chengetai Dare, Evelyn Thsehla, Susan Goldstein, Micheal Kofi Boachie

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ public health, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Chengetai DareSAMRC/Wits Centre for Health Economics and Decision Science - PRICELESS SA (A Division of Wits Health Consortium), School of Public Health, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of the Witwatersrand Johannesburg, Johannesburg, South Africa.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5001-8768
Evelyn ThsehlaSAMRC/Wits Centre for Health Economics and Decision Science - PRICELESS SA (A Division of Wits Health Consortium), School of Public Health, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of the Witwatersrand Johannesburg, Johannesburg, South Africa.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4098-5804
Susan GoldsteinSAMRC/Wits Centre for Health Economics and Decision Science - PRICELESS SA (A Division of Wits Health Consortium), School of Public Health, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of the Witwatersrand Johannesburg, Johannesburg, South Africa.
Micheal Kofi BoachieSAMRC/Wits Centre for Health Economics and Decision Science - PRICELESS SA (A Division of Wits Health Consortium), School of Public Health, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of the Witwatersrand Johannesburg, Johannesburg, South Africa.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1062-889X

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: Taxes on sugar-sweetened beverages are recommended by the WHO to reduce consumption and improve population health. In South Africa, the Health Promotion Levy (HPL) was introduced at an effective rate of approximately 11% but has declined to about 8% in real terms due to inflation, remaining below the WHO-recommended 20% threshold. This study evaluates the health and fiscal implications of maintaining the HPL below this level, focusing on type 2 diabetes outcomes. Methods: We conducted an extended cost-effectiveness analysis using a proportional multistate life table model to simulate the impact of increasing the HPL from its current level to an effective 20% over a 20-year period (2022-2042). Data were drawn from the National Income Dynamics Survey, All Media and Products Survey and the Global Burden of Disease Study. Outcomes included diabetes incidence, prevalence, mortality, healthcare costs and tax revenue across income quintiles. Results: Increasing the HPL to 20% could avert 619 000 incident cases of type 2 diabetes, 285 000 prevalent cases and 26 000 deaths over 20 years, while saving ZAR23.9 billion in healthcare costs compared with maintaining the current rate. Sensitivity analyses (80%-120% passthrough) yielded 514 000-659 000 cases averted. Maintaining the current HPL resulted in ZAR15.1 billion in forgone revenue. Health gains were greatest in absolute terms among females and higher-income groups, but benefits were observed across all quintiles. Conclusions: Maintaining the HPL below the WHO-recommended level represents a missed opportunity to reduce the burden of type 2 diabetes and generate additional healthcare savings and revenue in South Africa. Increasing the HPL to 20% could deliver substantial health and fiscal benefits and should be considered as part of broader strategies to address the growing burden of non-communicable diseases.

Indexed as

Diabetes MellitusObesityProgram EvaluationPublic Health

Identifiers

PMID42444664
PMCPMC13358265

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.