Health Promotion International, Vol. 14, No. 1, 73-82,
March 1999
© Oxford University Press 1999
Could a national skin cancer primary prevention campaign in Australia be worthwhile?: an economic perspective
Health Economics Unit, Monash University, 1 Department of Medicine (Dermatology), The University of Melbourne and 2 Centre for Behavioural Research in Cancer, Anti-Cancer Council of Victoria, Australia
Address for correspondence: Rob Carter, Health Economics Unit, Centre for Health Program Evaluation, PO Box 477, West Heidelberg, Victoria 3081, Australia
SUMMARY
This study aimed to determine the potential cost-effectiveness of initiating a co-ordinated and comprehensive national skin cancer primary prevention campaign in Australia. The study is undertaken from the perspective of the Federal government as potential funder of a national initiative, but other perspectives are analysed. Using the SunSmart Campaign in the State of Victoria, Australia, as a model for the national program, estimates were made of the reduction in the incidence and associated premature mortality for skin cancer that would accompany reductions in sunlight exposure. Cost offsets to government flowing from the reduction in management costs for skin cancer were estimated and deducted from the cost of the health promotion campaign. Costs affecting individuals, such as the cost of sunscreen, were included in the sensitivity analysis. On the basis of the assumptions used (with a ‘do nothing’ comparator), a national campaign involving a 20-year commitment of $AUD 5 million annually (i.e. 28¢ per person) would avoid 4300 premature deaths and cost $AUD 1360 per life-year saved, or $AUD 14 360 per death deferred. If the cost offsets are included, the program should not only prevent premature deaths but also yield a net saving to government of $AUD 103 million (PV). In the sensitivity analysis the results were robust to a variety of cost and outcome variations. Increasing the lag between decreases in UVR exposure and falls in the incidence of melanoma from 5 to 15 years, and inclusion of costs affecting individuals and their families had the largest effects on cost-effectiveness. The cost per life-year saved (excluding cost effects) increased from $AUD 1360 to $AUD 5103 and $AUD 25 134 respectively. A survey of current expenditure by State/Territory government departments and anticancer bodies on skin cancer primary prevention was carried out as part of the analysis, and an annual commitment of $AUD 5 million by the Federal government represents a doubling of current expenditures (of approximately 14¢ per person). The cost-effectiveness (using a ‘current practice’ comparator) yields a cost of $AUD 2715 per life-year saved (ignoring the cost offsets and using a conservative estimate of improved health outcomes attributed to the new national program). The study results, although indicative only, strongly suggest that a comprehensive national skin cancer primary prevention program would be excellent ‘value for money’ from a variety of perspectives, using both ‘do nothing’ and ‘current practice’ comparators.
Key words: cost-effectiveness; primary prevention; skin cancer
CiteULike 
Connotea 
Del.icio.us What's this?
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
 |
|
  H. Dixon, S. Dobbinson, M. Wakefield, K. Jamsen, and K. McLeod Portrayal of tanning, clothing fashion and shade use in Australian women's magazines, 1987-2005 Health Educ. Res., October 1, 2008; 23(5): 791 - 802. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 J. W. Kyle, J. K. Hammitt, H. W. Lim, A. C. Geller, L. H. Hall-Jordan, E. W. Maibach, E. C. De Fabo, and M. C. Wagner Economic Evaluation of the US Environmental Protection Agency's SunWise Program: Sun Protection Education for Young Children Pediatrics, May 1, 2008; 121(5): e1074 - e1084. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 H. G. Dixon, M. Lagerlund, M. J. Spittal, D. J. Hill, S. J. Dobbinson, and M. A. Wakefield Use of Sun-Protective Clothing at Outdoor Leisure Settings from 1992 to 2002: Serial Cross-sectional Observation Survey Cancer Epidemiol. Biomarkers Prev., February 1, 2008; 17(2): 428 - 434. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 H. G. Dixon, D. J. Hill, D. J. Karoly, D. J. Jolley, and S. M. Aden Solar UV Forecasts: A Randomized Trial Assessing Their Impact on Adults' Sun-Protection Behavior Health Educ Behav, June 1, 2007; 34(3): 486 - 502. [Abstract] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 W. R. Stanton, M. Janda, P. D. Baade, and P. Anderson Primary prevention of skin cancer: a review of sun protection in Australia and internationally Health Promot. Int., September 1, 2004; 19(3): 369 - 378. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 R. Neale, G. Williams, and A. Green Application Patterns Among Participants Randomized to Daily Sunscreen Use in a Skin Cancer Prevention Trial Arch Dermatol, October 1, 2002; 138(10): 1319 - 1325. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
J. B. Lowe, L. J. McDermott, W. R. Stanton, A. Clavarino, K. P. Balanda, and B. McWhirter Behavior of caregivers to protect their infants from exposure to the sun in Queensland, Australia Health Educ. Res., August 1, 2002; 17(4): 405 - 414. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
B. J. Smith, C. Ferguson, J. McKenzie, A. Bauman, and P. Vita Impacts from repeated mass media campaigns to promote sun protection in Australia Health Promot. Int., March 1, 2002; 17(1): 51 - 60. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
P. M. Livingston, V. M. White, A. M. Ugoni, and R. Borland Knowledge, attitudes and self-care practices related to sun protection among secondary students in Australia Health Educ. Res., June 1, 2001; 16(3): 269 - 278. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
M. Montague, R. Borland, and C. Sinclair Slip! Slop! Slap! and SunSmart, 1980-2000: Skin Cancer Control and 20 Years of Population-Based Campaigning Health Educ Behav, June 1, 2001; 28(3): 290 - 305. [Abstract] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 M. Wise The role of advocacy in promoting health Promotion & Education, January 1, 2001; 8(2): 69 - 74. [PDF]
|
|