NSG 4068 Week 1 Project – Using a Health Policy Model to Develop a Change in Policy to Improve Public Health

Sugared beverages are a staple in the United States. They are lined on grocery and convenience store shelves as well as in virtually every dining establishment. These drinks are the number one added sugar source in the diets of Americans (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [CDC], 2017). On the surface, sugared beverages may seem harmless and satisfying to American consumers; however, the consumption of these beverages comes with a hefty price at the expense of public health and well-being. Due to the prevalence of health disparities associated with these products, a policy will be proposed that places a tax on all sugared beverages. First, arguments for and against this policy proposal will be identified and discussed. Next, strategies to obtain buy-in will be examined. Then, Longest’s policy cycle model will be utilized to structure this policy proposal. Finally, key stakeholders in the process will be discussed.

Arguments in Favor of Proposed Policy

There are several imperative reasons why a tax should be placed on all sugared beverages. Regular consumption of sugared beverages has been linked to obesity, type II diabetes, cardiovascular disease, renal disease, non-alcoholic cirrhosis, tooth decay and gout (CDC, 2017). In addition, diabetes and obesity are increasing at alarming rates in both adults and children. This is largely due to a higher intake of sugared beverages (Maa, 2016). A reduction in the consumption of these beverages can lessen the risk of diseases, promote optimal weight levels and enhance healthy dietary practices (CDC, 2017). The funds produced from the tax can be placed back into health and wellness programs such as improved access to healthy foods among low-income individuals, chronic illness prevention and public health education. Also, it can decrease the prevalence of preventable chronic illnesses and their associated healthcare costs. Increased prices can hinder the purchase of sugared beverages; therefore, consumers may gravitate toward healthier options. Furthermore, beverage companies will have an increased motivation to produce beverages that are safer for public health (Healthy Food America, n.d.). All of these arguments support the centralized goal to reduce health disparities caused by sugared beverage consumption.

Arguments Against Proposed Policy

It is reasonable to assume that the beverage industry would be the highest opponent at the forefront of this policy proposal. They argue that taxing sugared beverages unfairly affects low-income individuals as sugared beverages are a less expensive drink option. Additionally, they assert that the funds created from a tax have the negative potential to be utilized for populations other than those with low incomes. The beverage industry largely claims a tax would create a decrease in productivity which would result in job loss (Wang, 2018). Another group of opponents to a sugared beverage tax are the many interest groups who support the beverage industry. They claim that a tax would further burden low-income individuals because they spend a larger proportion of their household budget on food than higher-income individuals. These interest groups also assert that high-calorie diets are the primary cause of obesity rather than sugared drinks. A central argument by interest groups is that individuals should have the right to choose what foods or drinks they consume and that a tax interferes with freedom of choice (Studdert et al., 201