Evaluation of a workplace alcohol and other drug policy

BACKGROUND The current impetus for developing alcohol and/or other drugs (AODs) workplace policies in Australia is to reduce workplace AOD impairment, improve safety, and prevent AOD-related injury in the workplace. For these policies to be effective, they need to be informed by scientific evidence. Evidence to inform the development and implementation of effective workplace AOD policies is currently lacking. There does not currently appear to be conclusive evidence for the effectiveness of workplace AOD policies in reducing impairment and preventing AOD-related injury. There is also no apparent evidence regarding which factors facilitate or impede the success of an AOD policy, or whether, for example, unsuccessful policy outcomes were due to poor policy or merely poor implementation of the policy. It was the aim of this research to undertake a process, impact, and outcome evaluation of a workplace AOD policy, and to contribute to the body of knowledge on the development and implementation of effective workplace AOD policies. METHODS The research setting was a state-based power-generating industry in Australia between May 2008 and May 2010. Participants for the process evaluation study were individuals who were integral to either the development or the implementation of the workplace AOD policy, or both of these processes (key informants), and comprised the majority of individuals who were involved in the process of developing and/or implementing the workplace AOD policy. The sample represented the two main groups of interest—management and union delegates/employee representatives—from all three of the participating organisations. For the impact and outcome evaluation studies, the population included all employees from the three participating organisations, and participants were all employees who consented to participate in the study and who completed both the pre-and post-policy implementation questionnaires. Qualitative methods in the form of interviews with key stakeholders were used to evaluate the process of developing and implementing the workplace AOD policy. In order to evaluate the impact of the policy with regard to the risk factors for workplace AOD impairment, and the outcome of the policy in terms of reducing workplace AOD impairment, quantitative methods in the form of a non-randomised single group pre- and post-test design were used. Changes from Time 1 (pre) to Time 2 (post) in the risk factors for workplace AOD impairment, and changes in the behaviour of interest—(self-reported) workplace AOD impairment—were measured. An integration of the findings from the process, impact, and outcome evaluation studies was undertaken using a combination of qualitative and quantitative methods. RESULTS For the process evaluation study Study respondents indicated that their policy was developed in the context of comparable industries across Australia developing workplace AOD policies, and that this was mainly out of concern for the deleterious health and safety impacts of workplace AOD impairment. Results from the process evaluation study also indicated that in developing and implementing the workplace AOD policy, there were mainly ‗winners', in terms of health and safety in the workplace. While there were some components of the development and implementation of the policy that were better done than others, and the process was expensive and took a long time, there were, overall, few unanticipated consequences to implementing the policy and it was reported to be thorough and of a high standard. Findings also indicated that overall the policy was developed and implemented according to best-practice in that: consultation during the policy development phase (with all the main stakeholders) was extensive; the policy was comprehensive; there was universal application of the policy to all employees; changes in the workplace (with regard to the policy) were gradual; and, the policy was publicised appropriately. Furthermore, study participants' responses indicated that the role of an independent external expert, who was trusted by all stakeholders, was integral to the success of the policy. For the impact and outcome evaluation studies Notwithstanding the limitations of pre- and post-test study designs with regard to attributing cause to the intervention, the findings from the impact evaluation study indicated that following policy implementation, statistically significant positive changes with regard to workplace AOD impairment were recorded for the following variables (risk factors for workplace AOD impairment): Knowledge; Attitudes; Perceived Behavioural Control; Perceptions of the Certainty of being punished for coming to work impaired by AODs; Perceptions of the Swiftness of punishment for coming to work impaired by AODs; and Direct and Indirect Experience with Punishment Avoidance for workplace AOD impairment. There were, however, no statistically significant positive changes following policy implementation for Behavioural Intentions, Subjective Norms, and Perceptions of the Severity of punishment for workplace AOD impairment. With regard to the outcome evaluation, there was a statistically significant reduction in self-reported workplace AOD impairment following the implementation of the policy. As with the impact evaluation, these findings need to be interpreted in light of the limitations of the study design in being able to attribute cause to the intervention alone. The findings from the outcome evaluation study also showed that while a positive change in self-reported workplace AOD impairment following implementation of the policy did not appear to be related to gender, age group, or employment type, it did appear to be related to levels of employee general alcohol use, cannabis use, site type, and employment role. Integration of the process, impact, and outcome evaluation studies There appeared to be qualitative support for the relationship between the process of developing and implementing the policy, and the impact of the policy in changing the risk factors for workplace AOD impairment. That is, overall the workplace AOD policy was developed and implemented well and, following its implementation, there were positive changes in the majority of measured risk factors for workplace AOD impairment. Quantitative findings lend further support for a relationship between the process and impact of the policy, in that there was a statistically significant association between employee perceived fidelity of the policy (related to the process of the policy) and positive changes in some risk factors for workplace AOD impairment (representing the impact of the policy). Findings also indicated support for the relationship between the impact of the policy in changing the risk factors for workplace AOD impairment and the outcome of the policy in reducing workplace AOD impairment: positive changes in the risk factors for workplace AOD impairment (impact) were related to positive changes in self reported workplace AOD impairment (representing the main goal and outcome of the policy). CONCLUSIONS The findings from the research indicate support for the conclusion that the policy was appropriately implemented and that it achieved its objectives and main goal. The Doctoral research findings also addressed a number of gaps in the literature on workplace AOD impairment, namely: the likely effectiveness of AOD policies for reducing AOD impairment in the workplace, which factors in the development and implementation of a workplace AOD policy are likely to facilitate or impede the effectiveness of the policy to reduce workplace AOD impairment, and which employee groups are less likely to respond well to policies of this type. The findings from this research not only represent an example of translational, applied research—through the evaluation of the study industry's policy—but also add to the body of knowledge on workplace AOD policies and provide policy-makers with evidence which may be useful in the development and implementation of effective workplace AOD policies. Importantly, the findings espouse the importance of scientific evidence in the development, implementation, and evaluation of workplace AOD policies.

Turing and the Trans-Pacific Partnership: Intellectual Property, Public Health, and Access to Essential Medicines

A recent controversy in the United States over drug pricing by Turing Pharmaceuticals AG has raised larger issues in respect of intellectual property, access to medicines, and the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP). In August 2015, Turing Pharmaceuticals AG – a private biopharmaceutical company with offices in New York, the United States, and Zug, Switzerland - acquired the exclusive marketing rights to Daraprim in the United States from Impax Laboratories Incorporated. Martin Shkreli, Turing’s Founder and Chief Executive Officer, maintained: “The acquisition of Daraprim and our toxoplasmosis research program are significant steps along Turing’s path of bringing novel medications to patients with serious disorders, some of whom often go undiagnosed and untreated.” He emphasised: “We intend to invest in the development of new drug candidates that we hope will yield an even better clinical profile, and also plan to launch an educational effort to help raise awareness and improve diagnosis for patients with toxoplasmosis.” In September 2015, there was much public controversy over the decision of Martin Shkreli to raise the price of a 62 year old drug, Daraprim, from $US13.50 to $US750 a pill. The drug is particularly useful in respect to the treatment and prevention of malaria, and in the treatment of infections in individuals with HIV/AIDS. Daraprim is listed on the World Health Organization’s (WHO) List of Essential Medicines. In the face of much criticism, Martin Shkreli has said that he will reduce the price of Daraprim. He observed: “We've agreed to lower the price on Daraprim to a point that is more affordable and is able to allow the company to make a profit, but a very small profit.” He maintained: “We think these changes will be welcomed.” However, he has been vague and ambiguous about the nature of the commitment. Notably, the lobby group, Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhARMA), disassociated itself from the claims of Turing Pharmaceuticals. The group said: “PhRMA members have a long history of drug discovery and innovation that has led to increased longevity and improved lives for millions of patients.” The group noted: “Turing Pharmaceutical is not a member of PhRMA and we do not embrace either their recent actions or the conduct of their CEO.” The biotechnology peak body Biotechnology Industry Organization also sought to distance itself from Turing Pharmaceuticals. A hot topic: United States political debate about access to affordable medicines This controversy over Daraprim is unusual – given the age of drug concerned. Daraprim is not subject to patent protection. Nonetheless, there remains a monopoly in respect of the marketplace. Drug pricing is not an isolated problem. There have been many concerns about drug pricing – particularly in respect of essential medicines for HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis, and malaria. This recent controversy is part of a larger debate about access to affordable medicines. The dispute raises larger issues about healthcare, consumer rights, competition policy, and trade. The Daraprim controversy has provided impetus for law reform in the US. US Presidential Candidate Hillary Clinton commented: “Price gouging like this in this specialty drug market is outrageous.” In response to her comments, the Nasdaq Biotechnology Index fell sharply. Hillary Clinton has announced a prescription drug reform plan to protect consumers and promote innovation – while putting an end to profiteering. On her campaign site, she has emphasised that “affordable healthcare is a basic human right.” Her rival progressive candidate, Bernie Sanders, was also concerned about the price hike. He wrote a letter to Martin Shkreli, complaining about the price increase for the drug Daraprim. Sanders said: “The enormous, overnight price increase for Daraprim is just the latest in a long list of skyrocketing price increases for certain critical medications.” He has pushed for reforms to intellectual property to make medicines affordable. The TPP and intellectual property The Daraprim controversy and political debate raises further issues about the design of the TPP. The dispute highlights the dangers of extending the rights of pharmaceutical drug companies under intellectual property, investor-state dispute settlement, and drug administration. Recently, the civil society group Knowledge Ecology International published a leaked draft of the Intellectual Property Chapter of the TPP. Knowledge Ecology International Director, James Love, was concerned the text revealed that the US “continues to be the most aggressive supporter of expanded intellectual property rights for drug companies.” He was concerned that “the proposals contained in the TPP will harm consumers and in some cases block innovation.” James Love feared: “In countless ways, the Obama Administration has sought to expand and extend drug monopolies and raise drug prices.” He maintained: “The astonishing collection of proposals pandering to big drug companies make more difficult the task of ensuring access to drugs for the treatment of cancer and other diseases and conditions.” Love called for a different approach to intellectual property and trade: “Rather than focusing on more intellectual property rights for drug companies, and a death-inducing spiral of higher prices and access barriers, the trade agreement could seek new norms to expand the funding of medical research and development (R&D) as a public good, an area where the US has an admirable track record, such as the public funding of research at the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and other federal agencies.” In addition, there has been much concern about the Investment Chapter of the TPP. The investor-state dispute settlement regime would enable foreign investors to challenge government policy making, which affected their investments. In the context of healthcare, there is a worry that pharmaceutical drug companies will deploy their investor rights to challenge public health measures – such as, for instance, initiatives to curb drug pricing and profiteering. Such concerns are not merely theoretical. Eli Lilly has brought an investor action against the Canadian Government over the rejection of its drug patents under the investor-state dispute settlement regime of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). The Health Annex to the TPP also raises worries that pharmaceutical drug companies will able to object to regulatory procedures in respect of healthcare. It is disappointing that the TPP – in the leaks that we have seen – has only limited recognition of the importance of access to essential medicines. There is a need to ensure that there are proper safeguards to provide access to essential medicines – particularly in respect of HIV/AIDs, malaria, and tuberculosis. Moreover, there must be protection against drug profiteering and price gouging in any trade agreement. There should be strong measures against the abuse of intellectual property rights. The dispute over Turing Pharmaceuticals AG and Daraprim is an important cautionary warning in respect of some of the dangers present in the secret negotiations in respect of the TPP. There is a need to preserve consumer rights, competition policy, and public health in trade negotiations over an agreement covering the Pacific Rim.

Interfuel substitution in Australia: A way forward to achieve environmental sustainability

This paper examines the possibilities for interfuel substitution in Australia in view of the need to shift towards a cleaner mix of fuels and technologies to meet future energy demand and environmental goals. The translog cost function is estimated for the aggregate economy, the manufacturing sector and its subsectors, and the electricity generation subsector. The advantages of this work over previous literature relating to the Australian case are that it uses relatively recent data, focuses on energy-intensive subsectors and estimates the Morishima elasticities of substitution. The empirical evidence shown herein indicates weak-form substitutability between different energy types, and higher possibilities for substitution at lower levels of aggregation, compared with the aggregate economy. For the electricity generation subsector, which is at the centre of the CO2 emissions problem in Australia, significant but weak substitutability exists between coal and gas when the price of coal changes. A higher substitution possibility exists between coal and oil in this subsector. The evidence for the own- and cross-price elasticities, together with the results for fuel efficiencies, indicates that a large increase in relative prices could be justified to further stimulate the market for low-emission technologies.

Decomposition of energy-related CO2 emissions in Australia: Challenges and policy implications

Changes in energy-related CO2 emissions aggregate intensity, total CO2 emissions and per-capita CO2 emissions in Australia are decomposed by using a Logarithmic Mean Divisia Index (LMDI) method for the period 1978-2010. Results indicate improvements in energy efficiency played a dominant role in the measured 17% reduction in CO2 emissions aggregate intensity in Australia over the period. Structural changes in the economy, such as changes in the relative importance of the services sector vis-à-vis manufacturing, have also played a major role in achieving this outcome. Results also suggest that, without these mitigating factors, income per capita and population effects could well have produced an increase in total emissions of more than 50% higher than actually occurred over the period. Perhaps most starkly, the results indicate that, without these mitigating factors, the growth in CO2 emissions per capita could have been over 150% higher than actually observed. Notwithstanding this, the study suggests that, for Australia to meet its Copenhagen commitment, the relative average per annum effectiveness of these mitigating factors during 2010-2020 probably needs to be almost three times what it was in the 2005-2010 period-a very daunting challenge indeed for Australia's policymakers.

Scoping study to inform the development of the new national nutrition policy for Australia

This comprehensive report (748 pages) scopes a new nutrition policy for Australia (RFT 028/1213) Australian Department of Health and Ageing. Optimum nutrition is fundamental to good health. It is essential for the normal growth and physical and cognitive development of infants and children, contributes significantly to quality of life, wellbeing and workforce productivity, enhances resistance to infection and reduces the risk of obesity, chronic disease and premature death (AIHW 2012; NHMRC 2013). This scoping study reviews the current literature to identify: - key population health issues related to diet and nutrition within the Australian population; and - where gaps in current policy are evident. The scoping study reviews the literature on past and present national and international nutrition policies, strategies (policy actions), interventions and evaluations. The study analyses the evidence from the literature review and formulates recommendations regarding the key elements of effective nutrition policies including scope, guiding principles, format, key inclusions (content), development processes, governance, implementation, timelines, monitoring and surveillance, evaluation and review to guide the development of a new comprehensive National Nutrition Policy for Australia.

Measuring cost and affordability of healthy and less healthy diet globally

The INFORMAS food prices module proposes a step-wise framework to measure the cost and affordability of population diets. The price differential and the tax component of healthy and less healthy foods, food groups, meals and diets will be benchmarked and monitored over time. Results can be used to model or assess the impact of fiscal policies, such as ‘fat taxes’ or subsidies. Key methodological challenges include: defining healthy and less healthy foods, meals, diets and commonly consumed items; including costs of alcohol, takeaways, convenience foods and time; selecting the price metric; sampling frameworks; and standardizing collection and analysis protocols. The minimal approach uses three complementary methods to measure the price differential between pairs of healthy and less healthy foods. Specific challenges include choosing policy relevant pairs and defining an anchor for the lists. The expanded approach measures the cost of a healthy diet compared to the current (less healthy) diet for a reference household. It requires dietary principles to guide the development of the healthy diet pricing instrument and sufficient information about the population’s current intake to inform the current (less healthy) diet tool. The optimal approach includes measures of affordability and requires a standardised measure of household income that can be used for different countries. The feasibility of implementing the protocol in different countries is being tested in New Zealand, Australia and Fiji. The impact of different decision points to address challenges will be investigated in a systematic manner. We will present early insights and results from this work.

Food price and affordability update

This presentation outlines recent achievements in development of tools, protocols and methods to monitoring and benchmark food prices and affordability globally under International Network for Food and Obesity/non-communicable diseases Research, Monitoring and Action Support(INFORMAS)

Developing standardized methods to assess cost of healthy and unhealthy (current) diets in Australia

Unhealthy diets contribute at least 14% to Australia's disease burden and are driven by ‘obesogenic’ food environments. Compliance with dietary recommendations is particularly poor amongst disadvantaged populations including low socioeconomic groups, those living in rural/remote areas and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders. The perception that healthy foods are expensive is a key barrier to healthy choices and a major determinant of diet-related health inequities. Available state/regional/local data (limited and non-comparable) suggests that, despite basic healthy foods not incurring GST, the cost of healthy food is higher and has increased more rapidly than unhealthy food over the last 15 years in Australia. However, there were no nationally standardised tools or protocols to benchmark, compare or monitor food prices and affordability in Australia. Globally, we are leading work to develop and test approaches to assess the price differential of healthy and less-healthy (current) diets under the food price module of the International Network for Food and Obesity/non-communicable diseases (NCDs) Research, Monitoring and Action Support (INFORMAS). This presentation describes contextualization of the INFORMAS approach to develop standardised Australian tools, survey protocols and data collection and analysis systems. The ‘healthy diet basket’ was based on the Australian Foundation Diet, 1 The ‘current diet basket’ and specific items included in each basket, were based on recent national dietary survey data.2 Data collection methods were piloted. The final tools and protocols were then applied to measure the price and affordability of healthy and less healthy (current) diets of different household groups in diverse communities across the nation. We have compared results for different geographical locations/population subgroups in Australia and assessed these against international INFORMAS benchmarks. The results inform the development of policy and practice, including those relevant to mooted changes to the GST base, to promote nutrition and healthy weight and prevent chronic disease in Australia.

Symposium: Food pricing and affordability of ‘healthy’ versus ‘less healthy’ diets: An international approach to monitoring and surveillance

Symposium co-ordinated by The International Network for Food and Obesity/NCDs Research, Monitoring and Action Support (INFORMAS) Purpose Global monitoring of the price and affordability of foods, meals and diets is urgently needed. There are major methodological challenges in developing robust, cost-effective, standardized, and policy relevant tools, pertinent to nutrition, obesity, and diet-related non-communicable diseases and their inequalities. There is increasing pressure to take into account environmental sustainability. Changes in price differentials and affordability need to be comparable between and within countries and over time. Robust tools could provide baseline data for monitoring and evaluating structural, economic and social policies at the country/regional and household levels. INFORMAS offers one framework for consideration.

Net neutrality in Australia: The debate continues, but no policy in sight

The ways in which Internet traffic is managed have direct consequences on Internet users’ rights as well as on their capability to compete on a level playing field. Network neutrality mandates to treat Internet traffic in a non-discriminatory fashion in order to maximise end users’ freedom and safeguard an open Internet.

Integrating urban ecosystem sustainability assessment into policy-making: Insights from the Gold Coast City

This paper introduces a policy-making support tool called ‘Micro-level Urban ecosystem Sustainability IndeX (MUSIX)’. The index serves as a sustainability assessment model that monitors six aspects of urban ecosystems, hydrology, ecology, pollution, location, design, and efficiency based on parcel-scale indicators. This index is applied in a case study investigation in the Gold Coast City, Queensland, Australia. The outcomes reveal that there are major environmental problems caused by increased impervious surfaces from growing urban development in the study area. The findings suggest that increased impervious surfaces are linked to increased surface runoff, car dependency, transport-related pollution, poor public transport accessibility, and unsustainable built environment. This paper presents how the MUSIX outputs can be used to guide policy-making through the evaluation of existing policies.

Altruism, Trade Policy, and the Optimality of Foreign Aid

There are many studies in the literature that deal with the welfare effects of income transfers between nations in a general equilibrium setting. An important impetus for this extensive literature was the demonstration of the transfer paradox; that the donor country could actually gain from a transfer of income to another, and that the recipient could lose as a result of the gift. The reason for this paradoxical result is that the transfer gives rise to a terms-of-trade effect that may be especially beneficial to the donor and detrimental to the recipient. Subsequently, many papers have established conditions under which this paradox will or will not occur. Early work by Samuelson (1954) was followed by demonstrations of paradoxes by Gale (1974), Ohyama (1974), Brecher and Bhagwati (1982) and Bhagwati, Brecher and Hatta 1983, 1985, and Dixit (1983)) among others.1 More recently, many studies have examined whether or not foreign aid — tied and untied — can be welfare improving for both the donor and the recipient (see, for example, Turunen-Red and Woodland (1988), Kemp and Wong (1993), Schweinberger (1990), Hatzipanayotou and Michael (1995), Lahiri and Raimondos-Moller 1995, 1997, Djajić, Lahiri and Raimondos-Møller 1996a, 1996b, and Lahiri, Raimondos-Møller, Wong and Woodland 1997.2

Competition for aid and trade policy

This paper considers the optimal allocation of a given amount of foreign aid between two recipient countries. It is shown that, given consumer preferences, a country following a more restrictive trade policy would receive a smaller share of the aid if the donor country maximises its own welfare in allocating aid. If, on the other hand, the donor country allocates aid in order to maximize the sum of the welfare of the two recipient countries, the result is just the opposite. Finally, we analyze the situation where the recipient countries compete with each other for the given amount of aid. It is shown that this competition tends to lower the level of optimal tariffs in the recipient countries.