The two sides of preventive health

Two news stories from the past fortnight ought to be considered side by side, in each other's light. The first is a conference held in late August at the University of Sydney on the legacy of the Australian National Preventive Health Agency (ANPHA). The second is the new tax increase on cigarettes that came into effect on September 1.
 
ANPHA, the national preventive health body established in 2011, was abolished earlier this year by the Abbott government. Last month's conference has therefore been referred to by some as 'a wake for preventive health.'
 
Professor Stephen Leeder, who addressed the conference, is among those who fear that the abolition of ANPHA will inhibit Australia's ability to be 'up to the minute' in preventive health measures.
 
He singled out for praise ANPHA's 'use of social marketing and social media as ways of communicating preventive messages to the community,' as well as its ability 'to foster research and the trial of new ideas.'
 
Seemingly innovative and cutting-edge campaigns, like ANPHA's 'My QuitBuddy' iPhone app for smoking cessation, are the sorts of preventive health campaigns that receive the most attention. They give the impression that the preventive health field is advancing steadily, coming up with new ways to get people to eat better and drink less.

The second news story on the tax increase throws cold water on this impression.
 
Thanks to tax increases passed by both the Rudd and Abbott governments, the price of a pack of cigarettes went up by as much as $2.81 overnight. Two more hikes are set to follow next year.
 
None of the 'up to the minute' educational and awareness-raising programs operated by ANPHA in its three and a half years of operation ever hit smokers in the hip pocket the way new taxes have.
 
When the preventive health movement claims credit for declining smoking rates, therefore, it is unfair to assign equal credit to 'social marketing and social media' on one hand and significant price increases on the other.
 
Whatever one thinks about smoking and 'nudge taxes', it is important to actually assess cause and effect in order to contain the growth of nanny state bureaucracies and assorted taxpayer-funded interventions.
 
It is understandable that 'a wake for preventive health' would want to emphasize the most interesting and innovative activities of the late departed agency. But the progress the preventive health movement has achieved owes at least as much to other, blunter methods, as the latest tax hike reminds us.

Helen Andrews is a Policy Analyst at The Centre for Independent Studies.