Can earmarking mobilize and sustain resources to the health sector?
Phusit Prakongsai, Walaiporn Patcharanarumol, Viroj Tangcharoensathien
Volume 86, Number 11, November 2008, 898-901
Table 1. Sample countries with special laws on earmarked taxes for public health and health promotion
| State/country | Related law | Description |
|---|---|---|
| State Government of Victoria, Australia | 1987: Tobacco Act | The Victorian Health Promotion Foundation “VicHealth” (independent statutory body) funded by a 5% dedicated tax levied on tobacco products. Total revenue is US$ 25 million, 40% for promotion of community and school health, 30% for sponsoring sports, 20% for health research, the rest for administration. |
| United States of America: various states | As of 1988: tobacco tax through legislation | Used for tobacco control programmes. |
| New Zealand | 1976: levy on alcohol produced or imported for sales in the country | Used to reduce harm from alcohol use, mainly through education and research. |
| Republic of Korea | 1995: National Health Promotion Act (tobacco tax) | National Health Promotion Fund: health education, antismoking campaigns, limited advertisement of cigarettes and alcohol. Total revenue US$ 1.5 million used to promote health education and antismoking campaigns and to limit advertisements of cigarettes and alcohol. |
| Thailand | 2001: Thai Health Promotion Act (2% earmarked taxes on tobacco and alcohol products) | Thai Health Promotion Fund (Thai Health), an autonomous State Agency aiming to advocate, support and finance organizations active in health promotion, including tobacco and alcohol control, traffic accident prevention, health promotion at various levels in communities across the country. |