Abstract
IMPORTANCE: UV radiation emissions from indoor tanning devices are carcinogenic. Regulatory actions may be associated with reduced exposure of UV radiation at a population level. OBJECTIVE: To estimate the long-term health and economic consequences of banning indoor tanning devices or prohibiting their use by minors only in North America and Europe compared with ongoing current levels of use. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This economic analysis modeled data for individuals 12 to 35 years old in North America and Europe, who commonly engage in indoor tanning. A Markov cohort model was used with outcomes projected during the cohort's remaining life-years. Models were populated by extracting data from high-quality systematic reviews and meta-analyses, epidemiologic reports, and cancer registrations. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Main outcomes were numbers of melanomas and deaths from melanoma, numbers of keratinocyte carcinomas, life-years, and health care and productivity costs. Extensive sensitivity analyses were performed to assess the stability of results. RESULTS: In an estimated population of 110 932 523 in the United States and Canada and 141 970 492 in Europe, for the next generation of youths and young adults during their remaining lifespans, regulatory actions that ban indoor tanning devices could be expected to gain 423 000 life-years, avert 240 000 melanomas (-8.2%), and avert 7.3 million keratinocyte carcinomas (-7.8%) in North America and gain 460 000 life-years, avert 204 000 melanomas (-4.9%), and avert 2.4 million keratinocyte carcinomas (-4.4%) in Europe compared with ongoing current levels of use. Economic cost savings of US $31.1 billion in North America and €21.1 billion (US $15.9 billion) in Europe could occur. Skin cancers averted and cost savings after prohibiting indoor tanning by minors may be associated with one-third of the corresponding benefits of a total ban. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Banning indoor tanning may be associated with reduced skin cancer burden and health care costs. Corresponding gains from prohibiting indoor tanning by minors only may be smaller.