Figure 4 Impact analysis framework
The key direct benefit sought through the prohibition of engineered stone is to improve the health and quality of life outcomes of those who work with engineered stone products . Given the health benefits are difficult to assess quantitatively for the prohibition options , a breakeven analysis has been undertaken . This shows the reduction in premature deaths due to silicosis and silica-related disease , as well as a reduction in the number of people living with silicosis or silica-related diseases , that must be avoided to offset the costs of the options .
There are also indirect benefits to PCBUs , government and the broader community resulting from the improved health benefits of the prohibition options , which have not been monetised to avoid double counting or because it has not been possible to monetise them ( see following sections for more information ). These indirect benefits include avoided government costs of hospitalisations and outpatient care , improved worker productivity and participation , avoided costs to PCBUs due to fewer workplace compensation claims and improved health and quality of life to families and friends of workers .
Direct costs to PCBUs resulting from the prohibition of engineered stone and associated changes in regulation include costs of complying with new regulations and costs to transition to alternative products , while for government it includes implementing and operating licensing frameworks .
Moreover , the increase in regulatory burden may bring about indirect costs such as financial loss and business closure for PCBUs , resulting job loss for workers , and an associated increase in income support and training support payments for government . These costs have been monetised .
DECISION REGULATION IMPACT STATEMENT Prohibition on the use of engineered stone Page 30 of 107