4.8 Qualitative benefits
As discussed in Chapter 2 , exposure to respirable crystalline silica ( RCS ) can lead to silicosis and silicarelated diseases . The increased use of engineered stone in Australia coincides with an increase in silicosis diagnosis , and engineered stone workers are over-represented amongst silicosis patients . Removing engineered stone as a source of RCS from the Australian market , is expected to lead to the following benefits over the long term :
� reduced number of people living with silicosis and silica-related diseases
� �
� � � reduced premature death from silicosis and silica-related diseases
avoided hospitalisations , outpatient care and care in the home from a reduced number of cases of silicosis and silica-related diseases
avoided mental health and quality of life effects for workers , family and friends improved worker productivity by reducing ill health and extending working life
avoided workers compensation claims / legal costs driven by a reduction in the incidence of the disease , and
� avoided higher insurance premia for workers compensation . It has not been possible to monetise these benefits for a number of reasons : � there is a lack of available data regarding the total health system costs incurred in treating silicosis and silica-related disease
�
�
�
� where data is available for individual patients ; occupational exposure history may not be available or may not be complete
there is no evidence available on how engineered stone of different crystalline silica content impacts health outcomes for workers
the time lag between exposure to RCS and symptoms of silicosis and silica-related disease , which can be as much as 30 years ( Hoy , RF & Chambers , DC 2020 ), but may be significantly shorter in engineered stone workers ( Hoy , et al . 2023 ), and
this time lag makes it challenging to know when we will see a peak in silicosis cases attributable to engineered stone , or when we may expect a decline in cases following any prohibition .
4.8.1 Impact of benefits
As a significant proportion of silica cases have been identified in engineered stone workers , a prohibition on the use of engineered stone would be expected to have a significant health benefit for those workers . This would be accompanied by an indirect benefit to the wellbeing of their family , friends and community .
If realised , these health benefits for workers would also result in avoided government costs associated with hospitalisations and outpatient care , avoided PCBU costs associated with workers compensation claims and higher insurance premiums , and an increase in productivity in the relevant industry workforce .
The extent to which these benefits are realised will depend on the option implemented . A prohibition on the use of all engineered stone ( Option 1 ) will have greater health benefits for workers compared to a prohibition on the use of engineered stone containing 40 % or more crystalline silica ( Options 2 and 3 ).
DECISION REGULATION IMPACT STATEMENT Prohibition on the use of engineered stone Page 47 of 107