Perspective: Leveraging Electronic Health Record Data Within Food Is Medicine Program Evaluation: Considerations and Potential Paths Forward.

Government, health care systems and payers, philanthropic entities, advocacy groups, nonprofit organizations, community groups, and for-profit companies are presently making the case for Food is Medicine (FIM) nutrition programs to become reimbursable within health care services. FIM researchers are working urgently to build evidence for FIM programs' cost-effectiveness by showing improvements in health outcomes and health care utilization. However, primary collection of this data is costly, difficult to implement, and burdensome to participants. Electronic health records (EHRs) offer a promising alternative to primary data collection because they provide already-collected information from existing clinical care. A few FIM studies have leveraged EHRs to demonstrate positive impacts on biomarkers or health care utilization, but many FIM studies run into insurmountable difficulties in their attempts to use EHRs. The authors of this commentary serve as evaluators and/or technical assistance providers with the United States Department of Agriculture's Gus Schumacher Nutrition Incentive Program National Training, Technical Assistance, Evaluation, and Information Center. They work closely with over 100 Gus Schumacher Nutrition Incentive Program Produce Prescription FIM projects, which, as of 2023, span 34 US states and territories. In this commentary, we describe recurring challenges related to using EHRs in FIM evaluation, particularly in relation to biomarkers and health care utilization. We also outline potential opportunities and reasonable expectations for what can be learned from EHR data and describe other (non-EHR) data sources to consider for evaluation of long-term health outcomes and health care utilization. Large integrated health systems may be best positioned to use their own data to examine outcomes of interest to the broader field.

Which Program Implementation Factors Lead to more Fruit and Vegetable Purchases? An Exploratory Analysis of Nutrition Incentive Programs across the United States.

Background: Nutrition incentive (NI) programs help low-income households better afford fruits and vegetables (FVs) by providing incentives to spend on FVs (e.g., spend $10 to receive an additional $10 for FVs). NI programs are heterogeneous in programmatic implementation and operate in food retail outlets, including brick-and-mortar and farm-direct sites. Objective: This study aimed to explore NI program implementation factors and the amount of incentives redeemed. Methods: A total of 28 NI projects across the United States including 487 brick-and-mortar and 1078 farm-direct sites reported data between 2020 and 2021. Descriptive statistics and linear regression analyses (outcome: incentives redeemed) were applied. Results: Traditional brick-and-mortar stores had 0.48 times the incentives redeemed compared with small brick-and-mortar stores. At brick-and-mortar sites, automatic discounts had 3.47 times the incentives redeemed compared with physical discounts; and auxiliary services and marketing led to greater redemption. Farm-direct sites using multilingual and direct promotional marketing had greater incentives redeemed. Conclusions: To our knowledge, this is the first national study to focus on NI program implementation across sites nationwide. Factors identified can help inform future programming and research.

A Qualitative Exploration of Approaches Applied by Nutrition Educators Within Nutrition Incentive Programs.

OBJECTIVE: To explore the approaches applied by nutrition educators who work with the US Department of Agriculture Gus Schumacher Nutrition Incentive Program (GusNIP), Nutrition Incentive (NI), and Produce Prescription (PPR) programs. METHODS: Multiple data collection methods, including descriptive survey (n = 41), individual interviews (n = 25), and 1 focus group (n = 5). Interviewees were educators who deliver nutrition education as a component of GusNIP NI/PPR programs. Descriptive statistics were calculated from survey responses. Transcripts were coded using thematic qualitative analysis methods. RESULTS: Four overarching themes emerged. First, educators have many roles and responsibilities beyond providing curriculum-based nutrition education. Second, interviewees emphasized participant-centered nutrition education and support. Third, partnerships with collaborating cross-sector organizations are essential. Fourth, there are common challenges to providing nutrition education within GusNIP NI/PPR programs, and educators proposed solutions to mitigate these challenges. CONCLUSIONS: Nutrition educators promote multilevel solutions to improve dietary intake, and it is recommended they be included in conversations to improve GusNIP NI/PPR programs.

Descriptive Characteristics of Nutrition Incentive Projects Across the U.S.: A Comparison Between Farm Direct and Brick and Mortar Settings.

The purpose of this study is to describe the programmatic characteristics of current nutrition incentive projects supported by the Gus Schumacher Nutrition Incentive Program (GusNIP). Specifically, implementation characteristics of nutrition incentive projects that were funded in 2019 were compared across brick and mortar (B&M) and farm direct (FD) sites in the United States. Across 10 nutrition incentive (NI) grantees, there were 621 sites that reported data from B&M (n = 156) and FD (n = 465) locations. Among B&M sites, the common food retail types included: large chain traditional supermarket (n = 49) and independent traditional supermarket (n = 46). Among FD sites, the most frequently reported food retail types were farmers markets (n = 371). For B&M sites, the most common financial instruments were loyalty cards (n = 67, 43.5%), followed by an automatic discount at the register (n = 41, 26.6%), and coupons (n = 29, 18.8%). FD sites frequently reported physical financial instruments including tokens (n = 272, 61.1%), followed by paper vouchers (n = 131, 29.4%). Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) purchases that were eligible to trigger incentives included mainly "all fresh FVs" at B&M sites (n = 98, 48.5%) and "all SNAP eligible items" at FD sites (n = 417, 85.8%). FVs eligible for incentive redemption included mainly "all fresh FVs" for both B&M sites (n = 110, 65.5%) and FD sites (n = 370, 67.6%). In terms of incentive-to-SNAP level ratio, both B&M sites and FD sites reported that they commonly utilized a 1:1 incentive-to-SNAP level ratio (n = 106, 68.8% and n = 261, 94.9% respectively). This paper will provide foundational understanding of the heterogeneity of GusNIP NI projects-specifically between B&M and FD settings-in order to inform future national work and ultimately demonstrate the impact of NI projects on food security status and dietary quality.

Providing Food Assistance During the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Case Study of a Free Produce Market at a Health Care Center.

The COVID-19 pandemic has worsened economic precarity and nearly doubled food insecurity in the United States. We describe how a free produce market at a Massachusetts health center adapted to exponentially increase its reach and offerings while continuing to safely distribute food to a low-income community during the pandemic.