Caregiver perceptions of a pediatric produce prescription program during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Introduction: Produce prescription programs are rapidly expanding as a type of Food is Medicine intervention with prospects for mitigating food insecurity and reducing diet-related health disparities. Gaining insight into participant perspectives on program logistics and perceived impacts is crucial to program success and improvements. Methods: Between May and June 2021, we conducted individual and small group interviews with 23 caregivers with children aged 1-5 years who participated in a produce prescription program from 2020 to 2021 in Texas, U.S. They were provided with a gift card to a major national grocery retailer to purchase fresh produce. The card was reloaded $60 monthly for 8 months with automatic roll-over of unused funds to the next month. Participants also received nutrition education in the form of two videos. A deductive analysis approach was employed, and NVivo qualitative data analysis software was used to perform coding and to assist with subsequent analyses. Results: All 23 participants were female, with an average age of 37.5 years, and the majority identified as Hispanic/Latino (83%). About 43% of the families had three or more children. Six themes were generated from interviews. Three of these themes were related to program logistics: (1) ease of program use; (2) participant satisfaction with the incentive; and (3) desire for additional store options. The remaining main themes pertained to program impact: (1) the enhanced ability to purchase produce; (2) the usefulness of the nutrition education; and (3) persistent challenges encountered when preparing the produce for picky eaters and young children. Conclusion: A pediatric produce prescription program was perceived as logistically easy and a helpful source of financial support for accessing fresh produce. Program features such as card-based incentive system and partnership with major grocery retailer were favored by participants. For future program design, it may be beneficial to consider collaborating with multiple grocery outlets and enhancing the intensity and targeting of nutrition education.

The evolution and scope of Medicaid Section 1115 demonstrations to address nutrition: a US survey.

Poor nutrition and food insecurity are drivers of poor health, diet-related diseases, and health disparities in the U.S. State Medicaid Section 1115 demonstration waivers offer opportunities to pilot food-based initiatives to address health outcomes and disparities. Several states are now leveraging 1115 demonstrations, but the scope and types of utilization remain undefined. To fill this gap, we conducted a systematic analysis of state Medicaid Section 1115 applications and approvals available on Medicaid.gov through July 1, 2023. We found that 19 approved and pending 1115 waivers address nutrition, with 11 submitted or approved since 2021. Fifteen states provide or propose to provide screening for food insecurity, referral to food security programs, and/or reporting on food security as an evaluation metric. Thirteen provide or propose to provide coverage of nutrition education services. Ten provide or propose to provide direct intervention with healthy food. The primary target populations of these demonstrations are individuals with chronic diet-sensitive conditions, mental health or substance use disorders, and/or who are pregnant or post-partum. Since 2021, state utilization of Medicaid 1115 demonstrations to address nutrition has accelerated in pace, scope, and population coverage. These findings and trends have major implications for addressing diet-related health and healthy equity in the United States.

Employer-Sponsored Health Insurance Premium Cost Growth and Its Association With Earnings Inequality Among US Families.

Importance: Costs of employer-sponsored health care benefits have increased faster than workers' wages for several decades, with important implications for disparities in earnings and wage stagnation. Objective: To quantify how growth in employer-sponsored health insurance (ESI) premiums may have been associated with reduced annual wages, disparities in earnings by race and ethnicity and wage level, and wage stagnation among US families with ESI. Design, Setting, and Participants: In this economic evaluation, serial cross-sectional analyses were performed of US families receiving ESI from 1988 to 2019 based on data from the Consumer Expenditure Survey, Kaiser Employer Health Benefits Survey, US Census Bureau's Current Population Survey, and federal payroll taxation rates. Statistical analysis was conducted from February 2022 to July 2023. Main Outcomes and Measures: Percentage of annual compensation associated with health care premiums (after accounting for tax deductibility) and lost wages associated with growth in cost of premiums from 1989 to 2019 based on 1988 compensation. To assess disparities, analyses were stratified by race and ethnicity and wage level. Results: In 1988, 44.7 million individuals (head of household: mean [SD] age, 43.3 [13.1] years; 30.1% were female; and 2.4% identified as Asian, 6.2% as Hispanic, 8.6% as non-Hispanic Black, and 82.8% as non-Hispanic White) were covered by ESI family plans; this number remained similar in 2019 at 44.8 million individuals (head of household: mean [SD] age, 47.1 [12.9] years; 41.3% were female; and 1.3% identified as Asian, 9.9% as Hispanic, 9.9% as non-Hispanic Black, and 78.9% as non-Hispanic White). In 1988, the mean (SD) household size was 3.3 (1.3) people, and in 2019, it was 3.4 (1.3) people. If ESI costs had remained at the same proportion of the 1988 average compensation package, then in 2019, the median US family with ESI could have earned $8774 (95% CI, $8354-$9195) more in annual wages. During all 32 years, health care premiums as a percentage of compensation were greater for non-Hispanic Black and Hispanic families than for non-Hispanic White families. By 2019, 13.8% (95% CI, 13.5%-14.1%) of compensation among non-Hispanic White families with ESI went to premium costs compared with 19.2% (95% CI, 18.8%-19.7%) among non-Hispanic Black families and 19.8% (19.3%-20.3%) among Hispanic families with ESI. In 2019, health care premiums as a percentage of compensation at the 95th percentile of earnings for families with ESI were 3.9% (95% CI, 3.8%-4.0%) compared with 28.5% (95% CI, 27.8%-29.2%) at the 20th percentile of earnings. From 1988 to 2019, the mean cumulative lost earnings associated with growth in health care premiums for the median US family with ESI was $125 340 (95% CI, $120 155-$130 525) in 2019 dollars, 4.7% of earnings over the 32-year period. Conclusions and Relevance: This economic evaluation of US families receiving ESI suggests that 3 decades of increasing health care premiums were likely associated with reduced annual earnings and increased earnings inequality by race and ethnicity and wage level and were meaningfully associated with wage stagnation.

Adoption and implementation of produce prescription programs for under-resourced populations: clinic staff perspectives.

Background: Produce prescription programs represent a promising intervention strategy in the healthcare setting to address disparities in diet quality and diet-related chronic disease. The objective of this study was to understand adoption and implementation factors related to these programs that are common across contexts and those that are context-specific. Methods: In this qualitative case comparison study, we conducted qualitative interviews with eight clinic staff from five primary care "safety net" clinics, identified by a partnering non-profit organization that operated the programs, in April-July 2021. Results: Across clinics, the ability to provide a tangible benefit to patients was a key factor in adoption. Flexibility in integrating into clinic workflows was a facilitator of implementation. Fit with usual operations varied across clinics. Common challenges were the need for changes to the workflow and extra staff time. Clinic staff were skeptical about the sustainability of both the benefits to patients and the ability to continue the program at their clinics. Discussion: This study adds to a growing body of knowledge on the adoption and implementation of produce prescription programs. Future research will further this understanding, providing the evidence necessary to guide adopting clinics and to make informed policy decisions to best promote the growth and financial sustainability of these programs.

Impact of Produce Prescriptions on Diet, Food Security, and Cardiometabolic Health Outcomes: A Multisite Evaluation of 9 Produce Prescription Programs in the United States.

BACKGROUND: Produce prescriptions may improve cardiometabolic health by increasing fruit and vegetable (F&V) consumption and food insecurity yet impacts on clinical outcomes and health status have not been evaluated in large, multisite evaluations. METHODS: This multisite, pre- and post-evaluation used individual-level data from 22 produce prescription locations in 12 US states from 2014 to 2020. No programs were previously evaluated. The study included 3881 individuals (2064 adults aged 18+ years and 1817 children aged 2-17 years) with, or at risk for, poor cardiometabolic health recruited from clinics serving low-income neighborhoods. Programs provided financial incentives to purchase F&V at grocery stores or farmers markets (median, $63/months; duration, 4-10 months). Surveys assessed F&V intake, food security, and self-reported health; glycated hemoglobin, blood pressure, body mass index (BMI), and BMI z-score were measured at clinics. Adjusted, multilevel mixed models accounted for clustering by program. RESULTS: After a median participation of 6.0 months, F&V intake increased by 0.85 (95% CI, 0.68-1.02) and 0.26 (95% CI, 0.06-0.45) cups per day among adults and children, respectively. The odds of being food insecure dropped by one-third (odds ratio, 0.63 [0.52-0.76]) and odds of improving 1 level in self-reported health status increased for adults (odds ratio, 1.62 [1.30-2.02]) and children (odds ratio, 2.37 [1.70-3.31]). Among adults with glycated hemoglobin ≥6.5%, glycated hemoglobin declined by -0.29% age points (-0.42 to -0.16); among adults with hypertension, systolic and diastolic blood pressures declined by -8.38 mm Hg (-10.13 to -6.62) and -4.94 mm Hg (-5.96 to -3.92); and among adults with overweight or obesity, BMI decreased by -0.36 kg/m2 (-0.64 to -0.09). Child BMI z-score did not change -0.01 (-0.06 to 0.04). CONCLUSIONS: In this large, multisite evaluation, produce prescriptions were associated with significant improvements in F&V intake, food security, and health status for adults and children, and clinically relevant improvements in glycated hemoglobin, blood pressure, and BMI for adults with poor cardiometabolic health.

Health and Economic Impacts of Implementing Produce Prescription Programs for Diabetes in the United States: A Microsimulation Study.

Background Produce prescription programs, providing free or discounted produce and nutrition education to patients with diet-related conditions within health care systems, have been shown to improve dietary quality and cardiometabolic risk factors. The potential impact of implementing produce prescription programs for patients with diabetes on long-term health gains, costs, and cost-effectiveness in the United States has not been established. Methods and Results We used a validated state-transition microsimulation model (Diabetes, Obesity, Cardiovascular Disease Microsimulation model), populated with national data of eligible individuals from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey 2013 to 2018, further incorporating estimated intervention effects and diet-disease effects from meta-analyses, and policy- and health-related costs from published literature. The model estimated that over a lifetime (mean=25 years), implementing produce prescriptions in 6.5 million US adults with both diabetes and food insecurity (lifetime treatment) would prevent 292 000 (95% uncertainty interval, 143 000-440 000) cardiovascular disease events, generate 260 000 (110000-411 000) quality-adjusted life-years, cost $44.3 billion in implementation costs, and save $39.6 billion ($20.5-58.6 billion) in health care costs and $4.8 billion ($1.84-$7.70 billion) in productivity costs. The program was highly cost effective from a health care perspective (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio: $18 100/quality-adjusted life-years) and cost saving from a societal perspective (net savings: $-0.05 billion). The intervention remained cost effective at shorter time horizons of 5 and 10 years. Results were similar in population subgroups by age, race or ethnicity, education, and baseline insurance status. Conclusions Our model suggests that implementing produce prescriptions among US adults with diabetes and food insecurity would generate substantial health gains and be highly cost effective.

Evaluation of a Produce Prescription Program for Patients With Diabetes: A Longitudinal Analysis of Glycemic Control.

OBJECTIVE: Produce prescriptions have shown promise in improving diabetes care, although most studies have used small samples or lacked controls. Our objective was to evaluate the impacts of a produce prescription program on glycemic control for patients with diabetes. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Participants included a nonrandom enrollment of 252 patients with diabetes who received a produce prescription and 534 similar control participants from two clinics in Hartford, Connecticut. The start of the COVID-19 pandemic in March 2020 coincided with program implementation. Produce prescription enrollees received vouchers ($60 per month) for 6 months to purchase produce at grocery retail. Controls received usual care. The primary outcome was change in glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) between treatment and control at 6 months. Secondary outcomes included 6-month changes in systolic (SBP) and diastolic blood pressure (DBP), BMI, hospitalizations, and emergency department admissions. Longitudinal generalized estimating equation models, weighted with propensity score overlap weights, assessed changes in outcomes over time. RESULTS: At 6 months, there was no significant difference in change in HbA1c between treatment and control groups, with a difference of 0.13 percentage points (95% CI -0.05, 0.32). No significant difference was observed for change in SBP (3.85 mmHg; -0.12, 7.82), DBP (-0.82 mmHg; -2.42, 0.79), or BMI (-0.22 kg/m2; -1.83, 1.38). Incidence rate ratios for hospitalizations and emergency department visits were 0.54 (0.14, 1.95) and 0.53 (0.06, 4.72), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: A 6-month produce prescription program for patients with diabetes, implemented during the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, was not associated with improved glycemic control.

Is that Hospital Food Pantry an Illegal Patient Inducement? Analysis of Health Care Fraud Laws as Barriers to Food and Nutrition Security Interventions.

The complex regulatory framework governing the U.S. health care system can be an obstacle to programming that address health-related social needs. In particular, health care fraud and abuse law is a pernicious barrier as health care organizations may minimize or forego programming altogether out of real and perceived concern for compliance. And because health care organizations have varying resources to navigate and resolve compliance concerns, as well as different levels of risk tolerance, fears related to the legal landscape may further entrench inequities in access to meaningful programs that improve health outcomes. This article uses food and nutrition programming as a case study to explore the complexities presented by this area of law and to highlight pathways forward.

Association of National Expansion of Insurance Coverage of Medically Tailored Meals With Estimated Hospitalizations and Health Care Expenditures in the US.

Importance: Medically tailored meals (MTMs) are associated with lower health care utilization among patients with complex diet-related diseases but are not a covered benefit in Medicare or Medicaid. The potential impact of extending insurance coverage for MTMs nationally remains unknown. Objective: To estimate 1- and 10-year potential changes in annual hospitalizations, potential changes in annual health care expenditures, and overall policy cost-effectiveness associated with national MTM coverage for US patients with diet-related disease and limited instrumental activities of daily living who have Medicaid, Medicare, or private insurance. Design, Setting, and Participants: In this economic evaluation, conducted from January 2021 to February 2022, a nationally representative sample from the 2019 Medical Expenditure Panel Survey was used to create a population-level cohort policy simulation model that estimated changes in annual hospitalizations and health care expenditures associated with coverage of MTMs. Participants were 6 309 998 US adults aged 18 years or older who had Medicare, Medicaid, or private payer insurance and at least 1 diet-sensitive condition and 1 limitation in instrumental activities of daily living. Interventions: Ten nutritionally tailored MTMs per week for a mean of 8 months in each year of intervention. Main Outcomes and Measures: The main outcomes were total hospitalizations, program costs, health care expenditures, and net policy costs. One thousand Monte Carlo simulations for each of 10 years (2019-2028) jointly incorporated uncertainty in model inputs for effect sizes, hospitalizations, health care expenditures, and program costs. Results: At the 2019 baseline, an estimated 6 309 998 US adults were eligible to receive MTMs. Mean (SD) age was 68.1 (16.6) years; most were female (63.4%), were non-Hispanic White (66.7%), and had Medicare and/or Medicaid (76.5%). The most common eligibility diagnoses were cardiovascular diseases (70.6%), diabetes (44.9%), and cancer (37.2%). If all eligible individuals received MTMs, an estimated 1 594 000 hospitalizations (95% uncertainty interval [UI], 1 297 000-1 912 000) and $38.7 billion (95% UI, $24.9 billion to $53.9 billion) in health care expenditures could potentially be averted in 1 year. Program costs were $24.8 billion (95% UI, $23.1 billion to $26.8 billion), for an associated net savings of $13.6 billion (95% UI, $0.2 billion to $28.5 billion) from a health care perspective. In 2019 dollars, 10 years of the MTM intervention was anticipated to cost $298.7 billion (95% UI, $279.7 billion to $317.4 billion) and to potentially be associated with 18 257 000 averted hospitalizations (95% UI, 14 690 000-22 109 000) and reductions in health care expenditures of $484.5 billion (95% UI, $310.2 billion to $678.4 billion), for net savings of $185.1 billion (95% UI, $12.9 billion to $377.8 billion). Findings were robust in multiple sensitivity analyses. Conclusions and Relevance: The findings suggest that national implementation of MTMs for patients with diet-sensitive conditions and activity limitations could potentially be associated with approximately 1.6 million averted hospitalizations and net cost savings of $13.6 billion annually. The results may inform US state, federal, and private-payer interest in expanding insurance coverage for MTMs among patients with diet-related chronic illness.

Emergency Department Experience with Novel Electronic Medical Record Order for Referral to Food Resources.

INTRODUCTION: Food insecurity is a significant issue in the United States and is prevalent in emergency department (ED) patients. The purpose of this study was to report the novel use of an integrated electronic medical record (EMR) order for food resources, and to describe our initial institutional referral patterns after focused education and implementation of the order. METHODS: This was a retrospective, observational study, describing food-bank referral patterns before and after the implementation of dedicated ED education on the novel EMR order for food resources. RESULTS: In 2015, prior to formal education a total of 1,003 referrals were made to the regional food bank, Second Harvest Heartland. Five referrals were made from the ED. In 2016, after the educational interventions regarding the referral, there were 1,519 referrals hospital-wide, and 55 referrals were made from the ED. Of the 1,519 referrals 1,129 (74%) were successfully contacted by Second Harvest Heartland, and 954 (63%) accepted and received assistance. CONCLUSION: Use of the EMR as a tool to refer patients to partner organizations for food resources is plausible and may result in an increase in ED referrals for food resources. Appropriate education is crucial for application of this novel ED process.