Dataset Information

Cost Effectiveness of Subsidizing Fruit and Vegetable Purchases Through the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program.

ABSTRACT: A diet high in fruits and vegetables (FV) is associated with reduced risk of chronic disease. One strategy to incentivize FV consumption among low-income households is to make them more affordable through the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). This study aims to identify the cost effectiveness of subsidizing FV purchases among the one in seven Americans who participate in SNAP.A cost-effectiveness analysis was conducted from a societal perspective to estimate lifetime costs and health gains associated with subsidizing FV purchases. A stochastic microsimulation model of obesity, type 2 diabetes, myocardial infarction, and stroke in the 2015 U.S. population was used. Model parameters were based on nationally representative SNAP participation and dietary consumption data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (2003-2012), and data from a randomized trial of FV subsidies among SNAP users.Despite cycling of participants in and out of SNAP, expanding an FV subsidy nationwide through SNAP would be expected to reduce incidence of type 2 diabetes by 1.7% (95% CI=1.2, 2.2), myocardial infarction by 1.4% (95% CI=0.9, 1.9), stroke by 1.2% (95% CI=0.8, 1.6), and obesity by 0.2% (95% CI=0.1, 0.3), and be cost saving from a societal perspective. The saved costs would be largely attributable to long-term reductions in type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular diseases.The model suggests nationwide SNAP FV subsidies would reduce chronic disease morbidity, mortality, and costs over long time horizons that are unlikely to be observed in short-term community-based trials.

SUBMITTER: Choi SE

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5401647 | biostudies-literature | 2017 May

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Cost Effectiveness of Subsidizing Fruit and Vegetable Purchases Through the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program.

Choi Sung Eun SE Seligman Hilary H Basu Sanjay S

American journal of preventive medicine 20170130 5

<h4>Introduction</h4>A diet high in fruits and vegetables (FV) is associated with reduced risk of chronic disease. One strategy to incentivize FV consumption among low-income households is to make them more affordable through the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). This study aims to identify the cost effectiveness of subsidizing FV purchases among the one in seven Americans who participate in SNAP.<h4>Methods</h4>A cost-effectiveness analysis was conducted from a societal perspect ...[more]

PMID: 28153648

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundThe Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) provides approximately US$70 billion annually to support food purchases by low-income households, supporting approximately 1 in 7 Americans. In the 2018 Farm Bill, potential SNAP revisions to improve diets and health could include financial incentives, disincentives, or restrictions for certain foods. However, the overall and comparative impacts on health outcomes and costs are not established. We aimed to estimate the health impact, program and healthcare costs, and cost-effectiveness of food incentives, disincentives, or restrictions in SNAP.Methods and findingsWe used a validated microsimulation model (CVD-PREDICT), populated with national data on adult SNAP participants from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) 2009-2014, policy effects from SNAP pilots and food pricing meta-analyses, diet-disease effects from meta-analyses, and policy, food, and healthcare costs from published literature to estimate the overall and comparative impacts of 3 dietary policy interventions: (1) a 30% incentive for fruits and vegetables (F&V), (2) a 30% F&V incentive with a restriction of sugar-sweetened beverages (SSBs), and (3) a broader incentive/disincentive program for multiple foods that also preserves choice (SNAP-plus), combining 30% incentives for F&V, nuts, whole grains, fish, and plant-based oils and 30% disincentives for SSBs, junk food, and processed meats. Among approximately 14.5 million adults on SNAP at baseline with mean age 52 years, our simulation estimates that the F&V incentive over 5 years would prevent 38,782 cardiovascular disease (CVD) events, gain 18,928 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and save $1.21 billion in healthcare costs. Adding SSB restriction increased gains to 93,933 CVD events prevented, 45,864 QALYs gained, and $4.33 billion saved. For SNAP-plus, corresponding gains were 116,875 CVD events prevented, 56,056 QALYs gained, and $5.28 billion saved. Over a lifetime, the F&V incentive would prevent approximately 303,900 CVD events, gain 649,000 QALYs, and save $6.77 billion in healthcare costs. Adding SSB restriction increased gains to approximately 797,900 CVD events prevented, 2.11 million QALYs gained, and $39.16 billion in healthcare costs saved. For SNAP-plus, corresponding gains were approximately 940,000 CVD events prevented, 2.47 million QALYs gained, and $41.93 billion saved. From a societal perspective (including programmatic costs but excluding food subsidy costs as an intra-societal transfer), all 3 scenarios were cost-saving. From a government affordability perspective (i.e., incorporating food subsidy costs, including for children and young adults for whom no health gains were modeled), the F&V incentive was of low cost-effectiveness at 5 years (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio: $548,053/QALY) but achieved cost-effectiveness ($66,525/QALY) over a lifetime. Adding SSB restriction, the intervention was cost-effective at 10 years ($68,857/QALY) and very cost-effective at 20 years ($26,435/QALY) and over a lifetime ($5,216/QALY). The combined incentive/disincentive program produced the largest health gains and reduced both healthcare and food costs, with net cost-savings of $10.16 billion at 5 years and $63.33 billion over a lifetime. Results were consistent in probabilistic sensitivity analyses: for example, from a societal perspective, 1,000 of 1,000 iterations (100%) were cost-saving for all 3 interventions. Due to the nature of simulation studies, the findings cannot prove the health and cost impacts of national SNAP interventions.ConclusionsLeveraging healthier eating through SNAP could generate substantial health benefits and be cost-effective or cost-saving. A combined food incentive/disincentive program appears most effective and may be most attractive to policy-makers.

Project description:The low intake of fruits/vegetables (FV) by Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) participants is a persistent public health challenge. Fruit and vegetable incentive programs use inducements to encourage FV purchases. The purpose of this scoping review is to identify structural factors in FV incentive programs that may impact program effectiveness, including (i.) differences in recruitment/eligibility, (ii.) incentive delivery and timing, (iii.) incentive value, (iv.) eligible foods, and (v.) retail venue. Additionally, the FV incentive program impact on FV purchase and/or consumption is summarized. Using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines for scoping reviews, a search of four bibliographic databases resulted in the identification of 45 publications for consideration; 19 of which met the pre-determined inclusion criteria for full-length publications employing a quasi-experimental design and focused on verified, current SNAP participants. The data capturing study objective, study design, sample size, incentive program structure characteristics (participant eligibility and recruitment, delivery and timing of incentive, foods eligible for incentive redemption, type of retail venue), and study outcomes related to FV purchases/consumption were entered in a standardized chart. Eleven of the 19 studies had enrollment processes to receive the incentive, and most studies (17/19) provided the incentive in the form of a token, coupon, or voucher. The value of the incentives varied, but was usually offered as a match. Incentives were typically redeemable only for FV, although three studies required an FV purchase to trigger the delivery of an incentive for any SNAP-eligible food. Finally, most studies (16/19) were conducted at farmers' markets. Eighteen of the 19 studies reported a positive impact on participant purchase and/or consumption of FV. Overall, this scoping review provides insights intended to inform the design, implementation, and evaluation of future FV incentive programs targeting SNAP participants; and demonstrates the potential effectiveness of FV incentive programs for increasing FV purchase and consumption among vulnerable populations.

Project description:INTRODUCTION:The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program provides financial assistance for food and beverage purchases to approximately 1 in 7 Americans, with benefits distributed once monthly. Most Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program benefits are spent early in the month, leading to decreased caloric intake later in the month. The effects of this early benefit depletion on the types of foods and beverages purchased over the course of the month is unclear. METHODS:Using individually tracked sales data from 950 participants enrolled in 2 supermarket-based RCTs in Maine (October 2015-April 2016 and October 2016-June 2017), purchases of selected food categories by Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program participants (n=248) versus nonparticipants (n=702) in the first 2 weeks compared with the last 2 weeks of the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program benefit month were examined. Analyses were completed in 2019. RESULTS:For Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program participants, adjusted mean food spending decreased 37% from the first 2 weeks to the last 2 weeks of the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program benefit month (p<0.0001) compared with a 3% decrease (p=0.02) for nonparticipants. The decline in spending by Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program participants occurred in all examined categories: vegetables (-25%), fruits (-27%), sugar-sweetened beverages (-30%), red meat (-37%), convenience foods (-40%), and poultry (-48%). Difference-in-difference estimators comparing Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program participants with nonparticipants were statistically significant (p<0.05) for all examined categories. CONCLUSIONS:In the second half of the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program benefit month, individuals reduced purchases of all examined categories. More research is needed to understand the impact of these fluctuations in spending patterns on the dietary quality of Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program participants.

Project description:The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) provides millions of low-income Americans food benefits and other forms of nutrition assistance. Evidence indicates that SNAP reduces food insecurity. However, there is a concern that the food benefit may increase the demand for less healthy foods more than healthier foods, thereby reducing the overall nutritional quality of the participant's food basket. This paper aims to examine the association of SNAP participation with the nutritional quality of food-at-home purchases of low-income households and to investigate the potential heterogeneity among consumers with different levels of nutrition attitude. This analysis used food purchase data from the USDA National Household Food Acquisition and Purchase Survey (FoodAPS). Our study sample included 2,218 low-income households, of which 1,184 are SNAP participants, and 1,034 are income-eligible nonparticipants. Multivariate regressions were performed to explore the SNAP-nutritional quality association. A household's nutrition attitude was measured using its response to a question on whether the household searched for nutrition information online in the last 2 months. Households that affirmed they had an online nutrition search were treated as nutrition-oriented households (21.2% of the low-income sample), and households that did not were considered less nutrition-oriented households (78.8%). For robustness, we also created an alternative nutrition attitude measure based on reported use of the nutrition facts label. We found that among less nutrition-oriented households, SNAP participants had a statistically significant 0.097 points (p = 0.018) lower Guiding Stars rating than low-income nonparticipants. However, there was no significant SNAP-nutritional quality association among nutrition-oriented households. In conclusion, SNAP participation was associated with lower nutritional quality of food purchases among less nutrition-oriented households, but not among nutrition-oriented households. The results suggest that the intended nutritional benefits of restrictions on purchases of healthy foods may not reach the subgroup of nutrition-oriented SNAP participants.

Project description:ImportanceUnderstanding if the association of social programs with health care access and utilization, especially among older adults with costly chronic medical conditions, can help in improving strategies for self-management of disease.ObjectiveTo examine whether participation in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) is associated with a reduced likelihood of low-income older adults with diabetes (aged ≥65 years) needing to forgo medications because of cost.Design, setting, and participantsThis repeated cross-sectional, population-based study included 1302 seniors who participated in the National Health Interview Survey from 2013 through 2016. Individuals in the study were diagnosed with diabetes or borderline diabetes, were eligible to receive SNAP benefits, were prescribed medications, and incurred more than zero US dollars in out-of-pocket medical expenses in the past year. The data analysis was performed from October 2017 to April 2018.ExposuresSelf-reported participation in SNAP.Main outcomes and measuresCost-related medication nonadherence derived from responses to whether in the past year, older adults with diabetes delayed refilling a prescription, took less medication, and skipped medication doses because of cost. To estimate the association between participation in SNAP and cost-related medication nonadherence, we used 2-stage, regression-adjusted propensity score matching, conditional on sociodemographic and health and health care-related characteristics of individuals. Estimated propensity scores were used to create matched groups of participants in SNAP and eligible nonparticipants. After matching, a fully adjusted weighted model that included all covariates plus food security status was used to estimate the association between SNAP and cost-related medication nonadherence in the matched sample.ResultsThe final analytic sample before matching included 1385 older adults (448 [32.3%] men, 769 [55.5%] non-Hispanic white, and 628 [45.3%] aged ≥75 years), with 503 of them participating in SNAP (36.3%) and 178 reporting cost-related medication nonadherence (12.9%) in the past year. After matching, 1302 older adults were retained (434 [33.3%] men, 716 [55.0%] non-Hispanic white, and 581 [44.6%] aged ≥75 years); treatment and comparison groups were similar for all characteristics. Participants in SNAP had a moderate decrease in cost-related medication nonadherence compared with eligible nonparticipants (5.3 percentage point reduction; 95% CI, 0.5-10.0 percentage point reduction; P = .03). Similar reductions were observed for subgroups that had prescription drug coverage (5.8 percentage point reduction; 95% CI, 0.6-11.0) and less than $500 in out-of-pocket medical costs in the previous year (6.4 percentage point reduction; 95% CI, 0.8-11.9), but not for older adults lacking prescription coverage or those with higher medical costs. Results remained robust to several sensitivity analyses.Conclusions and relevanceThe findings suggest that participation in SNAP may help improve adherence to treatment regimens among older adults with diabetes. Connecting these individuals with SNAP may be a feasible strategy for improving health outcomes.

Dataset Information

Cost Effectiveness of Subsidizing Fruit and Vegetable Purchases Through the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program.

Publications

Cost Effectiveness of Subsidizing Fruit and Vegetable Purchases Through the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets