Dataset Information

The impact of financial incentives and restrictions on cyclical food expenditures among low-income households receiving nutrition assistance: a randomized controlled trial.

ABSTRACT:

Background

The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) is the largest anti-hunger program in the United States. Two proposed interventions to encourage healthier food expenditures among SNAP participants have generated significant debate: financial incentives for fruits and vegetables, and restrictions on foods high in added sugar. To date, however, no study has assessed the impact of these interventions on the benefit cycle, a pattern of rapid depletion of SNAP benefits that has been linked to worsening nutrition and health outcomes over the benefit month.

Methods

Low-income households not currently enrolled in SNAP (n = 249) received benefits every 4 weeks for 12 weeks on a study-specific benefit card. Households were randomized to one of four study arms: 1) incentive (30% incentive for fruits and vegetables purchased with study benefits), 2) restriction (not allowed to buy sugar-sweetened beverages, sweet baked goods, or candy using study benefits), 3) incentive plus restriction, or 4) control (no incentive or restriction). Weekly household food expenditures were evaluated using generalized estimating equations.

Results

Compared to the control group, financial incentives increased fruit and vegetable purchases, but only in the first 2 weeks after benefit disbursement. Restrictions decreased expenditures on foods high in added sugar throughout the benefit month, but the magnitude of the impact decreased as the month progressed. Notably, restrictions mitigated cyclical expenditures.

Conclusions

Policies to improve nutrition outcomes among SNAP participants should consider including targeted interventions in the second half of the month to address the benefit cycle and attendant nutrition outcomes.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrial.gov, NCT02643576 . Retrospectively registered December 22, 2014.

SUBMITTER: Valluri S

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8642917 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ImportanceFood insecurity is associated with high health care expenditures, but the effectiveness of food insecurity interventions on health care costs is unknown.ObjectiveTo determine whether the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), which addresses food insecurity, can reduce health care expenditures.Design, setting, and participantsThis is a retrospective cohort study of 4447 noninstitutionalized adults with income below 200% of the federal poverty threshold who participated in the 2011 National Health Interview Survey (NHIS) and the 2012-2013 Medical Expenditure Panel Survey (MEPS).ExposuresSelf-reported SNAP participation in 2011.Main outcomes and measuresTotal health care expenditures (all paid claims and out-of-pocket costs) in the 2012-2013 period. To test whether SNAP participation was associated with lower subsequent health care expenditures, we used generalized linear modeling (gamma distribution, log link, with survey design information), adjusting for demographics (age, gender, race/ethnicity), socioeconomic factors (income, education, Social Security Disability Insurance disability, urban/rural), census region, health insurance, and self-reported medical conditions. We also conducted sensitivity analyses as a robustness check for these modeling assumptions.ResultsA total of 4447 participants (2567 women and 1880 men) were enrolled in the study, mean (SE) age, 42.7 (0.5) years; 1889 were SNAP participants, and 2558 were not. Compared with other low-income adults, SNAP participants were younger (mean [SE] age, 40.3 [0.6] vs 44.1 [0.7] years), more likely to have public insurance or be uninsured (84.9% vs 67.7%), and more likely to be disabled (24.2% vs 10.6%) (P?<?.001 for all). In age- and gender-adjusted models, health care expenditures between those who did and did not participate in SNAP were similar (difference, $34; 95% CI, -$1097 to $1165). In fully adjusted models, SNAP was associated with lower estimated annual health care expenditures (-$1409; 95% CI, -$2694 to -$125). Sensitivity analyses were consistent with these results, also indicating that SNAP participation was associated with significantly lower estimated expenditures.Conclusions and relevanceSNAP enrollment is associated with reduced health care spending among low-income American adults, a finding consistent across several analytic approaches. Encouraging SNAP enrollment among eligible adults may help reduce health care costs in the United States.

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:INTRODUCTION:The Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and Children (WIC) required major revisions to food packages in 2009; effects on nationwide low-income household purchases remain unexamined. METHODS:This study examines associations between WIC revisions and nutritional profiles of packaged food purchases from 2008 to 2014 among 4,537 low-income households with preschoolers in the U.S. (WIC participating versus nonparticipating) utilizing Nielsen Homescan Consumer Panel data. Overall nutrients purchased (e.g., calories, sugar, fat), amounts of select food groups with nutritional attributes that are encouraged (e.g., whole grains, fruits and vegetables) or discouraged (e.g., sugar-sweetened beverages, candy) consistent with dietary guidance, composition of purchases by degree of processing (less, moderate, or high), and convenience (requires preparation, ready to heat, or ready to eat) were measured. Data analysis was performed in 2016. Longitudinal random-effects model adjusted outcomes controlling for household composition, education, race/ethnicity of the head of the household, county quarterly unemployment rates, and seasonality are presented. RESULTS:Among WIC households, significant decreases in purchases of calories (-11%), sodium (-12%), total fat (-10%), and sugar (-15%) occurred, alongside decreases in purchases of refined grains, grain-based desserts, higher-fat milks, and sugar-sweetened beverages, and increases in purchases of fruits/vegetables with no added sugar/fats/salt. Income-eligible nonparticipating households had similar, but less pronounced, reductions. Changes were gradual and increased over time. CONCLUSIONS:WIC food package revisions appear associated with improved nutritional profiles of food purchases among WIC participating households compared with low-income nonparticipating households. These package revisions may encourage WIC families to make healthier choices among their overall packaged food purchases.

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:INTRODUCTION:Obesity is a major public health challenge and exacerbates economic disparities through employment discrimination and increased personal health expenditures. Financial incentives for weight management may intensify individuals' utilisation of evidence-based behavioural strategies while addressing obesity-related economic disparities in low-income populations. Trials have focused on testing incentives contingent on achieving weight loss outcomes. However, based on social cognitive and self-determination theories, providing incentives for achieving intermediate behavioural goals may be more sustainable than incentivising outcomes if they enhance an individual's skills and self-efficacy for maintaining long-term weight loss. The objective of this paper is to describe the rationale and design of the Financial Incentives foR Weight Reduction study, a randomised controlled trial to test the comparative effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of two financial incentive strategies for weight loss (goal directed vs outcome based) among low-income adults with obesity, as well as compared with the provision of health behaviour change resources alone. METHODS AND ANALYSIS:We are recruiting 795 adults, aged 18-70?years with a body mass index ?30?kg/m2, from three primary care clinics serving residents of socioeconomically disadvantaged neighbourhoods in New York City and Los Angeles. All participants receive a 1-year commercial weight loss programme membership, self-monitoring tools (bathroom scale, food journal and Fitbit Alta HR), health education and monthly check-in visits. In addition to these resources, those in the two intervention groups can earn up to $750 over 6 months for: (1) participating in an intensive weight management programme, self-monitoring weight and diet and meeting physical activity guidelines (goal-directed arm); or (2) a ?1.5%?to ?5%?reduction in baseline weight (outcome-based arm). To maximise incentive efficacy, we incorporate concepts from behavioural economics, including immediacy of payments and framing feedback to elicit regret aversion. We will use generalised mixed effect models for repeated measures to examine intervention effects on weight at 6, 9 and 12 months. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION:Human research protection committees at New York University School of Medicine, University of California Los Angeles (UCLA) David Geffen School of Medicine and Olive-View-UCLA Medical Center granted ethics approval. We will disseminate the results of this research via peer-reviewed publications, conference presentations and meetings with stakeholders. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER:NCT03157713.

Project description:Background: Household food purchasing behavior has gained interest as an intervention to improve nutrition and nutrition-associated outcomes. However, evaluating food expenditures is challenging in epidemiological studies. Assessment methods that are both valid and feasible for use among diverse, low-income populations are needed. We therefore developed a novel simple annotated receipt method to assess household food purchasing. First, we describe and evaluate the extent to which the method captures food purchasing information. We then evaluate within- and between-household variation in weekly food purchasing to determine sample sizes and the number of weeks of data needed to measure household food purchasing with adequate precision. Methods: Four weeks of food purchase receipt data were collected from 260 low-income households in the Minneapolis-St. Paul metropolitan area. The proportion of receipt line items that could not be coded into one of 11 food categories (unidentified) was calculated, and a zero-inflated negative binomial regression was used to evaluate the association between unidentified receipt items and participant characteristics and store type. Within- and between-household coefficients of variation were calculated for total food expenditures and several food categories. Results: A low proportion of receipt line items (1.6%) could not be coded into a food category and the incidence of unidentified items did not appreciably vary by participant characteristics. Weekly expenditures on foods high in added sugar had higher within- and between-household coefficients of variation than weekly fruit and vegetable expenditures. To estimate mean weekly food expenditures within 20% of the group's usual ("true") expenditures, 72 households were required. Nine weeks of data were required to achieve an r = 0.90 between observed and usual weekly food expenditures. Conclusions: The simple annotated receipt method may be a feasible tool for use in assessing food expenditures of low-income, diverse populations. Within- and between-household coefficients of variation suggest that the number of weeks of data or group sizes required to precisely estimate usual household expenditures is higher for foods high in added sugar compared to fruits and vegetables.

Project description:BackgroundRelative to plant-based foods, animal source foods (ASFs) are richer in accessible protein, iron, zinc, calcium, vitamin B-12 and other nutrients. Because of their nutritional value, particularly for childhood growth and nutrition, it is important to identify factors influencing ASF consumption, especially for poorer households that generally consume less ASFs.ObjectiveTo estimate differential responsiveness of ASF consumption to changes in total household expenditures for households with different expenditures in a middle-income country with substantial recent income increases.MethodsThe Peruvian Young Lives household panel (n = 1750) from 2002, 2006 and 2009 was used to characterize patterns of ASF expenditures. Multivariate models with controls for unobserved household fixed effects and common secular trends were used to examine nonlinear relationships between changes in household expenditures and in ASF expenditures.ResultsHouseholds with lower total expenditures dedicated greater percentages of expenditures to food (58.4% vs.17.9% in 2002 and 24.2% vs. 21.5% in 2009 for lowest and highest quintiles respectively) and lower percentages of food expenditures to ASF (22.8% vs. 33.9% in 2002 and 30.3% vs. 37.6% in 2009 for lowest and highest quintiles respectively). Average percentages of overall expenditures spent on food dropped from 47% to 23.2% between 2002 and 2009. Households in the lowest quintiles of expenditures showed greater increases in ASF expenditures relative to total consumption than households in the highest quintiles. Among ASF components, meat and poultry expenditures increased more than proportionately for households in the lowest quintiles, and eggs and fish expenditures increased less than proportionately for all households.ConclusionsIncreases in household expenditures were associated with substantial increases in consumption of ASFs for households, particularly households with lower total expenditures. Increases in ASF expenditures for all but the top quintile of households were proportionately greater than increases in total food expenditures, and proportionately less than overall expenditures.