Objective: To examine associations between sociodemographic and mental health characteristics with household risk for food insecurity during the COVID-19 outbreak. Design: Cross-sectional online survey analyzed using univariable tests and a multivariable logistic regression model. Setting: The United States during the week of March 30, 2020. Participants: Convenience sample of 1,965 American adults using Amazon’s Mechanical Turk (MTurk) platform. Participants reporting household food insecurity prior to the pandemic were excluded from analyses. Results: 1,250 participants reported household food security before the COVID-19 outbreak. Among this subset, 41% were identified as at risk for food insecurity after COVID-19, 55% were women and 73% were white. On multivariable analysis, race, income, relationship status, living situation, anxiety, and depression were significantly associated with incident risk for food insecurity. Black, Asian, and Hispanic/Latino respondents, respondents with annual income less than $100,000, and those living with children or others were significantly more likely to be newly at risk for food insecurity. Individuals at risk for food insecurity were 2.60 (95% CI 1.91-3.55) times more likely to screen positively for anxiety and 1.71 (95% CI 1.21-2.42) times more likely to screen positively for depression. Conclusions: Increased risk for food insecurity during the COVID-19 pandemic is common, and certain populations are particularly vulnerable. There are strong associations between being at risk for food insecurity and anxiety/depression. Interventions to increase access to healthful foods, especially among minority and low-income individuals, and ease the socioemotional effects of the outbreak are crucial to relieving the economic stress of this pandemic.

No abstract

Background: The Food and Drug Administration has approved several pharmacotherapies for the treatment of obesity. This study assesses the cost-effectiveness of six pharmacotherapies and lifestyle intervention for people with mild obesity (body mass indices [BMIs] 30 to 35). Methods: A microsimulation model was constructed to compare seven weight loss strategies plus no treatment: intensive lifestyle intervention, orlistat, phentermine, phentermine/topiramate, lorcaserin, liraglutide, and semaglutide. Weight loss, quality-of-life scores, and costs were estimated using clinical trials and other published literature. Endpoints included costs, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) with a willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of $100 000/QALY. Results were analysed at 1-, 3-, and 5-year time horizons.Results: At each of the three follow-up periods, phentermine was the costeffective strategy, with ICERs of $46 258/QALY, $20 157/QALY, and $17 880/QALY after 1, 3, and 5 years, respectively. Semaglutide was the most effective strategy in the 3-and 5-year time horizons, with total QALYs of 2.224 and 3.711, respectively. However, the ICERs were prohibitively high at $1 437 340/QALY after 3 years and $576 931/QALY after 5 years. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses indicated these results were robust. Conclusions:Phentermine is the cost-effective pharmacologic weight-loss strategy.Although semaglutide is the most effective, it is not cost-effective because of its high price.This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

No abstract

The Food Compass is a nutrient profiling system (NPS) to characterize the healthfulness of diverse foods, beverages and meals. In a nationally representative cohort of 47,999 U.S. adults, we validated a person’s individual Food Compass Score (i.FCS), ranging from 1 (least healthful) to 100 (most healthful) based on cumulative scores of items consumed, against: (a) the Healthy Eating Index (HEI) 2015; (b) clinical risk factors and health conditions; and (c) all-cause mortality. Nationally, the mean (SD) of i.FCS was 35.5 (10.9). i.FCS correlated highly with HEI-2015 (R = 0.81). After multivariable-adjustment, each one SD (10.9 point) higher i.FCS associated with more favorable BMI (−0.60 kg/m2 [−0.70,−0.51]), systolic blood pressure (−0.69 mmHg [−0.91,−0.48]), diastolic blood pressure (−0.49 mmHg [−0.66,−0.32]), LDL-C (−2.01 mg/dl [−2.63,−1.40]), HDL-C (1.65 mg/d [1.44,1.85]), HbA1c (−0.02% [−0.03,−0.01]), and fasting plasma glucose (−0.44 mg/dL [−0.74,−0.15]); lower prevalence of metabolic syndrome (OR = 0.85 [0.82,0.88]), CVD (0.92 [0.88,0.96]), cancer (0.95 [0.91,0.99]), and lung disease (0.92 [0.88,0.96]); and higher prevalence of optimal cardiometabolic health (1.24 [1.16,1.32]). i.FCS also associated with lower all-cause mortality (HR = 0.93 [0.89,0.96]). Findings were similar by age, sex, race/ethnicity, education, income, and BMI. These findings support validity of Food Compass as a tool to guide public health and private sector strategies to identify and encourage healthier eating.

ImportanceMedically 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.ObjectiveTo 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 ParticipantsIn 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.InterventionsTen nutritionally tailored MTMs per week for a mean of 8 months in each year of intervention.Main Outcomes and MeasuresThe 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.ResultsAt 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 RelevanceThe 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.

IMPORTANCE Bariatric surgery is recommended for patients with severe obesity (body mass index Ն40) and type 2 diabetes (T2D). However, the most cost-effective treatment remains unclear and may depend on the patient's T2D severity. OBJECTIVETo estimate the cost-effectiveness of medical therapy, sleeve gastrectomy (SG), and Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) among patients with severe obesity and T2D, stratified by T2D severity. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS This economic evaluation used a microsimulation model to project health and cost outcomes of medical therapy, SG, and RYGB over 5 years. Time horizons varied between 10 and 30 years in sensitivity analyses. Model inputs were derived from clinical trials, large cohort studies, national databases, and published literature. Probabilistic sampling of model inputs accounted for parameter uncertainty. Estimates of US adults with severe obesity and T2D were derived from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey. Data analysis was performed from January 2020 to August 2021. EXPOSURES Medical therapy, SG, and RYGB. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURESQuality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), costs (in 2020 US dollars), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were projected, with future cost and QALYs discounted 3.0% annually. A strategy was deemed cost-effective if the ICER was less than $100 000 per QALY. The preferred strategy resulted in the greatest number of QALYs gained while being costeffective. RESULTSThe model simulated 1000 cohorts of 10 000 patients, of whom 16% had mild T2D, 56% had moderate T2D, and 28% had severe T2D at baseline. The mean age of simulated patients was 54.6 years (95% CI, 54.2-55.0 years), 61.6% (95% CI, 60.1%-63.4%) were female, and 65.1% (95% CI, 63.6%-66.7%) were non-Hispanic White.

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.