Faculty Bibliography

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: Obesity is a major public health threat and policies aimed at curbing this epidemic are emerging. National calorie labeling legislation is forthcoming and requires rigorous evaluation to examine its impact on consumers. The purpose of this study was to examine whether point-of-purchase calorie labels in New York City (NYC) chain restaurants affected food purchasing patterns in a sample of lower income adults in NYC and Newark, NJ. METHODS: This study utilized a difference-in-difference design to survey 1,170 adult patrons of four popular chain restaurants in NYC and Newark, NJ (which did not introduce labeling) before and after calorie labeling was implemented in NYC. Receipt data were collected and analyzed to examine food and beverage purchases and frequency of fast food consumption. Descriptive statistics were generated, and linear and logistic regression, difference-in-difference analysis, and predicted probabilities were used to analyze the data. RESULTS: A difference-in-difference analysis revealed no significant favorable differences and some unfavorable differences in food purchasing patterns and frequency of fast food consumption between adult patrons of fast food restaurants in NYC and Newark, NJ. Adults in NYC who reported noticing and using the calorie labels consumed fast food less frequently compared to adults who did not notice the labels (4.9 vs. 6.6 meals per week, p <0.05). CONCLUSION: While no favorable differences in purchasing as a result of labeling were noted, self-reported use of calorie labels was associated with some favorable behavioral patterns in a subset of adults in NYC. However, overall impact of the legislation may be limited. More research is needed to understand the most effective way to deliver calorie information to consumers

Objective:Obesity is an enormous public health problem and children have been particularly highlighted for intervention. Of notable concern is the fast-food consumption of children . However, we know very little about how children or their parents make fast-food choices, including how they respond to mandatory calorie labeling. We examined children's and adolescents' fast-food choice and the influence of calorie labels in low-income communities in New York City (NYC) and in a comparison city (Newark, NJ).Design:Natural experiment: Survey and receipt data were collected from low-income areas in NYC, and Newark, NJ (as a comparison city), before and after mandatory labeling began in NYC. Study restaurants included four of the largest chains located in NYC and Newark: McDonald's, Burger King, Wendy's and Kentucky Fried Chicken.Subjects:A total of 349 children and adolescents aged 1-17 years who visited the restaurants with their parents (69%) or alone (31%) before or after labeling was introduced. In total, 90% were from racial or ethnic minority groups.Results:We found no statistically significant differences in calories purchased before and after labeling; many adolescents reported noticing calorie labels after their introduction (57% in NYC) and a few considered the information when ordering (9%). Approximately 35% of adolescents ate fast food six or more times per week and 72% of adolescents reported that taste was the most important factor in their meal selection. Adolescents in our sample reported that parents have some influence on their meal selection.Conclusions:Adolescents in low-income communities notice calorie information at similar rates as adults, although they report being slightly less responsive to it than adults. We did not find evidence that labeling influenced adolescent food choice or parental food choices for children in this population

We examined the influence of menu calorie labels on fast food choices in the wake of New York City's labeling mandate. Receipts and survey responses were collected from 1,156 adults at fast-food restaurants in low-income, minority New York communities. These were compared to a sample in Newark, New Jersey, a city that had not introduced menu labeling. We found that 27.7 percent who saw calorie labeling in New York said the information influenced their choices. However, we did not detect a change in calories purchased after the introduction of calorie labeling. We encourage more research on menu labeling and greater attention to evaluating and implementing other obesity-related policies

CONTEXT: American health policy is increasingly relying on consumerism to improve its performance. This article examines a neglected aspect of medical consumerism: the extent to which consumers respond to problems with their health plans. METHODS: Using a telephone survey of five thousand consumers conducted in 2002, this article assesses how frequently consumers voice formal grievances or exit from their health plan in response to problems of differing severity. This article also examines the potential impact of this responsiveness on both individuals and the market. In addition, using cross-group comparisons of means and regressions, it looks at how the responses of 'empowered' consumers compared with those who are 'less empowered.' FINDINGS: The vast majority of consumers do not formally voice their complaints or exit health plans, even in response to problems with significant consequences. 'Empowered' consumers are only minimally more likely to formally voice and no more likely to leave their plan. Moreover, given the greater prevalence of trivial problems, consumers are much more likely to complain or leave their plans because of problems that are not severe. Greater empowerment does not alleviate this. CONCLUSIONS: While much of the attention on consumerism has focused on prospective choice, understanding how consumers respond to problems is equally, if not more, important. Relying on consumers' responses as a means to protect individual consumers or influence the market for health plans is unlikely to be successful in its current form

Research Objective: For a subset of fee-for-service Medicaid patients with frequent hospital admissions, contact with the health care system remains acute and episodic at high cost to Medicaid, while less costly outpatient primary and preventive care services are underutilized. Previous work validated the accuracy of a predictive case-finding algorithm to identify complex Medicaid patients at risk for future high costs who might benefit from more intensive services, and identified remediable risk factors such as substance use, homelessness, and lack of social support associated with frequent hospital admissions. We aimed to pilot an intervention for a limited number of high-cost patients to address unmet health and social needs in both the hospital and community, to improve care while reducing hospital admissions and associated costs in this population. Our intention was to expand the program based on pilot success. Study Design: Community and hospital-based care management intervention with process and implementation evaluation, and pre-post cost analysis. Eligible patients were offered intervention enrollment during an admission to an urban public hospital. Patients underwent in-depth psychosocial interviews by study social workers to identify immediate and long-term needs such as housing, primary care, transportation to and advocacy during appointments, medication management, entitlements enrollment, improved connections to psychiatric and substance use treatment, and home visits. Patients who met criteria for chronic homelessness were evaluated in-hospital by a community-housing partner who initiated housing applications based on a housing first model. Pre-paid cell phones were provided to patients when needed to maintain close contact with study staff for reminder calls and crisis management. Study staff worked closely with inpatient providers to facilitate appropriate discharge planning and follow-up. Population Studied: Consecutive English-speaking Medicaid fee-for-service patients aged 18-64 identified as high-cost and high-risk for readmission in the following 12 months by a validated predictive case-finding algorithm. Principal Findings: Over the past year, 19 patients have enrolled. 100% are male. 17/19 were chronic substance users at enrollment. 5/19 were lost to follow-up. Of the remaining patients, 8 met criteria for chronic homelessness that would facilitate expedited placement into permanent housing. Of these 8, 2 were placed in nursing homes and 2 died. The remaining 4 chronically homeless patients are now in transitional or permanent housing. Hospitalizations and ED visits have decreased, while establishment of an outpatient medical home has increased. Comparing the 9-12 months after the intervention to the 12 months before intervention revealed a decrease in average monthly inpatient Medicaid costs per patient ranging from $1205-$2881. This resulted in an average annual inpatient cost reduction from $14,464 to $34,568.52. Prior research indicates without intervention, Medicaid costs for these patients in the following 12 months will increase. Conclusion: A pilot intervention to improve care for medically, socially complex high-cost Medicaid patients shows savings to Medicaid and decreased hospitalizations and ED visits by addressing issues that are challenging for the traditional health care system to manage. Implications for Policy, Delivery or Practice: Our model will be expanded to serve a greater number of patients across additional hospitals to determine if the success of our pilot can be replicated, and will include a more detailed cost analysis. Funding Source(s): The United Hospital Fund