Home > Promising Practices > Examining Health Care Costs Among MANNA Clients and a Comparison Group

Examining Health Care Costs Among MANNA Clients and a Comparison Group

An Evidence-Based Practice

Description

Chronically ill patients have a strong need for public health services, including nutrition services, to aid in disease management and improve health outcomes. Evidence suggests that adequate nutrition in chronically ill patients has far-reaching implications on health status and health care costs for those individuals.
The MANNA Model combines meal delivery with personalized nutrition education for individuals with serious, chronic illness. Through this program, clients receive 21 medically tailored, home-delivered meals per week coupled with nutrition counseling by registered dietitians.

This program is a non-profit organization. About 35% of clients are covered by insurance, which reimburses MANNA for providing their services. Other costs are funded by support from individuals, corporations, and special fundraising events.

Goal / Mission

MANNA uses nutrition to improve health for people with serious illnesses who need nourishment to heal. By providing medically tailored meals and nutrition education, we empower people to improve their health and quality of life.

Impact

MANNA members report significant health care cost reductions due to improved health.

Results / Accomplishments

A retrospective pilot study in the greater Philadelphia area explored the health care expenditures of 65 MANNA clients compared to a similar group of Medicaid patients who did not receive MANNA services. The intervention group consisted of MANNA clients receiving 3 free, delivered, nutritionally balanced meals a day. They also received medical nutrition therapy, including nutrition counseling and meal planning, from registered dietitians. This group was compared to Medicaid recipients with similar overall characteristics (comparison group). Outcomes were examined for 6 months before meal delivery and the first 6 months of receiving meals. The intervention group, compared to matched comparison group, had significantly lower overall average monthly health care costs ($28,268 vs. $40,906, p<0.05).
The intervention group, compared to matched comparison group, had significantly fewer mean monthly inpatient visits (0.2 vs. 0.4, p<0.05), shorter length of inpatient stays (10.7 days vs. 17.1 days, p<0.05), and lower mean monthly inpatient costs ($132,441 vs. $219,639, p<0.05).

About this Promising Practice

Organization(s)
Metropolitan Area Neighborhood Alliance (MANNA)
Primary Contact
Nicole Laverty
Nlaverty@mannapa.org
https://www.mannapa.org/about/staff-directory/
Topics
Health / Physical Activity
Organization(s)
Metropolitan Area Neighborhood Alliance (MANNA)
Source
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/2150131913490737
For more details
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/2150...
https://www.mannapa.org/food-is-medicine/research/
Additional Audience
Medicaid Members with Chronic Diseases

Related Promising Practices

  1. A Matter of Balance
  2. A Text Message-Based Intervention for Weight Loss
  3. Active Choices
  4. Activity Bursts in the Classroom (ABC) Fitness Program
  5. Athletes Targeting Healthy Exercise & Nutrition Alternatives (ATHENA)
  6. Availability and Consumption of Drinking Water in Middle Schools: A Pilot Study

More

Related Content for: Examining Health Care Costs Among MANNA Clients and a Comparison Group

An Evidence-Based Practice meets the following HCI criteria:

  1. The program description includes at a minimum: the sponsoring organization, program goals, program implementation steps, and outcomes that have demonstrated program success in achieving the program goal in one or more localities.
  2. The results from an evaluation of the program include quantitative measures showing improvement in the outcome(s) of interest after the implementation of the program (i.e. increase in smoking cessation, not just the delivery of a smoking cessation program). The outcome measure(s) is/are compared at relevant time periods before and after the intervention or program implementation. Alternatively, the evaluation study compares the outcome(s) between an intervention group and an appropriate control group.
  3. The study is of peer-review quality and presents numbers in a scientific manner; measurements of precision and reliability are included (e.g. confidence intervals, standard errors), results from statistical tests show a significant difference or change in the outcome measure(s), and relevant point estimates and p-values are presented. Note: if the results from an evaluation of a program are presented in a scientific manner and the outcome measure is improved compared to the baseline measurement or the control group but the difference is not statistically significant, the practice is classified as effective and not evidence-based.
Santa Cruz