Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program: A policy analysis of restricting foods with minimal nutritional value

In 2011, expenditures for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) reached an all-time high of $72 billion. The goal of SNAP is " to alleviate hunger and malnutrition…by increasing food purchasing power for all eligible households who apply for participation." It has been well established that proper nutrition is essential to good health, making SNAP an important program to public health consumers. Thus, this analysis examined whether SNAP is meeting its stated goal and whether the goal would be reduced if the purchase of foods of minimal nutritional value (FMNV) were restricted. ^ A review of existing literature found that SNAP has been shown to alleviate hunger, but the studies on the nutritional impact of the program were not sufficient to assert whether change is needed. When considering whether limiting FMNV would reduce or improve the effectiveness of SNAP at alleviating hunger and malnutrition, there is very little information on which to base a policy change, particular one that singles out a low income group to restrict purchases. ^ Several states have attempted to restrict the purchase of FMNV but, to date, no such change has been implemented or tested. Conducting pilot studies on the restriction of FMNV, along with better data collection on SNAP purchases, would guide policy changes to the program. Although there are many potential public health benefits to restricting FMNV purchase using SNAP dollars, research is needed to quantify the cost impact of these benefits.^

Planning, implementation, and evaluation of an HIV -screening program for pregnant women

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of an HIV-screening program at a private health-care institution where the providers were trained to counsel pregnant women about the HIV-antibody test according to the latest recommendations made by the U.S. Public Health Service (PHS) and the Texas legislature. A before-and-after study design was selected for the study. The participants were OB/GYN nurses who attended an educational program and the patients they counseled about the HIV test. Training improved the nurses' overall knowledge about the content of the program and nurses were more likely to offer the HIV test to all pregnant women regardless of their risk of infection. Still, contrary to what was predicted, the nurses did not give more information to increase the knowledge pregnant women had about HIV infection, transmission, and available treatments. Consequently, many women were not given the chance to correctly assess their risk during the counseling session and there was no evidence that knowledge would reduce the propensity of many women to deny being at risk for HIV. On the other hand, pregnant women who received prenatal care after the implementation of the HIV-screening program were more likely to be tested than women who received prenatal care before its implementation (96% vs. 48%); in turn, the likelihood that more high-risk women would be tested for HIV also increased (94% vs. 60%). There was no evidence that mandatory testing with right of refusal would deter women from being tested for HIV. When the moment comes for a woman to make her decision, other concerns are more important to her than whether the option to be tested is mandatory or not. The majority of pregnant women indicated that their main reasons for being tested were: (a) the recommendation of their health-care provider; and (b) concern about the risks to their babies. Recommending that all pregnant women be tested regardless of their risk of infection, together with making the HIV test readily available to all women, are probably the two best ways of increasing the patients' participation in an HIV-screening program for pregnant women. ^