Food Insecurity in America: A Call to Action

When 1 in 6 people in the country is living in a food insecure household, that is an outrage. A country as wealthy as ours– wealthy enough to end hunger even in hard times like those we have been experiencing– should not countenance the moral blight of hunger. Those of us who work to reduce and eventually end hunger in this country cannot succeed, however, by making moral arguments alone. What is needed in addition to move voters, policymakers and institutions to act is a strong evidence base that establishes the causes of hunger, the consequences of hunger for individuals involved, the breadth of the population affected, and the practical strategies to address hunger. The articles in this journal illuminate many of these topics while exploring the impacts of federal nutrition programs and deepening the case that economic and nutrition supports for families reduce food insecurity and mediate the impacts of poverty and food insecurity, particularly for children.

Policy analysis of shifting to the state-run Texas women's health program

During the 82nd Texas legislature, state leaders passed a provision stating that healthcare providers, who perform, promote, or affiliate with providers who perform or promote elective abortion services may not be eligible to participate in the Texas Medicaid Women's Health Program (WHP). The federal government reacted to this new provision by vowing to eliminate its 90% share of program support on the grounds that the provision violated a patient's freedom to choose a provider; a right protected by the Social Security Act. Texas leaders stated that the Women's Health Program would continue without federal support, financed exclusively with state funds.^ The following policy analysis compares the projected impact of the current Medicaid Women's Health Program to the proposed state-run program using the criteria-alternative matrix framework. The criteria used to evaluate the program alternatives include population affected, unintended pregnancy and abortion impact, impact on cervical cancer rate, and state-level government expenditures. Each criterion was defined by selected measures. The population affected was measured by the number of women served in the programs. Government expenditures were measured in terms of payments for program costs, Medicaid delivery costs, and cervical cancer diagnostic costs. Unintended pregnancy impact was measured by the number of projected unplanned pregnancies and abortions under each alternative. The impact on cervical cancer was projected in terms of the number of new cervical cancer cases under each alternative. Differences in the projections with respect to each criterion were compared to assess the impact of shifting to the state-only policy.^ After examining program alternatives, it is highly recommended that Texas retain the Medicaid WHP. If the state does decide to move forward with the state-run WHP, it is recommended that the program run at its previous capacity. Furthermore, for the purpose of addressing the relatively high cervical cancer incidence rate in Texas, incorporating HPV vaccination coverage for women ages 18-26 as part of the Women's Health Program is recommended.^