Improving food choices among Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program recipients

Improving Nutrition by Limiting Choice in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program

In contrast to the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children, the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) currently allows the purchase of almost any food. This paper reconsiders the role of two forms of limiting choice in SNAP. Using economic theory, descriptive analysis of survey data, and discussion of random assignment evaluation evidence from the Summer Electronic Benefit Transfer for Children Demonstration, the paper argues that because households can substitute cash for SNAP, banning the use of SNAP for less nutritionally desirable foods (e.g., soda, candy) is unlikely to have a large impact. By contrast, because many households currently consume so little of more nutritionally desirable foods (e.g., whole grains, fruits, and vegetables), requiring that some portion of SNAP benefits be spent on those foods is likely to improve dietary intake. Summer Electronic Benefit Transfer for Children Demonstration impact estimates are consistent with this conjecture. Furthermore, these data and evidence from the Healthy Incentives Pilot implementation suggest that such a policy can be feasibly integrated into existing operational processes.

Rewarding healthy food choices in SNAP: behavioral economic applications

CONTEXT

American obesity rates continue to escalate, but an effective policy response remains elusive. Specific changes to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) have been proposed as one way to improve nutrition and combat obesity among lower-income populations. While current SNAP proposals hold promise, some important challenges still remain.

METHODS

We discuss the four most common recommendations for changes to SNAP and their benefits and limitations. We then propose three new delivery options for SNAP that take advantage of behavioral economic insights and encourage the selection of healthy foods.

FINDINGS

Although the existing proposals could help SNAP recipients, they often do not address some important behavioral impediments to buying healthy foods. We believe that behavioral economics can be used to design alternative policies with several advantages, although we recognize and discuss some of their limitations. The first proposal rewards healthy purchases with more SNAP funds and provides an additional incentive to maintain healthier shopping patterns. The second proposal uses the opportunity to win prizes to reward healthy food choices, and the prizes further support healthier habits. The final proposal simplifies healthy food purchases by allowing individuals to commit their SNAP benefits to more nutritious selections in advance.

CONCLUSIONS

Reforming the delivery structure of SNAP's benefits could help improve nutrition, weight, and overall health of lower-income individuals. We advocate for more and diverse SNAP proposals, which should be tested and, possibly, combined. Their implementation, however, would require political will, administrative capacity, and funding.