CHLPI Blog

Missed our Food Recovery Entrepreneurs Webinar Series? Watch them all here!

We are excited to share all of the webinars from our Food Recovery Entrepreneurs webinar series, which addressed some of the most pressing issues and ideas in the food recovery space, including policy, behavior change, strategic partnerships, farm surplus management, and technology. This webinar series was hosted by the Food Law and Policy Clinic of Harvard Law School (FLPC) and the Food Recovery Entrepreneurs Workshop Steering Committee, which was founded after the 2016 Food Recovery Entrepreneurs Workshop, and is made up of the following members:

These webinars feature engaging speakers from a variety of innovative food recovery organizations, valuable insights into strategies developed, lessons learned, and partnerships formed.

Watch (or re-watch) the webinars.

Keep an eye out for more news about this year’s Innovators Workshop!

Health Care Largely ‘Wins’ in Latest Budget Deal, Analysts, Medical Societies Say

Originally published by Healio on February 12, 2018. Written by Janel Miller.

Health care policy analysts and medical societies are applauding the budget agreement signed last week by President Donald Trump, citing financial support in several critical areas.

“The recent compromise budget bill is largely a win for physicians and health care more broadly,” Philip A. Verhoef, PhD, MD, FAAP, FACP, assistant professor of medicine and pediatrics, University of Chicago, told Healio Family Medicine.

The plan provides the Childrens’ Health Insurance Program, or CHIP, with a total of 10 years of funding, which is 5 years longer than a previous agreement; NIH with $1 billion in funding each year for the next 2 years; states with funding to combat the opioid crisis, renovate and expand Veterans’ Administration hospitals and clinics; and 2 years of funding for community health centers and National Health Service Corps Program funding for 2 years, according to Verhoef.

Another health care policy expert agreed that the bill, which received bipartisan support, is a meaningful one.

“Tucked into the continuing resolution is the most significant piece of health care legislation to pass since the 21st Century Cures Act was enacted in December 2016,” Pari Mody, associate of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP, told Healio Family Medicine. “The bill includes several changes that will impact health care providers, including many that providers should count as wins.”

She said this includes the retroactive, 2-year delay of the Medicaid disproportionate share hospital payment reduction that went into effect at the end of September, the aforementioned CHIP funding extension, and many more components.

“The [continuing resolution] also includes purported technical changes to the Quality Payment Program, which were backed by physician associations. Significantly, beginning in 2019, this section makes clear that the Merit-based Incentive Payment (MIPS) score adjustment is limited to ‘covered professional services,’ and excludes Part B drug payments,” she said in the interview. “Other wins in the bill include a temporary, transitional payment system for home infusion therapy services, expansion of telehealth under the Medicare program, funding for community health centers, and permanent repeal of the Medicare therapy cap.”

Both Verhoef and Mody had several caveats regarding the bill.

“Although there is a lot for providers to be happy about … it’s not all good news,” Mody said. “[The resolution] decreases the Medicare Physician Fee Schedule conversion factor for 2019 and reduces funding to the Prevention and Public Health Fund, which was established under the Affordable Care Act to provide sustained, mandatory public health funding.”

Robert Greenwald, JD, clinical professor of law and faculty director of the Center for Health Law and Policy Innovation at Harvard Law School, told Healio Family Medicine, “Now that an agreement has been reached, certain vital health programs are safe for the time being. The Children’s Health Insurance Program, which covers over 9 million children, is funded until 2027 and Community Health Centers, which serve the health needs of our nation’s most vulnerable, are funded for the next two years. Going forward, we must continue to prioritize programs that promote and secure the health of U.S individuals and families.”

 

Read the rest of the article at healio.com.

 

What Medicaid Work Requirements Might Mean for People With HIV

Originally published by The Body on February 8, 2018. Written by Tim Murphy.

Have you heard that the Trump administration has told states to go ahead and request approval to add work requirements to Medicaid coverage? And that Indiana and Kentucky have already received approval from the feds to do so?

Meanwhile, Utah, Arizona, Kansas, Arkansas, Wisconsin, North Carolina, New Hampshire, and Maine are awaiting their approvals, while Alabama, Idaho, and South Dakota are considering putting in waivers for approval.

Yep. Welcome to Medicaid in the Trump/GOP era, when the goal of the federal government is not to extend program coverage to as many people as possible — as it was under Obama, whose Affordable Care Act urged states to dramatically expand income eligibility requirements for the program — but to deny it from as many as possible.

Case in point: Indiana’s been allowed to kick people off Medicaid for three months if they don’t file their paperwork on time. And it’s not the only state seeking the ability to do stuff like that. The administrator of the Centers for Medicaid & Medicare Services (CMS) under Trump, Seema Verma, was the architect of Kentucky’s waiver application, as well as Indiana’s Medicaid policy, initiated under former governor, now vice president, Mike Pence.

But before HIV-positive folks on Medicaid panic too much, let’s note a few things. First, most people on Medicaid either already do work or are disabled, and even the not-so-compassionate Trump administration directs states to exempt from the work requirement Medicaid recipients who are “medically frail,” although that term is not defined.

“We would like [the Trump administration] to be clear that ‘medically frail’ always includes people with HIV and hepatitis,” says Carl Schmid, deputy executive director for the national advocacy group The AIDS Institute.

Second, some states, including Kentucky and Indiana, fortunately include HIV in their definition of “medical frailty.” So, if you are an HIV-positive resident of one of these states and truly cannot work because of physical or mental illness, you’re not going to be automatically kicked off your Medicaid because of it.

Third, the administration guides states to exempt pregnant women, those with mental health and substance issues including opioid addiction, primary caregivers of dependents, full-time students, and some other groups from the work requirement.

Nonetheless, notes Phil Waters at Harvard Law’s Center for Health Law and Policy Innovation, “Even if people living with HIV are formally exempt from the requirement, the complexity involved with tracking and administering an exemption almost guarantees mistakes will be made and folks will end up punished.”

In late January, 15 Medicaid recipients in Kentucky filed suit against the work requirement, saying that it violates federal laws, such as the Administrative Procedure Act, as well as the constitutional requirement that presidents “take care that the laws be faithfully executed.”

Said MaryBeth Musumeci, who tracks Medicaid for the Kaiser Family Foundation, “Everyone will be closely watching this litigation.”

Also, in late January, dozens of AIDS organizations around the country (under the umbrella of the Federal AIDS Policy Partnership) sent the Trump administration a letter opposing Medicaid work requirements.

“The Medicaid program is a critical source of health coverage for life-saving care and treatment for people living with HIV,” the letter read. “More than 40% of people living with HIV in care count on the Medicaid program for treatment that keeps them healthy and productive. Ensuring uninterrupted access to effective HIV care and treatment is important both to the health of people living with HIV and to public health.”

“When HIV is effectively managed,” the letter continues, “the risk of transmitting the virus drops to near zero. This guidance from CMS encouraging states to condition receipt of medically necessary care on satisfying a work requirement threatens to reverse the progress we have made in providing early access to prevention, care, and treatment to people living with HIV.”

In states that have requested the feds for a Medicaid work requirement, HIV/AIDS advocates are nervous. “We’re one of the states that didn’t fully expand Medicaid under Obamacare, so we already have limited services,” says Stan Penfold, executive director of the Utah AIDS Foundation. Utah, he said, already has a rule providing that those who don’t recertify for Medicaid annually within 30 days get temporarily thrown off the program. Plus, he says, the state’s very narrow Medicaid expansion doesn’t cover single, childless men — which often includes gay men, the group with the highest HIV rates.

“What’s most alarming to me,” says Bill Keeton of the AIDS Resource Center of Wisconsin, “is that we’ve done a good job here from a cost perspective. We’ve saved more than $4 million a year because we make sure our HIV-positive Medicaid patients get comprehensive care. Ninety percent of our patients are achieving viral suppression. Now, you’re going to throw that programming into limbo by creating six-month gaps in eligibility for folks struggling to find jobs? They’re going to get sick, and costs are going to go up. They’re going to go on ADAP” — the AIDS Drug Assistance Program, the federal/state health payer of last resort for people with HIV/AIDS –“and all you’ve done is shift costs back from one program to another.”

Work requirements and enrollment lockouts are part of a pattern by many states — now encouraged by the Trump administration — to find ways of making it harder for people to stay on Medicaid. Kentucky, for example, is among several states allowed to charge Medicaid recipients a modest monthly premium. It was just allowed to raise that premium to 4% of one’s income — the highest bump ever approved by the feds. That means that someone whose monthly income is about $1400 could end up paying $40 a month for Medicaid. And failure to pay triggers being kicked off the program for up to six months. Indiana Medicaid recipients also pay a premium for coverage.

If you’re an HIV-positive Medicaid recipient in a state requesting work or other restrictive waivers, what can you do? Start by reaching out to your local AIDS or health advocacy organization to see whether there’s a grassroots effort to get your state to undo — or at least to soften the terms of — the request. But what if there isn’t? Then, consider starting one yourself. All it takes is a concentrated flow of visits, calls, and even tweets to your state Medicaid office — or to elected state officials with clout. Help them understand the ways in which such seemingly modest cuts could severely hurt the state’s overall public health.

In Indiana, for example, last year, 25,000 people lost Medicaid coverage due to a failure to pay their premium. That’s a lot of people in one state suddenly without health care.

Introducing new logos for CHLPI, HLPC, & FLPC

Notice anything different at chlpi.org?

 Today we have launched new logos for the Center for Health Law and Policy Innovation (CHLPI) of Harvard Law School and its two clinics – the Food Law and Policy Clinic (FLPC) and the Health Law and Policy Clinic (HLPC). We believe the new coordinated looks represent who we are: leaders and innovators in the space of health and food law and policy, both individually and collectively. Check out our new logos below!

 

 

Amazon, Berkshire Hathaway, JPMorgan Chase to Form New Health Care Company for Employees

Originally published by healio.com on January 30, 2018. Written by Andy Polhamus.

Amazon, along with Berkshire Hathaway and JPMorgan Chase, will form an independent health care company for their employees in the United States, the three companies have announced. In an announcement short on specific details but long on ambitious goals geared toward reducing employee health care costs, leaders described the new venture as “free from profit-making incentives and constraints.”

“The ballooning costs of health care act as a hungry tapeworm on the American economy. Our group does not come to this problem with answers. But we also do not accept it as inevitable,” Warren Buffett, Berkshire Hathaway Chairman and CEO, said in a press release. “Rather, we share the belief that putting our collective resources behind the country’s best talent can, in time, check the rise in health costs while concurrently enhancing patient satisfaction and outcomes.”

The new company, the name of which has not yet been announced, will promote “technology solutions” to provide employees of Amazon, Berkshire Hathaway and JPMorgan Chase who live in the U.S. with “simplified, high-quality and transparent health care at a reasonable cost,” per the press release.

“The health care system is complex, and we enter into this challenge open-eyed about the degree of difficulty,” Jeff Bezos, Amazon’s founder and CEO, said in the announcement. “Hard as it might be, reducing health care’s burden on the economy while improving outcomes for employees and their families would be worth the effort. Success is going to require talented experts, a beginner’s mind, and a long-term orientation.”

Details about the new company’s management and operations are still forthcoming.

It was not immediately clear what changes the partnership could bring to the industry. However, Jamie Dimon, chairman and CEO of JPMorgan Chase, hinted in a statement that coverage might eventually extend beyond patients employed by the three founding businesses. “Our people want transparency, knowledge and control when it comes to managing their health care,” Dimon said in the prepared statement. “The three of our companies have extraordinary resources, and our goal is to create solutions that benefit our U.S. employees, their families and, potentially, all Americans.”

Changing the outlook on U.S. health care

In a statement emailed to Healio.com, Robert Greenwald, faculty director of the Center for Health Law and Policy Innovation and professor at Harvard Law School, said the venture pointed to a systemic issue with American health care.

“We have failed as a nation to produce a health care delivery system that affords comprehensive health coverage to everybody, Greenwald wrote. “Seeing the increased need to take action due to recent efforts to sabotage the health care system, these companies have stepped up to cut costs and hopefully provide better care to their employees.”

Greenwald also questioned how much the private sector should influence health care.

“While these companies are moving forward with a progressive and well-intended idea, other businesses often make decisions that put profits over people,” he said.

Memo Diriker, PhD, MBA, DBA, Director of the Business, Economic, and Community Outreach Network (BEACON), Franklin P. Perdue School of Business at Salisbury University, pointed out that the U.S. is the only industrialized country to rely heavily on for-profit medical insurance.

“The proposed company does not have a profit motive. That alone is a game changer,” he said. “In addition, since the founding principle of the proposed company is to reduce costs, the impact on overall health care costs is bound to be positive. Finally, if this initiative leads to price competition in the broader health insurance market, consumers win.”

Further, Diriker added, a model that is not profit-based could change the relationship between insurance companies and clinicians. “Health care providers have a very difficult relationship with insurance companies,” he said. “Frequently, they may find that they have different objectives when it comes to what happens with a patient’s care plan. If the proposed company does not have a profit motive, and if the objective is funding evidence-based high reliability care, this too will be a game changer.”

As for whether the idea would spread to other large companies, he said, “it all depends on how this initiative fares in the marketplace. “If costs indeed come down, the floodgates could open.”

 

Study: Montana Program Fails Hepatitis C Patients

Published by the Bozeman Daily Chronicle on Thursday, January 25, 2018. Written by 

Montana’s Medicaid program requirements are blocking hepatitis C patients from treatment, according to a national report released recently. An estimated 15,000 people in the state are living with hepatitis C, according to the National Viral Hepatitis Roundtable. The illness kills more people in the U.S. than any other infectious disease.

The report, Hepatitis C: State of Medicaid Access — created by the roundtable and the Center for Health Law and Policy Innovation of Harvard Law School — grades all 50 state Medicaid programs according to access to treatments for the disease.

Montana received a failing grade for “imposing discriminatory restrictions on hepatitis C cures,” according to the report. Dr. Ray Geyer, an infectious disease specialist based in Great Falls, said he hopes that grade provokes the state to lift its restrictions
“Montana’s ‘F’ grade comes as no surprise to those of us who’ve seen first-hand the hoops our state’s Medicaid patients must jump through to access a cure for hepatitis C,” Geyer said.

Montana’s program, Passport to Health, requires hepatitis C patients to demonstrate severe liver damage, six months of sobriety and a prescription from a specialist — which can be costly and difficult to find — before they can access treatment. According to the report, more than 1,000 cases of hepatitis C are reported in Montana every year, many from the baby boomer generation. Not every person diagnosed relies on Medicaid for coverage.

Jon Ebelt, a spokesperson with the state health department, said since 2014, Montana has approved 266 requests for Medicaid coverage of hepatitis C treatment.

Sheila Hogan, the director of Montana’s state health department, said in a statement Thursday afternoon that the high cost of prescriptions drugs, like medications for hepatitis C, is one of the major hurdles to deliver health care. “This challenge is reflected in the grade Montana and more than half of the states in this report received. If prescription drug costs were lower, more Montanans could get this treatment for Hepatitis C,” Hogan said. Montana was one of five places marked with a failing grade.

Dr. Mark Winton, an infectious disease specialist with Bozeman Health, said the state’s fibrosis score system isn’t “in line with current medical practices.” “Anything that delays treatment increases the risk of complications,” he said.

Robert Greenwald, clinical professor of law at Harvard Law School and the director of the school’s health law center, agreed that the state’s rules around patient sobriety is “medically unfounded” and said it puts others at risk. “Even though the opioid crisis is exacerbating the hepatitis C epidemic, Montana is preventing patients who have used drugs in the past six months, the population most likely to spread this highly communicable disease, from accessing a cure,” Greenwald said.

The report authors call for Montana to remove its restrictions around liver damage, sobriety and where patients have to go for prescriptions. They also ask the state to maintain transparency around criteria of hepatitis coverage.

Ryan Clary, the executive director of the roundtable, said without those steps few people with hepatitis C have access to treatment. “Connecting Medicaid recipients with a cure is vital to stopping this life-threatening virus from wreaking havoc on Montanans and Americans,” Clary said. “Our hope with this project is for states with failing grades like Montana to see how they compare and to take steps to ensure all hepatitis C patients have access to effective treatment.”

 

Bipartisan Nutrition Group Kicks Off in House

Originally published by politico.com on Wednesday, January 25, 2018. Written by Helena Bottemiller Evich.

A small bipartisan working group focused on using nutrition to improve the nation’s health formally launched in the House on Wednesday, just in time for the 2018 farm bill cycle.

The Food is Medicine Working Group, which is part of the House Hunger Caucus, is led by a mix of New England Democrats and Kansas Republicans: Reps. Jim McGovern (D-Mass.), Lynn Jenkins (R-Kan.), Chellie Pingree (D-Maine) and Roger Marshall (R-Kan.). The group aims to emphasize the link between nutrition programs and health outcomes — a small step toward better aligning agriculture and health policy.

“My hope for this working group is that we’re able to explore our nation’s anti-hunger safety net and to discuss ways to make it even better,” McGovern said Wednesday at a standing-room-only briefing on Capitol Hill.

McGovern listed several policies the group might take up, including incentivizing the purchase of fruits and vegetables, bolstering Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program education, looking at “medically tailored” meals to help people fight disease, and exploring programs that allow doctors to give their patients prescriptions for produce instead of pharmaceutical drugs.

“Our hope that this working group is going to be about more than just talk, it’s going to be about action,” McGovern said. “There really are areas where Democrats and Republicans can come together on this issue of ‘food is medicine.’ We have a farm bill coming up and we have other legislative vehicles coming up where I hope that, in a bipartisan way, we can present some suggestions.”

Staff on both sides of the aisle attended the briefing, along with food and ag policy leaders from Tufts University, the George Washington University Food Institute, Harvard Law School, Feeding America, the Partnership for a Healthier America and the food industry. It was notable in its overarching theme of bipartisanship.

Marshall, a conservative, heaped praise on McGovern and touted their friendship. “You have personified what civility looks like to me,” Marshall said. “If anything, we agree on the same goals, the same objectives: that we don’t want any kids going to bed hungry at night, we want to make sure the elderly have access to nutrition — truly, food is health. Sometimes we may disagree on how we get there, but we certainly agree on the goals and objectives, and I appreciate your leadership.”

Marshall, an OB-GYN who said he’s delivered an average of one baby per day over the course of his career, went on to talk about the importance of proper nutrition for pregnant women, offering strong praise for the WIC program, which supports pregnant women, infants and young children.

“Of all the programs that I’ve seen work great at the federal and state level, in the real world, both WIC and [the Maternal & Infant Care Program] do a great job of helping educate women of what they should be eating,” he said. 

 

 

Medicaid Program Under Siege

Published by Health Affairs Blog on Thursday, January 18, 2018. Written by Robert Greenwald, Faculty Director for CHLPI and Judith Solomon, Vice President for Health Policy at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.

For more than 50 years, Medicaid has been our nation’s health care safety net. Medicaid allows our lowest-income, sickest, and often most vulnerable populations to get care and treatment, and supports the health of more than 68 million Americans today. As an entitlement program, Medicaid grows to meet demand: There is no such thing as a waiting list. This vital health program found itself under fire in 2017, and while there were no major reductions in funding or enrollment, it is far from safe in 2018. Whether by new legislation or actions the Trump administration may take, the threats to Medicaid are not going away anytime soon.

Congressional Threats To Medicaid’s Expansion, Structure, And Funding

Throughout 2017, Republicans tried unsuccessfully to roll back the Affordable Care Act (ACA), including the law’s expansion of Medicaid. Underpinning each effort was the oft-stated belief, held by Republican leadership, that the expansion was a disastrous move that extended coverage to more than 12 million able-bodied people who should not be getting health insurance from the government. While these unsuccessful efforts were commonly referred to as attempts to “repeal and replace the ACA,” every bill that gained any traction in 2017 went far beyond repealing only the ACA’s Medicaid expansion. The proposals also included plans to fundamentally alter the way in which the traditional Medicaid program is structured and paid for.

Medicaid is a partnership between each state and the federal government. Both pay a share of the cost of caring for a state’s enrollees. Under this system, as a state’s costs rise, the federal government’s contribution grows to keep pace. Each of the major “repeal and replace” bills advanced in 2017 would have turned away from this longstanding partnership and placed a cap on the federal government’s contribution.

Under these proposals, once the federal funding cap was reached any further costs of providing Medicaid-based care would be solely borne by the state. Capped funding inherently shifts responsibilities for financing Medicaid to states, particularly if the amount of funding allocated is insufficient. It represents an enormous shift away from a strong federal-state partnership. Capped funding dramatically reduces states’ capacity to respond to unexpected Medicaid program costs, such as those created by economic downturns, natural disasters, and public health epidemics. States are required to have balanced budgets, unlike the federal government, and will likely need to cut funding at the time when people need Medicaid the most.

What we have seen from congressional proposals in 2017, and will likely continue to see in the year ahead, is that each major capped funding proposal cut hundreds of billions in federal funding from the Medicaid program over time. These plans promise “additional flexibility” for states to better serve their particular beneficiaries. However, what is clear is that the only flexibility offered by these bills is the flexibility to cut either eligibility, benefits, payments to physicians, or some combination of the three. Flexibility without adequate funding is meaningless.

While Congress has failed thus far to repeal the ACA Medicaid expansion or significantly cut or restructure the traditional Medicaid program, efforts to do this will likely continue in the year ahead. With the passage of the Republican tax reform proposal, Medicaid funding will be at risk as Congress seeks to address the growing deficit created by it. Speaker of the House Paul Ryan (R-WI) confirmed as much, saying: “We’re going to have to get back next year at entitlement reform, which is how you tackle the debt and the deficit…. Frankly, it’s the health care entitlements [Medicare and Medicaid] that are the big drivers of our debt.”

Administrative Action Undermining Medicaid’s Protections

Congress is not the only place where Medicaid is under threat. The Trump administration is also considering policies that could dramatically alter current health care service delivery. Section 1115 of the Social Security Act, for example, gives the secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) discretion to waive certain federal Medicaid requirements to allow states to conduct “experimental, pilot, or demonstration projects” in their Medicaid programs. The secretary must find that the demonstration is likely to promote the objectives of the Medicaid program, chiefly to provide medical assistance to low-income individuals.

Under the Obama administration, HHS did not approve 1115 requests to implement policies that would have the effect of reducing enrollment, finding that these policies did not advance Medicaid’s objectives. However, the Trump administration is likely to change tack soon and approve pending state requests to implement work requirements as well as other potentially restrictive policies such as drug screening, time-limited eligibility, and premium payments with disenrollment and lockouts for nonpayment.

It is difficult to imagine how these policies promote the objectives of the Medicaid program. Imposing work requirements ignores data showing that the majority (nearly eight in 10) of Medicaid adults already work or live in working families. Work requirements add more paperwork, increasing burdens for both Medicaid beneficiaries and administrators. Even if some individuals, such as those living with a disability, are exempted from the work requirement, experience with these requirements in other government programs suggests that exemptions are often incorrectly applied, resulting in sanctions imposed on those who are not subject to the requirement and an overall decline in assistance provided.

Many of the pending waiver provisions would cause a significant number of people to lose their health coverage, undermining Medicaid’s core purpose. While it follows that HHS should reject such proposals, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services has released guidance inviting states to request work requirement waivers, and has approved the program’s first work requirement in Kentucky. As work requirements and other restrictive proposals are approved, advocates are poised to challenge such policies, using litigation if necessary to establish that such proposals violate federal law for failing to advance the goals of the Medicaid program.

For a half century, we’ve seen that Medicaid both improves individual health and patient satisfaction, and supports voluntary work and growth in the economy. Despite these proven benefits, the Trump administration and congressional leadership continue to propose policies that would drastically scale back Medicaid. Whether by legislation or administrative action, it is clear that the future of Medicaid is far from certain.

 

Food is Medicine: Addressing Hunger as a Health Issue

On January 17, 2018, CHLPI’s Faculty Director, Robert Greenwald, spoke at the Food is Medicine: Addressing Hunger as a Health Issue panel discussion. The briefing kicked off the launch of a new bipartisan Food is Medicine Working Group within the House Hunger Caucus.

For over a decade, the bipartisan Hunger Caucus has served as a forum for Members and staff to discuss, advance, and engage the House’s work on national and international hunger and food insecurity issues. This year the Caucus builds upon its foundation
to bring into focus the impacts of hunger on our nation’s health. 

The event’s panel included:

  • Dariush Mozaffarian, MD, DrPH
    Dean, Tufts Friedman School of Nutrition Science & Policy; Jean Mayer Professor of Nutrition and Medicine
  •  Robert Greenwald, JD
    Faculty Director, Center for Health Law and Policy Innovation; Harvard Law School, Clinical Professor of Law
  • Kathleen Merrigan, PhD
    Director, GW Food Institute; The George Washington University, Professor of Public Policy
  • Karen Siebert
    Advocacy and Public Policy Advisor, Harvesters – The Community Food Network on behalf of the Feeding America network

Congress members Jim McGovern, Lynn Jenkins, Chellie Pingree, and Dr. Roger Marshall were all on hand to lend their thoughts on the importance of the Food is Medicine movement.

Quotes from  Food is Medicine: Addressing Hunger as a Health Issue:

  • Congressman Jim McGovern – “My hope is that this working group is going to be about more than just talk, it’s going to be about action.”
  • Congresswoman Chellie Pingree – “Every conversation we have connects health outcomes to what we eat. I think it seems only logical that we should be talking about this as a policy issue. Whether it’s medically tailored meals or prescriptions for fruits and vegetables, there are a lot of good ideas out there.”
  • Robert Greenwald – “We need to start to integrate Food is Medicine into more mainstream Medicare and Medicaid programs particularly given the growing body of research that demonstrates how cost saving and not just cost-effective medically tailored meals are.”

View a recording of the congressional briefing on Facebook.

View CHLPI’s slides from the congressional briefing.

 

Watch the recording of Andy Fisher’s Book Talk at Harvard Law School

Andy Fisher came to Harvard Law School on December 5, 2017 for a book talk, sponsored by Harvard Law School Food Law and Policy Clinic and the Harvard Food Law Society.

In his new book, Big Hunger: The Unholy Alliance Between Corporate America and Anti-Hunger Groups, long time food activist, Andy Fisher demonstrates the existence of a hunger industrial complex—the web of relationships between corporations and anti-hunger groups that perpetuate hunger rather than eliminate it. Big Hunger reveals the damage caused by this hunger-industrial complex to the wellbeing and dignity of the poor, and offers a new vision to eliminate hunger through a focus on public health, economic justice and local economies.