Bread for the World, a Christian organization, has released a “Hunger Report.” In it, Bread for the World tries to accomplish something not done in previous hunger studies which is to separate the costs of long-term health issues such as diabetes and obesity that can be directly caused by lack of access to affordable, healthful food.
At the launch of the report, Dawn Pierce, a nurse from Iowa who was forced to rely on food stamps after losing her job, gave an emotive account of the difficulty she faced in feeding her son and herself in a way that helped her manage her type II diabetes.
“Food stamps are wonderful, but if you only get $317 a month, you are going to buy the most food you can buy with that money, and the most food you can go buy is a case of Top Ramen for $4.20 and cans of chili for 69 cents,” she said.
With word out that over 15,000 people have lost their food stamps in Wisconsin over the past few months, the result of some crap scapegoat-the-poor legislation that passes for tough love in Republican circles, the chances that we won’t continue to cut off our own nose to spite our face diminishes. What does the new study say about food and nutrition programs created for those who are hungry and/or are food insecure households?
Through the array of federal safety net programs and a vast network of charitable organizations offering food assistance, the health system has an infrastructure to work with to support patients who face the agonizing choice of food or medicine, or who must choose between unhealthy food and running out of food altogether. Every year, the federal nutrition programs save the country hundreds of billions of dollars in additional healthcare costs. For health care, this is a starting point for deeper coordination with a range of partners who are addressing social determinants of health in their communities, unified behind a common understanding of the catastrophic effects of poverty on health.
But if you want to get down to brass tax and really see beyond the politics of the matter, here it is:
In 2014, according to research conducted for this report, food insecurity and hunger in the United States added $160 billion to national health expenditures. Fiscal prudence calls for the expansion of efforts to reduce hunger and poverty—not cutbacks in programs essential to reducing the harmful effects of hunger and poverty on health.
Reducing healthcare costs is an issue that unites people of all political views. If we reduce poverty and hunger, we will save healthcare costs and as a result reduce our debt.
A Christian charity with the single mission to feed people is making a clear, non-partisan argument, for feeding people. Whether you’re a bleeding-heart liberal or a fiscally conservative Republican, we can all agree that we should save money and feed people who have a hard time affording food, right?
