Impact of a financial incentive scheme on purchase of fruits and vegetables from unorganised retailers in rural India: a cluster-randomised controlled trial.

Background: Inadequate intake of fruits and vegetables is prevalent in rural areas of India, where around 65% of the population reside. Financial incentives have been shown to increase the purchase of fruits and vegetables in urban supermarkets, but their feasibility and effectiveness with unorganised retailers in rural India is unclear. Methods: A cluster-randomised controlled trial of a financial incentive scheme involving ∼20% cashback on purchase of fruits and vegetables from local retailers was conducted in six villages (3535 households). All households in three intervention villages were invited to participate in the scheme which ran for three months (February-April 2021), while no intervention was offered in control villages. Self-reported (pre-intervention and post-intervention) data on purchase of fruits and vegetables were collected from a random sub-sample of households in control and intervention villages. Findings: A total of 1109 households (88% of those invited) provided data. After the intervention, the weekly quantity of self-reported fruits and vegetables purchased were (i) 18.6 kg (intervention) and 14.2 kg (control), baseline-adjusted mean difference 4 kg (95% CI: -6.4 to 14.4) from any retailer (primary outcome); and (ii) 13.1 kg (intervention) and 7.1 kg (control), baseline-adjusted mean difference 7.4 kg (95% CI: 3.8-10.9) from local retailers participating in the scheme (secondary outcome). There was no evidence of differential effects of the intervention by household food security or by socioeconomic position, and no unintended adverse consequences were noted. Interpretation: Financial incentive schemes are feasible in unorganised food retail environments. Effectiveness in improving diet quality of the household likely hinges on the percentage of retailers willing to participate in such a scheme. Funding: This research has been funded by the Drivers of Food Choice (DFC) Competitive Grants Program, which is funded by the UK Government's Department for International Development and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, and managed by the University of South Carolina, Arnold School of Public Health, USA; however, the views expressed do not necessarily reflect the UK Government's official policies.

Barriers primary care clinic leaders face to improving value in a consumer choice health plan design.

Primary care clinics are a frequent focus of policy initiatives to improve the value of health care; yet, it is unclear whether they have the ability or incentive to take on the additional tasks that these initiatives ask of them. This paper reports on a qualitative study assessing barriers that clinic leaders face to reducing cost within a tiered cost-sharing commercial health insurance benefit design that gives both consumers and clinics a strong incentive to reduce cost. We conducted semi-structured interviews of clinical and operational leaders at a diverse set of 12 Minnesota primary care clinics and identified 6 barriers: insufficient information on drivers of cost; clinics controlling a portion of spending; patient preference for higher cost specialists; administrative challenges; limited resources; and misalignment of incentives. We discuss approaches to reducing these barriers and opportunities to implement them.