What question did this study set out to answer?

The aim was to evaluate the efficacy of a food is medicine program on glycemic control in low-income adults with type 2 diabetes.

June 9, 2026

View Full Paper

1250-OR: Efficacy of a Food Is Medicine Program in Low-Income, High-Risk Adults with Type 2 Diabetes: The KP ENRICH Study

CNClaudia NauCalifornia Institute of Technology RGRICHARD W. GRANTCalifornia Institute of Technology RPRishi ParikhKaiser Permanente

Key Points

The aim was to evaluate the efficacy of a food is medicine program on glycemic control in low-income adults with type 2 diabetes.
Conducted a 1:1 randomized trial in Kaiser Permanente healthcare systems from Oct 2023-Dec 2025
Included adults with Medicaid insurance and A1c ≥7.5%; provided a $100/month grocery stipend for healthy foods
Primary outcome was 6-month A1c levels measured with an intent-to-treat approach.
Both intervention and control groups had reductions in A1c levels (Intervention: -0.63%, Control: -0.53%)
No significant difference in 6-month A1c between groups (8.63% intervention vs 8.65% control; p=0.55)
Higher registration and monthly orders in the intervention group compared to control.

Abstract

Introduction and Objective: Food Is Medicine interventions are being promoted to improve glycemic control in type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2D), but limited randomized trial (RCT) data exist. We evaluated the efficacy of a scalable, technology-based grocery prescription program in low-income, high-risk adults with T2D. Methods: We conducted a 1:1 RCT in Kaiser Permanente Northern women (67.9% vs. 66.6%); Asian/Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander (14.4% vs. 12.3%), Black (26.1% vs. 25.1%), and Hispanic ethnicity (40.9% vs. 41.5%); and mean A1c at entry (9.34% vs. 9.21%). Registration to use Instacart (88.6% vs. 50.8%) and mean monthly orders (1.5 vs. 0.2) were higher in intervention vs. control subjects. Follow-up A1c was available in 93.4% of subjects. Both arms had 6-mo reductions in A1c (Intervention: -0.63%, 95% CI: -0.78%, -0.47%; Control: -0.53%, 95% CI: -0.68%, -0.38%). After adjusting for baseline A1c and stratification factors, the intervention arm did not have a significantly lower 6-mo A1c than the control arm (8.63% vs 8.65%; difference: -0.06%, 95% CI: -0.26%, 0.14%, p=0.55). Conclusion: For low-income, high-risk adults with T2D, provision of monthly funds to purchase healthy foods through an online shopping platform did not improve 6-mo glycemic control vs. usual care. Disclosure C. Nau: Research Support; Current; NewDays.ai. R.W. Grant: None. R.V. Parikh: None. T. Tan: None. J.C. Lo: None. P. Schwartz: None. J.D. Vallejo: None. S. Alexeeff: None. M. Habib: None. H. Zhong: None. C. Chao: None. A. Erkenbeck: None. D. Mozaffarian: Consultant; Current; Google. Consultant; Ended; Amazon Health. Advisory Panel; Current; Instacart Health, Nourish. A. Go: Research Support; Ended; Novartis AG. Research Support; Current; Bristol-Myers Squibb Company. Advisory Panel; Current; Bristol-Myers Squibb Company, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Research Support; Ended; Edwards Lifesciences Corporation. Funding The Kaiser Permanente Community HealthFund at the East Bay Community Foundation

Ask AI

Helpful

Bookmark

View Full Paper

Ask AI

Helpful

Bookmark

View Full Paper

1250-OR: Efficacy of a Food Is Medicine Program in Low-Income, High-Risk Adults with Type 2 Diabetes: The KP ENRICH Study

Key Points

Abstract

Cite This Study

Also Consider

Also Consider