Collaborative Healthy Eating Initiative Sees Substantial Improvement in Food Security and HbA1C Levels for Type 2 Diabetes Participants
NEW YORK--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Unite Us, the nation's trusted technology partner for integrating health and community-based care, reports significant health improvements from a year-long collaboration with Jordan Health and Foodlink through the Finger Lakes Performing Provider System's (FLPPS) System Transformation & Community Investment program. Together, they launched the Healthy Eating Pilot Program, a local initiative in the Finger Lakes region focused on addressing food insecurity among patients with Type 2 Diabetes. This program demonstrates the transformative impact of integrating food assistance with nutrition-focused care to significantly improve health outcomes, setting a new national benchmark for managing chronic diseases through holistic, community-driven solutions.
The program, in effect from August 2023 to August 2024, connected food-insecure patients with Type 2 Diabetes to medically appropriate food assistance through a comprehensive network powered by Unite Us, which includes more than 650 providers in the Finger Lakes region.
'This program has demonstrated how critical it is to have strong partnerships between community-based organizations and the healthcare system. Partnerships like this benefit the participants, improve health outcomes, and keep dollars circulating within local communities,' said Dr. Mitch Gruber, chief impact officer at Foodlink.
Key findings from the program highlight its success in improving participants' health and overall well-being:
72% of participants increased their fruit and vegetable consumption
67% of participants reported improved food security
53% of participants reduced their stress levels
50% of participants improved their HbA1C
42% of participants increased the number of mental and physical healthy days per month
Participants experienced a statistically significant HbA1C reduction of, with the potential to reduce total annual healthcare costs by as much as 13% PMPY.
'Our goal is to ensure everyone has access to high-quality care regardless of their ability to pay. We know that our diet impacts our overall health. So, we were thrilled to serve as a partner for this pilot which we know resulted in such a significant improvement for many of our patients,' said Dr. Linda Clark, president and ceo of Jordan Health. 'Our hope is for pilots like this to develop into long-lasting and sustainable programs which help everyone with the ability to lead a healthy lifestyle as a direct result of the provided information and resources.'
Beyond improved health outcomes, participants also appreciated the program's holistic approach, which included regular deliveries of fresh produce, essential cookware, and helpful recipe cards. For one participant, the program's thoughtful design and practical resources made a meaningful impact on their life.
They said, 'Whoever thought of the program did a very good job. It was very convenient to know I was getting fresh fruits and vegetables every two weeks. The cookware—I really needed a lot of those things, so it helped out 100%. It was very good for my family. The recipe cards were extremely helpful. I enjoyed it.'
The Unite Us platform was instrumental in the program's success, simplifying access to vital community resources and fostering seamless collaboration across the network of community-based organizations (CBOs). Additionally, the use of Unite Us' social care revenue cycle management solution enabled timely reimbursements for CBOs, providing sustainable support for the program's goals.
'This program shows that we can tackle major public health challenges through partnership, technology, and innovation,' said Dr. Amanda Terry, senior director of research and evaluation at Unite Us. 'By addressing non-clinical needs, we not only improve individual outcomes but also create a replicable model that communities across the country can adopt.'
The program provided significant benefits across multiple stakeholder groups. For CBOs, it validated their impact on public health, strengthened their capacity to serve, and opened new funding streams. Government leaders saw how community-driven interventions improved health outcomes and received data to support evidence-based policy decisions. Healthcare providers were empowered to address social determinants of health, improving patient engagement and health outcomes. Payers gained valuable insights into the cost-saving potential of preventative care models, emphasizing the role of nutrition in reducing healthcare expenditures tied to chronic diseases.
All non-profit community-based organizations can use Unite Us' platform free of charge. Contact us to learn more: uniteus.com/contact/.
About Unite Us:
Unite Us is the nation's premier technology provider for integrating health and community-based care. Our advanced product suite is used to proactively coordinate services using data-driven insights, streamline referral and case management, and facilitate eligibility assessments and reimbursements across government, healthcare, health plans, and community organizations. The first of its kind, our closed-loop referral system prioritizes privacy and dignity and has integrated data and analytics tools used to measure impact, optimize programs, and shape policy. With over 1.7M services, we host the nation's largest network of community-based health and economic services dedicated to improving whole-person health. Learn more at UniteUs.com and LinkedIn.
About Jordan Health:
The Anthony L. Jordan Health Center began more than 100 years ago and was one of the first Federally Qualified Health Centers established in the nation. Located in neighborhoods where the most pressing need exists, our roots are steeped in service to underserved and uninsured residents, and building a safe, quality place for healthcare is our cornerstone. Learn more at JordanHealth.org.
Foodlink is a Rochester-based nonprofit dedicated to ending hunger and building healthier communities by addressing both the symptoms and root causes of food insecurity. We serve as the hub of the emergency food system across a 10-county service area. As a leading public health organization, Foodlink administers many programs and initiatives that aim to build the health and wealth of communities. Learn more at FoodlinkNY.org.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Medscape
14 hours ago
- Medscape
ERA 2025
Semaglutide Significantly Improves Chronic Kidney Disease The landmark FLOW study shows the benefits extend to kidney, cardiovascular, and mortality outcomes in high-risk patients with type 2 diabetes and CKD. Medscape Medical News , May 24, 2024 Semaglutide Significantly Improves Chronic Kidney Disease Antinephrin Autoantibodies: Biomarker for Kidney Disease? Using an innovative analysis technique, researchers identified antinephrin autoantibodies as markers of difficult to diagnose kidney diseases. Medscape Medical News , May 26, 2024 Antinephrin Autoantibodies: Biomarker for Kidney Disease? SGLT2 Inhibitors Add to GLP-1s' Cardio, Kidney Benefits The largest analysis to date details added effects of SGLT2 inhibitors among those with type 2 diabetes when combined with GLP-1 receptor agonists. Medscape Medical News, Jun 03, 2024
Medscape
a day ago
- Medscape
Hospital Admissions Similar With Commonly Used T2D Regimens
One third of patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) treated with metformin plus one of four common glucose-lowering drugs (insulin glargine U-100, glimepiride, liraglutide, or sitagliptin) experienced hospitalization over a 5-year period, with a small but significant benefit observed with liraglutide over glimepiride. METHODOLOGY: The phase 3 GRADE (Glycemia Reduction Approaches in Diabetes: A Comparative Effectiveness Study) trial compared the effectiveness of several classes of glucose-lowering medications by randomly assigning 5047 patients with T2D of less than 10 years' duration being treated with metformin and A1c levels of 6.8%-8.5% to receive insulin glargine U-100, glimepiride, liraglutide, or sitagliptin. Because patients with diabetes require acute medical care — including emergency department visits and inpatient hospitalizations — more frequently than those without, researchers conducted a secondary analysis of the GRADE trial to examine the association between assigned treatments and the risk for incident or recurrent hospitalization over a mean follow-up of 5 years. Participants were monitored quarterly for hospitalization (defined as inpatient admission ≥ 24 hours). TAKEAWAY: Overall, 1636 (32.4%) participants (mean age at baseline visit, 59.7 years; 32.6% women) were hospitalized at least once, with 751 (14.9%) hospitalized more than once during the study period. Compared with patients who were never hospitalized, those who were hospitalized were older, more often men, more often White, less often Hispanic, and more likely to have a history of hypertension and had a higher baseline body mass index. The rates of initial and subsequent hospitalizations were similar across the four treatment groups; however, when the analysis was restricted to participants who received at least one dose of the assigned medication and attended at least one visit after randomization (N = 4830), those treated with liraglutide had a 22% lower risk for the incidence of first hospitalization than those treated with glimepiride ( P = .022). = .022). Factors associated with an increased risk for future hospitalizations were A1c > 7.5%, the number of prior hospitalizations, and changes in the assigned treatment ( P < .001 for all); initial assignment to liraglutide vs glimepiride reduced the hospitalization risk by 13%. IN PRACTICE: 'Deteriorating glycemic control (reaching the secondary metabolic outcome) increased the risk for hospitalizations and highlights the substantial medical burden of type 2 diabetes and continued need for more effective and more durable glycemic control strategies,' the authors wrote. SOURCE: This study was led by Daniel S. Hsia, MD, Pennington Biomedical Research Center, Baton Rouge, Louisiana. It was published online on May 27, 2025, in Diabetes Care . LIMITATIONS: The stringent inclusion criteria limited the generalizability of the findings. The results represent a narrow range of drugs and may not apply to newer and increasingly common medications, such as sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors and weekly glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists. DISCLOSURES: GRADE was supported by grants from the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases of the National Institutes of Health, with additional support from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The Department of Veterans Affairs provided resources and facilities. Some authors reported receiving grants, consulting fees, and payments and having contracts and other ties with multiple pharmaceutical companies and institutions.
Medscape
4 days ago
- Medscape
Lower Blood Pressure Targets for Type 2 Diabetes
This transcript has been edited for clarity. Today I am going to discuss a recent paper on intensive blood pressure control in people with type 2 diabetes. This was a big study. It included over 12,000 participants who were older than age 50, and had type 2 diabetes and an increased risk for cardiovascular disease; either they'd had a prior cardiovascular event, had two or more risk factors, or had a reduced estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR). The study was performed in China and it was really done to determine, potentially once and for all, what the target should be in treating patients with type 2 diabetes. The ACCORD trial tried to answer this question, but it didn't show overall improvement in outcomes with blood pressure reduction, although when they did subset analysis, they did show benefit in certain groups. It still didn't have that definitive feel, and I think this study does. They were looking only at systolic blood pressures, and they wanted to target a systolic blood pressure of less than 120 mm Hg in the intensively treated group; in the standardly treated group, the blood pressure target was a systolic of less than 140 mm Hg. The primary endpoint was nonfatal stroke, nonfatal MI, treatment or hospitalization for heart failure, or death from cardiovascular disease causes. In this study, 45% were women. The average age was 63.8 years. Body mass index was 26.7 and 25% smoked. The baseline blood pressure was 140/76 mm Hg and the mean blood pressure over approximately 4 years of follow-up was 121.6 mm Hg in the intensively treated group vs 133.2 mm Hg in the standard treatment group. You basically began to see a difference between the two in terms of the primary endpoint after about a year, so you started to see this split. At the end of the study, there was a very significant difference in terms of the primary endpoint between the two groups. I want to point out that, in my brain, those blood pressure targets that were reached are actually fairly standard. The intensively treated group was about 120 mm Hg, and that's compared with the standard treatment group, which was around 130 mm Hg. I must say that, in my own practice, given all the changes that we've seen over the years in blood pressure targets, the results from this study have actually motivated me to lower my systolic target, at least in terms of how I treat patients in clinic, because I think they may get further benefit. That then begs the question of how did they measure blood pressures in this study? I get patients who have what's called white coat hypertension. They come into my office, their blood pressure is higher, and then I have them test at home and it's better. In this study, they tried to take away some of that interference. They had patients come into clinic having had no exercise, no coffee, and no cigarettes for at least 30 minutes before their appointment. The patients had 5 minutes of seated rest, and then they had three blood pressure measurements, each done 1 minute apart. There was no talking or joking around. They just sat there and had their blood pressures measured in the appropriate way. The average systolic blood pressure was used of those three readings to determine whether treatment was changed. They followed pretty standard treatment regimens for hypertension, which are the ones we use in our ADA guidelines for the management of hypertension. People in the intensive group ended up on one or two additional medications compared with those in the standard group. The overall rate of severe adverse events was equivalent in both groups, but there was more symptomatic hypotension and hyperkalemia in the intensively treated group. As I said, this has actually changed how I'm treating my patients. The difference between 120 mm Hg and 133 mm Hg isn't that big in my brain, and yet there does seem to be a difference in terms of outcomes, primarily cardiovascular outcomes, as the primary endpoint. I think that, if a patient can tolerate a lower blood pressure without symptomatic hypotension, I am going to be treating them down to a lower target. I think this was a well-done study that actually will probably inform practice and guidelines in the future because I think it helps inform us of what is potentially the best target for our patients.
