Austin Arnold

Austin Arnold is a Ph.D. candidate in Pharmacy Administration at the University of Mississippi. His research is focused on developing sustainable and scalable food as medicine programs through patient-centered research. Austin is particularly interested in identifying target patient populations and understanding their preferences to design programs tailored to better meet their healthcare needs. He is also interested in examing patients' valuations and willingness to pay for food as medicine programs to develop sustainable funding mechanisms. The utilization of patient-centered research should lead to improved quality and appropriateness of future research, increased sustainability of food as medicine programs, and greater uptake by patients, providers, and policy makers.

Prior to beginning his Ph.D. program, Austin earned a professional doctorate degree in pharmacy (PharmD) and Master's in Business Administration (MBA) from Drake University. After completing his degree, Austin briefly practiced as a pharmacist before continuing his education at the University of Mississippi.

A self-administered online survey was used to collect data for the study. The survey collected data on socio-ecological predictors of dietary behaviors and food consumption, likelihood of participation in food as medicine programs, food security, diet-related conditions, sociodemographic characteristics, and attribute preferences via choice-based conjoint (CBC) analysis. All CBC attributes were identified in previous literature on food as medicine programs and expert opinion. Attributes included, program type, screening requirements, number of meals supplemented, cost per month, and additional services provided (cooking demonstrations provided, informational material, nutrition counseling). The CBC design was identified to ensure optimal design efficiency based on relative D-efficiencies and minimize the respondent burden. The final design included seven attributes with 20 total levels, four concepts per task, 13 choice sets per respondent, and 25 unique survey versions. The design used balanced overlap and had a relative D-efficiency of 0.879. An opt out or “none” option was included in the choice sets to better reflect the buying process. A total of 599 responses were collected.

The overall results indicated that cost per month was the most important attribute (42.44%) when choosing a program followed by number of meals supplemented (13.93%), and eligibility and enrollment requirements (11.86%). All four groups preferred the lower cost levels, but the Low Propensity Vulnerable group placed the most importance on cost (50.8%) and the High Propensity Capable group placed the least importance (33.1%). All four groups also preferred the supplementation of more than one meal per day. Among the program models, the voucher program was the least preferred by all four groups and the Disengaged Capable group was the only one to prefer medically tailored meals the most. The Low Propensity Vulnerable group preferred no screening requirement for program enrollment, while the other three preferred screening for chronic conditions. Nutrition counseling was the least preferred additional service for all four groups. The High Propensity Capable group place significantly higher importance on the inclusion of informational material and cooking demonstrations than the other groups.

In subsequent willingness to pay analyses, the results indicated respondents were willing to pay the most for a medically tailored meal program ($56.87) followed by subsidized food boxes ($9.26) then voucher programs ($7.19). The High Propensity Capable group was willing to pay the most for the voucher ($26.09) and medically tailored meal ($63.80) programs. The Low Propensity Vulnerable group had a negative willingness to pay for voucher programs (–$12.78) and lowest value for a subsidized food box program (($7.60). The Disengaged Capable group was willing to pay the most for a subsidized food box program ($81.42).