Charitable Food & Health Care Industry Partnership Efforts: An Evaluation of Collaborative Food Is Medicine Programs

Top Things to Know

FIM programs are functioning, but they lack consistent health‑outcome measurement; underscoring the need for robust data infrastructure.

Partnerships are valued but constrained by funding and staffing barriers, which highlight the importance of sustainable financing mechanisms (e.g., Medicaid waivers, cost‑sharing models, or grant funding) to maintain reliable, health‑integrated food access programs.

Charitable food partners may derive more perceived benefit from collaborations than healthcare partners. So, optimizing these partnerships requires aligning incentives so both sectors see clear returns (financial, clinical, and community health‑related).

Summary of Conclusion/Findings

This cross‑sectional survey evaluated partnerships between a large Midwestern food bank and its healthcare partners engaged in Food Is Medicine (FIM) programs. The study included 23 respondents (12 from charitable food organizations and 11 from healthcare systems) who reported that most FIM programs consisted of on‑site pantries (62%) or pre‑prepared food boxes (38%). Both stakeholder groups expressed high overall satisfaction with the partnership (mean score 3.96/5), citing strong collaboration, mutual respect, and positive contributions to organizational mission achievement. However, key barriers included increasing costs, staff and volunteer shortages, and limited outcome measurement capacity, with only one healthcare site reporting collection of patient health data. A notable difference emerged: charitable food partners were significantly more likely to say the partnership increased their ability to achieve higher funding compared to healthcare partners. Overall, the study demonstrates that while these multisector FIM collaborations are viewed positively, there is a pressing need for more robust evaluation, consistent outcome tracking, and improved resource support.