"Cash transforms health when four particular conditions are met. Most U.S. cash-transfer pilots have lacked them. But one major American policy does come close: the federal food-assistance program SNAP. Its success offers a road map for what effective cash assistance can look like in this country, if we choose to build on it."
"In many low-income countries, a modest amount, on the order of $20 a month or less, can represent a major share of household income. For families living in extreme scarcity, a small influx of funds can expand their food budget, allow children to get vaccinated, or help a mother reach a hospital to deliver safely. These changes are big enough to save lives."
"In the U.S., by contrast, a few hundred dollars a month for a relatively short period of time, typical of guaranteed-income pilots, rarely matches the steep costs of housing, healthcare, and other necessities that consume most low-income households' budgets."
Cash transfers effectively improve health outcomes in low- and middle-income countries but produce modest results in the United States. The difference lies in four critical conditions that must be met for cash assistance to transform health. In developing nations, small amounts like $20 monthly represent substantial household income shares, enabling life-saving changes such as food access, vaccinations, and safe childbirth. U.S. guaranteed-income pilots typically provide hundreds of dollars for short periods, insufficient against high housing and healthcare costs. The federal SNAP program demonstrates how effective cash assistance functions domestically by meeting necessary conditions for meaningful impact. Understanding these structural differences reveals why identical interventions produce vastly different health outcomes across contexts.
Read at The Atlantic
Unable to calculate read time
Collection
[
|
...
]