E
COST CALCULATIONS
For the cost analyses presented in this report, the committee conducted detailed analyses of nationally representative pricing data for foods in the current and revised WIC food packages. The details, not presented in body of the report, are presented in this appendix.
A large part of the methodology for cost calculations involves the assumptions necessary for the analyses. Tables E-1 and E-2 show a side-by-side comparison of the assumptions used for the nutrient analyses and the cost analyses. Table E-3 is an easy reference guide of the costs used in the cost calculations. Details of the calculations used for program costs of the current and revised food packages are presented in Tables E-4 and E-5. These tables can be found at the end of this appendix.
List of tables:
Table E-1 |
Bases of Assumptions Used in Nutrient and Cost Analyses of Food Packages for Infants, |
|||
Table E-2 |
Bases of Assumptions Used in Nutrient and Cost Analyses of Food Packages for Children and Women, |
|||
Table E-3 |
Calculated Costs of Representative Amounts of Foods in Revised Packages (2002) |
|||
A |
Infants, |
|||
B |
Children and Women, |
|||
Table E-4 |
Estimated Program Costs for Food per Month Using Current Packages (2002), |
Table E-5 |
Estimated Program Costs for Food per Month Using Revised Packages (2002), |
In addition to the assumptions listed in Tables E-1 and E-2, several assumptions were used to distribute mother/infant pairs by the feeding method used. These are described as follows.
Assumptions on Infant Feeding in the WIC Program
A recent survey by the CDC on breastfeeding practices showed that among women participating in the WIC program, at 3 months postpartum 64 percent of mothers report breastfeeding in any amount with 36 percent reporting breastfeeding exclusively (CDC, 2004b). Based on these estimates, 28 percent (64 percent minus 36 percent) were partially breastfeeding at 3 months postpartum. The same survey indicated that at 6 months postpartum, 28 percent of mothers were breastfeeding in any amount with 11 percent exclusively breastfeeding (CDC, 2004b). Based on these estimates, 17 percent (28 percent minus 11 percent) were partially breastfeeding at 6 months postpartum. From these estimates (partial breastfeeding rates of 28 percent at 3 months and 17 percent at 6 months), a partially breastfed rate of 20 percent for infants ages 4 through 5 months of age was extrapolated.
For older infants, survey estimates of reported breastfeeding rates at 6 months (29 percent) and 12 months (14 percent) were used to extrapolate a rate of 21 percent breast-fed infants for the 6 through 11 month period (CDC, 2004b). The 21 percent of mothers who breast-fed infants were either fully or partially breastfeeding; the committee distributed them as 5 percent fully breastfeeding and 16 percent partially breastfeeding based on 2002 data from the Feeding Infants and Toddlers Study (Briefel et al., 2004a).
For the program cost analyses, breastfeeding rates were assumed to remain the same for both the current and revised food packages. Therefore, the following assumptions were used for the calculations:
-
Infants Ages 0 Through 3 Months—36 percent fully breast-fed; 28 percent partially breast-fed (that is, 64 percent “ever breast-fed”); 36 percent fully formula-fed;
-
Infants Ages 4 and 5 Months—11 percent fully breast-fed; 20 percent partially breast-fed (that is, 31 percent “ever breast-fed”); 69 percent fully formula-fed; and
-
Infants Ages 6 Through 11 Months—5 percent fully breast-fed; 16 percent partially breast-fed (that is, 21 percent “ever breast-fed”); 79 percent fully formula-fed.
These percentages are estimates of what package use might be for the revised packages.
An additional term, exclusively breast-fed, is used among lactation professionals. That term, when used in the WIC program, does not necessarily mean that an infant is only receiving breast milk; it means, in this context, that an infant does not receive formula from the WIC program. Under the current system, exclusively breast-fed infants can receive cereal and juice, as early as four months of age. Therefore, they may not truly be exclusively breast-fed, as a lactation expert might define them.
Assumptions on Feeding Method for Women in the WIC Program
According to data from WIC Participant and Program Characteristics: PC2002, approximately 24 percent of all WIC participants are women (Kresge, 2003; Bartlett et al., 2003). Among these women, 45 percent are pregnant, 24 percent are breastfeeding, and 31 percent are non-breastfeeding postpartum women. The percentage of WIC women who were fully breastfeeding was not included in that report (Kresge, 2003; Bartlett et al., 2003).
Based on the distribution of infants by age (Kresge, 2003; Bartlett et al., 2003) and the assumptions on feeding method for infants, it was estimated that of the total infants participating in the WIC program that are breastfed (in the WIC program sense), 45 percent are partially breast-fed and 55 percent are fully breast-fed. Breastfeeding women were distributed by the same percentage.1 Thus, for women, estimates of 13 percent fully breastfeeding and 11 percent partially breastfeeding were used; that is, the calculations of program costs assumed a total of 24 percent of women participating in the WIC program were breastfeeding as cited by Kresge (2003) and Bartlett et al. (2003).
Possible Shifts in Participation Rates
In order to evaluate the sensitivity of the estimated program costs for food with the revised packages (Tables 5-3 and E-5) to changes in participation rates among the infant and women categories, the committee simulated
costs with some shifting in categories. One such evaluation assumed the following:
-
For infants age 0 through 3.9 months, there would be a 20 percent shift in infants from fully formula-fed to fully breast-fed;
-
For infants age 1 through 3.9 months, there would be a 30 percent shift from partially breast-fed to fully breast-fed;
-
For infants age 4 through 5.9 months, there would be a 10 percent shift from fully formula-fed to partially breast-fed, and a 30 percent shift from partially breast-fed to fully breast-fed; and
-
For infants age 6 through 11.9 months, there would be an 8 percent shift from fully formula-fed to partially breast-fed, and a 30 percent shift from partially breast-fed to fully breast-fed.
The shifts in the infant categories were accompanied by the appropriate shift in the mother’s classification. The result of these shifts was to decrease the average food package cost per participant from $34.57 to $33.93 per month for the revised packages.
TABLE E-1 Bases of Assumptions Used in Nutrient and Cost Analyses of Food Packages for Infants
|
Assumption used in |
Fooda |
Nutrient Analysesb |
Formula |
Current and Revised Packages I and II |
|
Milk-based formula (versus soy-based formula) |
|
Weighted mean of: Enfamil with Iron (Mead Johnson), 67.8%; Similac with Iron (Ross/ Abbott), 27.2%; and Good Start (Carnation/Nestlé), 5.0% |
Juice |
Current Package II |
|
Apple juice (vitamin C-rich) |
Baby food, fruits |
Revised Package II Fruit(s) as the only major ingredient(s)d |
|
Junior (stage 2), 4–8 oz/d |
|
Equal weighting of: Applesauce; Peaches; and Pears |
Type of Data Considered as Basis of Assumption |
Source of Dataa |
|
Container sizes: na, used cost per fl oz data |
|
Oliveira et al., 2001 |
|
Representative of market share |
Oliveira et al., 2001 |
|
Market share within WIC program, 2001 |
Oliveira et al., 2001 |
Cost per fl oz data |
|
Oliveira et al., 2001 |
Equal weighting of: Frozen concentrate, 6–12 fl oz container: Shelf-stable, 32–48 fl oz container; and |
Representative of likely participant choices and state agency restrictions |
ACNielsen Homescan, 2001 |
Same as for nutrient analyses |
Representative of likely participant choices |
Assumption based on age of participants |
Same as for nutrient analyses |
Nutritional and developmental appropriateness |
AAP, 2004 |
|
Representative of nutritional content |
Assumption for analyses |
Weighted mean (for total of 6 mo) of:
|
Representative of developmental stages and nutritional needs |
ACNielsen Homescan, 2001 Manufacturer labeling and websites, 2004 |
Fresh banana substituted at a rate of 1 medium banana per 4 oz container for the maximum allowed (for 16 oz of baby food fruits). Assumed equivalence of 4 bananas for 2 pounds of fresh bananas. |
Representative of likely participant choices |
Assumption for analyses ERS, 2004b FNS, 1984b |
Weighting of other choices assumed not relevant to pricing |
|
Reflects all available data |
|
Assumption used in |
Fooda |
Nutrient Analysesb |
Baby food, vegetables |
Revised Package II Vegetable(s) as the only major ingredient(s)e |
|
Junior (stage 2), 4–8 oz/d |
|
Equal weighting of: Carrots; Green beans; and Squash, assumed to be winter squash |
Cereal, baby |
Current and Revised Package II |
|
Grain(s) as the only major ingredient(s)f |
|
Rice cereal, dry |
Type of Data Considered as Basis of Assumption |
Source of Dataa |
|
Same as for nutrient analyses |
Nutritional and developmental appropriateness |
AAP, 2004 |
|
Representative of nutritional content |
Assumption for analyses |
Weighted mean (for total of 6 mo) of:
|
Representative of developmental stages and nutritional needs |
ACNielsen Homescan, 2001 Manufacturer labeling and websites, 2004 |
|
Representative of likely participant choices |
Assumption for analyses |
Weighting of choices assumed not relevant to pricing |
|
Reflects all available data |
Container sizes: 8–16 oz |
|
ACNielsen Homescan, 2001 |
Same as for nutrient analyses |
Nutritional and developmental appropriateness |
AAP, 2004 |
|
Representative of likely participant choices |
Assumption for analyses |
Representative of market share |
ACNielsen Homescan, 2001 |
|
|
Weighting assumed not relevant to pricing |
Reflects all available data |
|
Assumption used in |
Fooda |
Nutrient Analysesb |
Baby food, meats |
Revised Package II-BF Meat as the only major ingredient(s)g |
|
Strained (stage 1), 2.5 oz/d |
|
Equal weighting of: Beef; Chicken; and Lamb |
aFor clarity, the food, container sizes, and source of pricing data are indicated in bold. bThe nutrient analyses referred to in this table use Nutrition Data System for Research (NDS-R) software version 5.0/35 (2004) developed by the Nutrition Coordinating Center (NCC), University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN (Schakel et al., 1988, 1997; Schakel, 2001). A second set of nutrient analyses using the USDA Nutrient Database for Standard Reference, Release 17 (SR-17) (NDL, 2004) is presented in Tables B-3A through B-3D, Appendix B—Nutrient Profiles of Current and Revised Food Packages. cOrganic baby foods were omitted from the cost analyses. dStrained fruit prepared for infants without added sugars, starches, or salt. Mixtures of fruits are allowed for older infants. Texture may range from pureed through diced. eStrained vegetable prepared for infants without added sugars, starches, or salt. Mixtures of vegetables are allowed for older infants. Texture may range from pureed through diced. fGrain cereal products prepared for infants without added sugars, salt, or “formula ingredients” (e.g., nonfat dry milk). Mixtures of grains are allowed for older infants. |
Type of Data Considered as Basis of Assumption |
Source of Dataa |
|
Same as for nutrient analyses |
Nutritional and developmental appropriateness |
AAP, 2004 |
Representative of nutritional content |
Reflects available data |
|
Weighted mean (for total of 6 mo) of:
|
Representative of nutritional and developmental needs; reflects available data |
ACNielsen Homescan, 2001 |
|
Representative of likely participant choices |
Assumption for analyses |
Weighting of choices assumed not relevant to pricing |
|
Reflects all available data |
gStrained meat prepared for infants without added starches, vegetables, or salt. Broth (unsalted; that is, without added sodium) may be an ingredient. Texture may range from pureed through diced. NOTES : na = not applicable. The medical formulas required by infants with special dietary needs were omitted from this table. For additional detail on food specifications, see Table B-1, Appendix B—Nutrient Profiles of Current and Revised Food Packages. DATA SOURCES: Price data and other information were obtained from Economic Research Service, USDA (ERS, 2004b, 1999 price data; Oliveira et al., 2001, 2000 infant formula price data), and ACNielsen Homescan (ACNielsen, 2001, 2001 price data obtained through ERS, USDA). Additional information was obtained from the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP, 2004), USDA (FNS, 1984b), and manufacturer labeling and websites (Abbott Laboratories Online, 2004; Mead Johnson, 2004; Nestlé, 2005). |
TABLE E-2 Bases of Assumptions Used in Nutrient and Cost Analyses of Food Packages for Children and Women
|
Assumption used in |
Fooda |
|
Fruits and Vegetables |
|
Juice |
Current and Revised Packages Equal weighting of: Apple juice; and Orange juice |
Apple juice |
Current and Revised Packages Reconstituted from frozen |
|
Vitamin C-rich |
Orange juice |
Current and Revised Packages Reconstituted from frozen |
|
Not fortified |
Fruits |
|
Fruits, fresh |
Revised Packages |
|
Equal weighting of: Apples; Oranges; and Bananas |
Cost Analysesa |
Type of Data Considered as Basis of Assumption |
Source of Dataa |
Same as for nutrient analyses |
Representative of likely participant choices |
Assumption for analyses |
|
Representative of nutritional content |
Assumption for analyses |
Equal weighting of: Frozen concentrate, 6–12 fl oz container; and Canned, 32–48 fl oz container |
Representative of likely participant choices within state agency restrictions |
ACNielsen Homescan, 2001 |
Same as for nutrient analyses |
|
Assumption for analyses |
|
Representative of nutritional content |
Assumption for analyses |
Weighted mean of: Frozen concentrate, 6–12 fl oz container, 75%; and Canned, 36–46 fl oz container, 25% |
Market share within likely state agency restrictions |
ACNielsen Homescan, 2001 |
Not fortified or assumed not fortified from available data |
Representative of likely state agency restrictions |
Assumption for analyses |
Container sizes: na, used cost per pound data |
|
ERS, 2004b Assumptions for some types of analyses were based on data from a standard reference: FNS, 1984a, 1984b |
Same as for nutrient analyses |
Representative of consumer purchases and consumption data |
Assumptions for analyses were based on data from various sources: Krebs-Smith et al., 1997; Putnam and Allshouse, |
Cost Analysesa |
Type of Data Considered as Basis of Assumption |
Source of Dataa |
|
|
1999; Smiciklas-Wright et al., 2002; Cotton et al., 2004; Reed et al., 2004 |
Container sizes: na, used cost per pound data |
Nominal container size of 15 oz used in some types of analyses |
ERS, 2004b Assumptions for some types of analyses were based on data from a standard reference: FNS, 1984a, 1984b |
Same as for nutrient analyses |
Representative of likely participant choices (i.e., participants are likely to choose juice pack rather than water pack) |
Assumption for analyses |
na |
Representative of likely participant practices |
Assumption for analyses |
Same as for nutrient analyses |
Representative of consumer purchases and consumption data |
Assumptions for analyses were based on data from several sources: Krebs-Smith et al., 1997; Putnam and Allshouse, 1999; Smiciklas-Wright et al., 2002; Cotton et al., 2004; Reed et al., 2004 |
Container sizes: na, used cost per pound data |
|
ERS, 2004b Assumptions for some types of analyses were based on data from a standard reference: FNS, 1984a, 1984b |
Same as for nutrient analyses |
Representative of likely participant choices (i.e., participants are likely to choose fresh carrots rather than canned) |
Assumption for analyses |
|
Assumption used in |
Fooda |
|
|
Revised Packages Equal weighting of: Carrots; Tomatoes; and Green beans |
Vegetables, canned |
Revised Packages |
|
Regulard |
|
Drained |
|
Equal weighting of: Carrots; Tomatoes; and Green beans |
Milk and Alternatives |
|
Milk |
Current and Revised Packages |
|
Weighted mean of: Maximum allowance as milk, 50% (see †); and Milk with maximum of cheese, yogurt, and tofu allowed as substitutes for milk, 50% (see †) Current Packages Equal weighting of: Whole, 3.5–4% milk fat; Reduced-fat, 2% milk fat; Low-fat, 1% milk fat; and Nonfat, Skim |
Cost Analysesa |
Type of Data Considered as Basis of Assumption |
Source of Dataa |
Same as for nutrient analyses |
Representative of consumer purchases and consumption data |
Assumptions for analyses were based on data from several sources: Krebs-Smith et al., 1997; Putnam and Allshouse, 1999; Smiciklas-Wright et al., 2002; Cotton et al., 2004; Reed et al., 2004 |
Container sizes: na, used cost per pound data |
Nominal container size of 14.5 oz used in some types of analyses |
ERS, 2004b Assumptions for some types of analyses were based on data from a standard reference: FNS, 1984a, 1984b |
Same as for nutrient analyses |
Representative of likely state agency restrictions |
Assumption for analyses |
na |
Representative of likely participant practices |
Assumption for analyses |
Same as for nutrient analyses |
Representative of consumer purchases and consumption data |
Assumptions for analyses were based on data from several sources: Krebs-Smith et al., 1997; Putnam and Allshouse, 1999; Smiciklas-Wright et al., 2002; Cotton et al., 2004; Reed et al., 2004 |
Container size weighting: Gallon, 75%; and Half gallon, 25% |
|
ACNielsen Homescan, 2001 |
Same as for nutrient analyses |
Representative of likely participant choices |
Assumption for analyses |
Same as for nutrient analyses |
Representative of likely participant choices |
Assumption for analyses |
|
Assumption used in |
Fooda |
|
|
Revised Packages Whole milk (3.5–4% milk fat) only for 1-y-old children 2 y and above, equal weighting of: Reduced-fat, 2% milk fat; Low-fat, 1% milk fat; and Nonfat, Skim Plainf |
|
Revised Packages for Women †Weighted mean of: Milk, 90%; and Soy beverage, 10% |
Cheese |
Current and Revised Packages Equal weighting of: American cheese, process;e Cheddar cheese, natural; Monterey Jack cheese, natural; and Mozzarella cheese, part skim milk |
Yogurt |
Revised Packages Women, equal weighting of: Low-fat, 1% milk fat; and Nonfat Children, low-fat (1% milk fat) only |
|
Equal weighting of: Plain;f and Vanilla |
Soy beverage (“soy milk”) |
Revised Packages for Women Ready-to-drink, regular,g calcium-rich (“fortified”) |
Cost Analysesa |
Type of Data Considered as Basis of Assumption |
Source of Dataa |
Same as for nutrient analyses |
AAP recommendation |
AAP, 2004 |
Same as for nutrient analyses |
AHA recommendations Representative of likely participant choices |
AHA, 2004 Assumption for analyses |
Same as for nutrient analyses |
Representative of likely national and state agency restrictions |
Assumption for analyses |
Same as for nutrient analyses |
Representative of likely participant choices |
Wenrich and Cason, 2004 |
Container size: 16 oz |
|
ACNielsen Homescan, 2001 |
Market purchase weighting of: American Cheddar cheese, natural; and Mozzarella cheese |
Representative of likely participant choices within available data specifications for market share |
ACNielsen Homescan, 2001 |
Container sizes: 16–32 oz |
|
ACNielsen Homescan, 2001 |
Same as for nutrient analyses |
Representative of likely participant choices |
Assumption for analyses |
Children, equal weighting of: Low-fat, 1% milk fat; and Nonfat |
Minimal effect of weighting on pricing—calculated same as for women |
ACNielsen Homescan, 2001 |
Same as for nutrient analyses |
Representative of likely participant choices within allowed substitutions |
Assumption for analyses |
Container sizes: 32–64 fl oz |
|
ACNielsen Homescan, 2001 |
Equal weighting of: Refrigerated, assumed to be calcium-rich (“fortified”); and |
Representative of likely participant choices |
Assumption for analyses ACNielsen Homescan, 2001 |
|
Assumption used in |
Fooda |
|
|
Plainf |
Tofu |
Revised Packages for Women |
|
Calcium salts used in processing |
Grains |
|
Cereal |
Current and Revised Packages Weighted mean of: Ready-to-eat cereal, 90%; and Hot cereal, 10% |
Cereal, ready-to-eat |
Current and Revised Packages |
|
Current Packages Equal weighting of: Cheerios (General Mills); Corn flakes; Kix (General Mills); Mini-Wheats, Frosted Bite Size (Kellogg’s); and Total Whole Grain (General Mills) |
|
Revised Packages Equal weighting of: Cheerios (General Mills); Mini-Wheats, Frosted Bite Size (Kellogg’s); and Total Whole Grain (General Mills) |
Cost Analysesa |
Type of Data Considered as Basis of Assumption |
Source of Dataa |
Shelf-stable, assumed to be calcium-rich |
For soy beverage purchases, data were not available on addition of calcium in shelf-stable products. |
ACNielsen Homescan, 2001 |
|
Representative of likely national and state agency restrictions |
Assumption for analyses |
Container sizes: 12–16 oz |
|
ACNielsen Homescan, 2001 |
|
Negligible contribution to calcium intake unless calcium salts are used in processing |
Manufacturer labeling, 2004 |
Tofu was assumed to be processed with calcium salts. |
For tofu purchases, data were not available regarding whether calcium salts were used in processing. |
ACNielsen Homescan, 2001 |
Same as for nutrient analyses |
Representative of market share |
ACNielsen Homescan, 2001 |
Container sizes: 12–36 oz |
|
ACNielsen Homescan, 2001 |
Equal weighting of: Cheerios (General Mills); Corn Flakes (Kellogg’s); Kix (General Mills); Mini-Wheats, Frosted Bite Size (Kellogg’s); and Total Whole Grain (General Mills) |
Representative of likely participant choices within likely state agency restrictions |
Assumption for analyses |
Same as for nutrient analyses |
Whole grain only |
Manufacturer labeling, 2004 |
|
Representative of likely participant choices within likely state agency restrictions |
Assumption for analyses |
|
Assumption used in |
Fooda |
|
Cereal, hot |
Current and Revised Packages |
|
Regular salt option for preparation |
|
Current Packages Equal weighting of: Cream of wheat, regular-cooking; and Oatmeal, instant-cooking, iron-fortified |
|
Revised Packages Oatmeal, instant-cooking, iron-fortified |
Whole grains |
Revised Packages Equal weighting of: Whole wheat bread; and Brown rice |
Whole wheat bread |
Revised Packages |
Brown rice |
Revised Packages |
|
Cooked in salted water |
Cost Analysesa |
Type of Data Considered as Basis of Assumption |
Source of Dataa |
Container sizes: 10–28 oz |
|
ACNielsen Homescan, 2001 |
na |
Representative of likely participant practices |
Assumption for analyses |
Equal weighting of: Cream of Wheat (Nabisco) (14–28 oz container) |
Representative of likely participant choices |
Assumption for analyses |
Oatmeal, instant-cooking, assumed to be iron-fortified (10–18 oz outer container) |
For instant-cooking oatmeal purchases, data were not available on iron-fortification. |
Assumption for analyses |
Oatmeal, instant-cooking, assumed to be iron-fortified (10–18 oz outer container) |
Whole grain only For instant-cooking oatmeal purchases, data were not available on iron-fortification. |
Manufacturer labeling, 2004 ACNielsen Homescan, 2001 |
Same as for nutrient analyses |
|
Assumption for analyses |
Container size: 16 oz |
|
ACNielsen Homescan, 2001 |
Container sizes: 9.5–16 oz |
|
ACNielsen Homescan, 2001 |
Market purchase weighting of: Regular-cooking; Parboiled; and Instant-cooking |
Market share |
Assumption for analyses |
Omit basmati rice |
Representative of likely state agency restrictions |
Assumption for analyses |
na |
Representative of likely participant practices |
Assumption for analyses |
|
Assumption used in |
|
Fooda |
||
Meat and Alternatives |
||
Eggs |
Current and Revised Packages |
|
|
Whole, fresh eggs |
|
Fish, canned |
Revised Package VII Weighted mean of: Canned tuna, 80% Canned salmon, 20% |
|
Tuna |
Current and Revised Package VII |
|
|
Equal weighting of: |
|
|
Drained |
|
Salmon |
Revised Package VII |
|
|
Salmon, regulard |
|
|
Drained |
|
Beans, dry (legumes) |
Current Packages Dried beans only (i.e., no canned beans) |
|
|
Revised Packages Equal weighting of: Dried beans, 1 lb; and Canned beans, 4 15–16-oz cans |
|
Beans, dried |
Current and Revised Packages |
|
|
Equal weighting of: Black beans; Garbanzo beans (chickpeas); Kidney beans; |
Cost Analysesa |
Type of Data Considered as Basis of Assumption |
Source of Dataa |
Container size: 1 doz |
|
BLS, 2004a |
Same as for nutrient analyses |
Representative of market share |
ACNielsen Homescan, 2001 |
Same as for nutrient analyses |
Representative of market share |
ACNielsen Homescan, 2001 |
Container sizes: 6 oz or less |
|
ACNielsen Homescan, 2001 |
|
Representative of likely participant choices |
Assumption for analyses |
Market purchase weighting of: |
Market share |
ACNielsen Homescan, 2001 |
na |
Representative of likely participant practices |
Assumption for analyses |
Container sizes: 14–16 oz |
|
ACNielsen Homescan, 2001 |
Pink salmon |
Representative of market share |
Assumption for analyses |
na |
Representative of likely participant practices |
Assumption for analyses |
Same as for nutrient analyses |
Current restrictions |
Assumption for analyses |
Same as for nutrient analyses |
Representative of likely participant choices |
Assumption for analyses |
Container size: 16 oz |
|
ACNielsen Homescan, 2001 |
|
Representative of likely participant choices |
Assumption for analyses |
Cost Analysesa |
Type of Data Considered as Basis of Assumption |
Source of Dataa |
Market purchase weighting of: Black beans; Garbanzo beans (chickpeas); Kidney beans; Northern beans; and Pinto beans |
Market share within available data specifications |
ACNielsen Homescan, 2001 |
Container sizes: 15–16 oz |
|
ACNielsen Homescan, 2001 |
|
Representative of likely participant choices |
Assumption for analyses |
Market purchase weighting of: Black beans; Garbanzo beans (chickpeas); Kidney beans; and Northern beans |
Market share |
ACNielsen Homescan, 2001 |
|
Representative of likely state agency restrictions in most cases |
Assumption for analyses |
Pack assumed to be regulard |
Data were not available on type of pack. Representative of likely state agency restrictions in most cases |
ACNielsen Homescan, 2001 Assumption for analyses |
Pack assumed to be plaini |
Data were not available on flavorings. |
ACNielsen Homescan, 2001 |
Container size: 18 oz |
|
ACNielsen Homescan, 2001 |
Type not specified |
Representative of likely participant choices |
Assumption for analyses |
|
Assumption used in |
Fooda |
|
Peanut butter or Beans (legumes) |
Current Packages Equal weighting of: Peanut butter (18 oz); and Dried beans (16 oz) Revised Packages Weighted mean of: Peanut butter, 50% (18 oz); Dried beans, 25% (16 oz); and Canned beans, 25% (4 cans) |
aFor clarity, the food, container sizes, and source of pricing data are indicated in bold. bThe nutrient analyses referred to in this table use Nutrition Data System for Research software version 5.0/35 (2004) developed by the Nutrition Coordinating Center (NCC), University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN (Schakel et al., 1988, 1997; Schakel, 2001). A second set of nutrient analyses using the USDA Nutrient Data Laboratory Standard Reference 17 (SR-17) (NDL, 2004) is presented in Tables B-3A through B-3D, Appendix B—Nutrient Profiles of Current and Revised Food Packages. cAll foods for nutrient analyses were chosen with no added salt and no added fat cooking preparation options unless otherwise noted in the table. d“Regular” in this instance means “regular pack” or “regular pack with salt added in processing.” In some cases this assumption was made as representative of likely participant choices (e.g., salted peanut butter is a likely participant choice rather than unsalted peanut butter). In other cases this assumption was made as representative of likely state agency restrictions (e.g., salted canned vegetables are likely state agency restrictions if unsalted canned vegetables are more costly). eAmerican cheese can be processed with or without a sodium salt (e.g., disodium phosphate) (Nutrition Data, 2004). The American cheese used in these analyses appears to be processed with disodium phosphate resulting in a sodium content twice that of the other cheeses used in the nutrient analyses. Even greater differences in sodium content have been reported (Nutrition Data, 2004). |
Cost Analysesa |
Type of Data Considered as Basis of Assumption |
Source of Dataa |
Same as for nutrient analyses |
Representative of likely participant choices |
Assumption for analyses |
Same as for nutrient analyses |
Representative of likely participant choices |
Assumption for analyses |
f“Plain” in this instance means not flavored because flavored products customarily have added sugars. g“Regular” in this instance means not a reduced calorie product. h“Regular” in this instance means regular pack with salt added in processing but no fat or oil added in processing. i“Plain” in this instance means not flavored because flavored products customarily have added sugars and salt. NOTES FOR TABLE E-2: na = not applicable. The medical foods required by children and women with special dietary needs were omitted from this table. For additional detail on food specifications, see Table B-2, Appendix B—Nutrient Profiles of Current and Revised Food Packages. DATA SOURCES: Price data and other information were obtained from Economic Research Service, USDA (ERS, 2004b, 1999 price data); ACNielsen Homescan (ACNielsen, 2001, price data for 2001 obtained through ERS, USDA); and the Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Department of Labor (BLS, 2004a, equal weight for monthly 2002 price data). Additional information was obtained from American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP, 2004), American Heart Associations (AHA, 2004), Food and Nutrition Service (FNS, 1984a, 1984b), manufacturer labeling, and published resources (Krebs-Smith et al., 1997; Putnam and Allshouse, 1999; Smiciklas-Wright et al., 2002; Cotton et al., 2004; Reed et al., 2004; Wenrich and Cason, 2004). |
TABLE E-3A Calculated Costs of Representative Amounts of Foods in Revised Packages for Infants (2002)a
Food Item |
Unit |
Approximate Cost per Unit ($) |
Food Package I-FF-A |
||
Infant formula, liquid concentrate Post-rebate |
fl oz concentrate |
0.23 |
Food Package I-FF-B |
||
Infant formula, liquid concentrate Post-rebate |
fl oz concentrate |
0.23 |
Food Package I-BF/FF-A |
||
Infant formula, powder |
fl oz reconstituted |
~0.10 |
Food Package I-BF/FF-B |
||
Infant formula, powder Post-rebate |
fl oz reconstituted |
0.23 |
Food Package II-FF |
||
Infant formula, liquid concentrate Post-rebate |
fl oz concentrate |
0.23 |
Infant cereal |
oz |
0.20 |
oz |
0.12 |
|
lb |
0.51 |
|
Total |
||
Food Package II-BF/FF |
||
Infant formula, liquid concentrate Post-rebate |
fl oz concentrate |
0.23 |
Infant cereal |
oz |
0.20 |
oz |
0.12 |
|
lb |
0.51 |
|
Total |
||
Food Package II-BF |
||
Infant cereal |
oz |
0.20 |
oz |
0.12 |
|
lb |
0.51 |
|
Baby food meats |
oz |
0.29 |
Total |
||
aAll costs use market purchase-weighted prices estimated using 1999–2002 price data as described in Chapter 5—Evaluation of Cost. See data sources. This table is a simplification using prices that have been rounded off; small discrepancies between this table and other sections of the report are due to errors introduced by rounding for the purposes of constructing this table. Tables E-3A and E-3B are intended as easy reference guides of the costs used in cost calculations. These costs are illustrated well using the revised food packages; therefore the current food packages were not included in these tables. bAssumptions for the cost analyses included weighting alternate choices shown in this table as various quantities used in calculating costs. As an example using Food Package II-FF, the cost of the maximum allowance (128 oz) of baby food fruits and vegetables was calculated |
Representative Amount in Food Package |
|||
Quantity Used in Calculationb |
Assumption, Proportion Used |
Example |
Cost ($) |
403 fl oz concentrate |
1 |
31 13-oz cans |
92.69 29.75 |
442 fl oz concentrate |
1 |
34 13-oz cans |
101.66 32.63 |
384 fl oz reconstituted (51–60 oz powder) |
1 |
4 12.9-oz cans |
37.25 11.96 |
221 fl oz concentrate |
1 |
17 13-oz cans |
50.83 16.32 |
312 fl oz concentrate |
1 |
24 13-oz cans |
71.76 23.04 |
24 oz |
1 |
3 8-oz boxes |
4.80 |
112 oz d |
1 |
28 4-oz jars |
13.44 |
2 lb d |
1 |
2 lb fresh bananas |
1.02 42.30 |
156 fl oz concentrate |
1 |
12 13-oz cans |
35.88 11.52 |
24 oz |
1 |
3 8-oz boxes |
4.80 |
112 oz d |
1 |
28 4-oz jars |
13.44 |
2 lb d |
1 |
2 lb fresh bananas |
1.02 30.78 |
24 oz |
1 |
3 8-oz boxes |
4.80 |
240 oz d |
1 |
60 4-oz jars |
28.80 |
2 lb d |
1 |
2 lb fresh bananas |
1.02 |
77.5 oz |
1 |
31 2.5-oz jars |
22.48 57.10 |
using a choice of 112 oz of baby food fruits and vegetable plus 2 lb of fresh bananas. For additional detail, see Table E-1. cAllowed substitutions used in the calculations are indented below the food item; the total allowance for the food item is reflected in the sum of these entries. dIn Food Package II, 2 lb of fresh bananas may be substituted for 16 oz of baby food fruit. NOTES FOR TABLE E-3A: ~ indicates approximate amount. DATA SOURCES: Price data are from Economic Research Service, USDA (ERS, 2004b, 1999 price data; Oliveira et al., 2001, 2000 infant formula price data) and ACNielsen Homescan (ACNielsen, 2001, price data for 2001 obtained through ERS, USDA). |
TABLE E-3B Calculated Costs of Representative Amounts of Foods in Revised Packages for Children and Women (2002)a
Food |
Unit |
Approximate Cost per Unit ($) |
Food Package IV-A |
||
Juice |
fl oz |
~0.03 |
qt |
0.73 |
|
qt |
2.28 |
|
lb |
3.30 |
|
Cereal |
oz |
~0.20 |
Eggs |
doz |
1.03 |
lb |
~0.69 |
|
oz |
~0.05 |
|
lb |
~0.94 |
|
oz |
~0.03 |
|
lb |
1.80 |
|
lb |
1.77 |
|
lb |
0.77 |
|
oz |
~0.04 |
|
oz |
0.10 |
|
Total |
||
Food Package IV-B |
||
Juice |
fl oz |
~0.03 |
qt |
0.69 |
|
qt |
2.28 |
|
lb |
3.30 |
|
Cereal |
oz |
~0.20 |
Eggs |
doz |
1.03 |
lb |
~0.69 |
|
oz |
~0.05 |
|
lb |
~0.94 |
|
oz |
~0.03 |
|
lb |
1.80 |
|
lb |
1.77 |
|
lb |
0.77 |
|
oz |
~0.04 |
|
oz |
0.10 |
|
Total |
||
Food Package V |
||
Juice |
fl oz |
~0.03 |
qt |
0.69 |
|
qt |
1.64 |
Representative Amount in Food Package |
|||
Quantity Used in Calculation |
Assumption, Proportion Usedb |
Example |
Cost ($) |
128 fl oz |
1 |
3 32-fl oz cans |
3.71 |
14 qt |
1 |
7 half-gallons |
10.22 |
1 qt |
0.5 |
1 1-qt container |
1.14 |
1 lb |
0.5 |
1 1-lb package |
1.65 |
36 oz |
1 |
3 12-oz boxes |
7.20 |
1 doz |
1 |
1 doz |
1.03 |
4.88 lb |
0.5 |
— |
1.70 |
110 oz |
0.5 |
— |
2.78 |
4.88 lb |
0.5 |
— |
2.30 |
110 oz |
0.5 |
— |
1.87 |
1 lb |
1 |
1 1-lb loaf |
1.80 |
1 lb |
1 |
1 1-lb bag |
1.77 |
1 lb |
0.25 |
1 1-lb bag |
0.19 |
64 oz |
0.25 |
4 16-oz cans |
0.72 |
18 oz |
0.5 |
1 18-oz jar |
0.90 38.98 |
128 fl oz |
1 |
3 32-fl oz cans |
3.67 |
14 qt |
1 |
7 half-gallons |
9.66 |
1 qt |
0.5 |
1 1-qt container |
1.14 |
1 lb |
0.5 |
1 1-lb package |
1.65 |
36 oz |
1 |
3 12-oz boxes |
7.31 |
1 doz |
1 |
1 doz |
1.03 |
4.88 lb |
0.5 |
— |
1.70 |
110 oz |
0.5 |
— |
2.78 |
4.88 lb |
0.5 |
— |
2.30 |
110 oz |
0.5 |
— |
1.87 |
1 lb |
1 |
1 1-lb loaf |
1.80 |
1 lb |
1 |
1 1-lb bag |
1.77 |
1 lb |
0.25 |
1 1-lb bag |
0.19 |
64 oz |
0.25 |
4 16-oz cans |
0.72 |
18 oz |
0.5 |
1 18-oz jar |
0.90 38.49 |
144 fl oz |
1 |
3 46-fl oz cans |
4.13 |
19 qt |
0.9 |
6 gallons |
11.80 |
19 qt |
0.1 |
9 64-oz containers + 1 32-oz container |
3.12 |
Food |
Unit |
Approximate Cost per Unit ($) |
qt |
2.28 |
|
lb |
1.76 |
|
lb |
3.30 |
|
Cereal |
oz |
~0.20 |
Eggs |
doz |
1.03 |
lb |
~0.69 |
|
oz |
~0.05 |
|
lb |
~0.94 |
|
oz |
~0.03 |
|
lb |
1.80 |
|
lb |
1.77 |
|
lb |
0.77 |
|
oz |
~0.04 |
|
Peanut butter |
oz |
0.10 |
Total |
||
Food Package VI |
||
Juice |
fl oz |
~0.03 |
qt |
0.69 |
|
qt |
1.64 |
|
qt |
2.28 |
|
lb |
1.76 |
|
lb |
3.30 |
|
Cereal |
oz |
~0.20 |
Eggs |
doz |
1.03 |
lb |
~0.69 |
|
oz |
~0.05 |
|
lb |
~0.94 |
|
oz |
~0.03 |
|
lb |
0.77 |
|
oz |
~0.04 |
|
oz |
0.10 |
|
Total |
||
Food Package VII |
||
Juice |
fl oz |
~0.03 |
qt |
0.69 |
|
qt |
1.64 |
|
qt |
2.28 |
|
lb |
1.76 |
|
lb |
3.30 |
|
Cheese |
lb |
3.30 |
Cereal |
oz |
~0.20 |
Representative Amount in Food Package |
|||
Quantity Used in Calculation |
Assumption, Proportion Usedb |
Example |
Cost ($) |
1 qt |
1 |
1 1-qt container |
2.28 |
1 lb |
0.5 |
1 1-lb container |
0.88 |
1 lb |
0.5 |
1 1-lb package |
1.65 |
36 oz |
1 |
3 12-oz boxes |
7.30 |
1 doz |
1 |
1 doz |
1.03 |
6.1 lb |
0.5 |
— |
2.12 |
140 oz |
0.5 |
— |
3.48 |
6.1 lb |
0.5 |
— |
2.88 |
140 oz |
0.5 |
— |
2.38 |
1 lb |
0.5 |
1 1-lb loaf |
0.90 |
1 lb |
0.5 |
1 1-lb bag |
0.89 |
1 lb |
0.5 |
1 1-lb bag |
0.39 |
64 oz |
0.5 |
4 16-oz cans |
1.42 |
18 oz |
1 |
1 18-oz jar |
1.80 48.45 |
96 fl oz |
1 |
246-fl oz cans |
2.76 |
14 qt |
0.9 |
3 gallons + 1 half-gallon |
8.69 |
14 qt |
0.1 |
7 64-oz containers |
2.30 |
1 qt |
0.25 |
1 1-qt container |
0.57 |
1 lb |
0.25 |
1 1-lb container |
0.44 |
1 lb |
0.5 |
1 1-lb package |
1.65 |
36 oz |
1 |
3 12-oz boxes |
7.30 |
1 doz |
1 |
1 doz |
1.03 |
6.1 lb |
0.5 |
— |
2.12 |
140 oz |
0.5 |
— |
3.48 |
6.1 lb |
0.5 |
— |
2.88 |
140 oz |
0.5 |
— |
2.38 |
1 lb |
0.25 |
1 1-lb bag |
0.19 |
64 oz |
0.25 |
4 16-oz cans |
0.72 |
18 oz |
0.5 |
1 18-oz jar |
0.90 37.41 |
144 fl oz |
1 |
3 46-fl oz cans |
4.13 |
21 qt |
0.9 |
6 gallons |
13.04 |
21 qt |
0.1 |
12 64-oz containers |
3.45 |
1 qt |
1 |
1 1-qt container |
2.28 |
1 lb |
0.5 |
1 1-lb container |
0.88 |
1 lb |
0.5 |
1 lb |
1.65 |
1 lb |
1 |
1 lb |
3.30 |
36 oz |
1 |
3 12-oz boxes |
7.30 |
Food |
Unit |
Approximate Cost per Unit ($) |
Eggs |
doz |
1.03 |
lb |
~0.69 |
|
oz |
~0.05 |
|
lb |
~0.94 |
|
oz |
~0.03 |
|
lb |
1.80 |
|
lb |
1.77 |
|
oz |
~0.09 |
|
oz |
~0.11 |
|
lb |
0.77 |
|
oz |
~0.04 |
|
Peanut butter |
oz |
0.10 |
Total |
||
aAll costs use market purchase-weighted prices estimated using 1999–2002 price data as described in Chapter 5—Evaluation of Cost. See data sources. This table is a simplification using prices that have been rounded off; small discrepancies between this table and other sections of the report are due to errors introduced by rounding for the purposes of constructing this table. Tables E-3A and E-3B are intended as easy reference guides of the costs used in cost calculations. These costs are illustrated well using the revised food packages; therefore the current food packages were not included in these tables. bAssumptions for the cost analyses included weighting alternate choices shown in this table as proportions used for calculating costs. For example, the cost of the fruit was calculated using 0.5 as the proportion for both canned and fresh fruits; that means the cost was calculated using a choice of 50% canned and 50% fresh fruits. For additional detail, see Table E-2. |
Representative Amount in Food Package |
|||
Quantity Used in Calculation |
Assumption, Proportion Usedb |
Example |
Cost ($) |
2 doz |
1 |
2 doz |
2.06 |
6.1 lb |
0.5 |
— |
2.12 |
140 oz |
0.5 |
— |
3.48 |
6.1 lb |
0.5 |
— |
2.88 |
140 oz |
0.5 |
— |
2.38 |
1 lb |
0.5 |
1 1-lb loaf |
0.90 |
1 lb |
0.5 |
1 1-lb bag |
0.89 |
30 oz |
0.8 |
5 6-oz cans |
2.08 |
29.4 oz |
0.2 |
2 14.7-oz cans |
0.62 |
1 lb |
0.5 |
1 1-lb bag |
0.39 |
64 oz |
0.5 |
4 16-oz cans |
1.42 |
18 oz |
1 |
1 18-oz jar |
1.80 57.05 |
cAllowed substitutions used in the calculations are indented below the food item in the package; the total allowance for this food item is reflected in the sum of these entries. dCheese may be substituted for milk at the rate of 1 lb of cheese for 3 qt of milk. NOTE FOR TABLE E-3B: ~ indicates approximate amount. DATA SOURCES: Price data are from Economic Research Service, USDA (ERS, 2004b, 1999 price data); ACNielsen Homescan (ACNielsen, 2001, price data for 2001obtained through ERS, USDA); and the Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Department of Labor (BLS, 2004a, 2002 price data). |
TABLE E-4 Estimated Program Costs for Food per Month Using Current Packages (2002)a
Group |
Age/Participant Categoryb |
Description |
Package |
Infants |
0–3.9 mo |
Fully formula-fed |
I |
Partially breast-fedd |
I |
||
Fully breast-fedd |
— |
||
Subtotalse |
|
|
|
4–5.9 mo |
Fully formula-fed |
II |
|
Partially breast-fed f |
II |
||
Fully breast-fed f |
II |
||
Subtotalse |
|
|
|
6–11.9 mo |
Fully formula-fed |
II |
|
Partially breast-fed g |
II |
||
Fully breast-fed g |
II |
||
Subtotalse |
|
|
|
Totals for infante |
|
|
|
Children |
1–4.9 yh Totals for childrene |
|
IV |
Women |
Pregnante |
|
V |
Partially breastfeedingi |
|
V |
|
Non-breastfeeding postpartum e |
|
VI |
|
Fully breastfeedingi |
|
VII |
|
Totals for womene |
|
|
|
Totals for program Average food package cost per participant (per month) |
|||
aAll costs use market purchase-weighted prices estimated using 1999–2002 price data as described in Chapter 5—Evaluation of Cost. Data on number of participants were obtained from 2002 (Bartlett et al., 2003). bSee footnote b for Table E-5. cThe committee used data provided by FNS (public communication during open session, February, 2004, J. Hirschman, Office of Analysis, Nutrition and Evaluation, Food and Nutrition Service, USDA) to estimate that the average post-rebate cost of formula was 32.1%of the pre-rebate cost in 2002. dPercentage of infants fully breast-fed at 3 mo of age was reported (CDC, 2004b, 2004c). Percentage of partially breast-fed infants was calculated from these data and data on the percentage of infants who had ever been breast-fed at 3 mo of age (CDC, 2004b, 2004c). eNumber of participants was calculated using data Exhibit 3.1 from USDA’s WIC Participant and Program Characteristics, 2002 (Bartlett et al., 2003), recognizing that some discrepancies exist in these data. An infant is defined as a participant who, at certification, is under 1 year of age and who would be classified as a child at the age of 366 d. However, in 2002, about 2.84% of WIC participants categorized as 1-y-old children are, in fact, 11-mo-old infants who have been recertified as 1-y-old children; additionally, about 0.38% of WIC participants who are classified as infants are participants who are older than 366 d. fPercentage of infants fully or partially breast-fed at 4–5.9 mo of age was extrapolated |
Percentage within Age/ Participant Category |
Number of Participantsb |
Cost (pre-rebate, if applicable) |
Post-Rebate Costc |
Program Cost (post-rebate, if applicable) |
36 |
668,309 |
$ 92.69 |
$ 29.75 |
$ 19,882,193 |
28 |
519,796 |
$ 92.69 |
$ 29.75 |
$ 15,463,931 |
36 |
668,309 |
0 |
|
|
100 |
1,856,414 |
|
|
$ 35,346,124 |
69 |
38,428 |
$ 100.37 |
$ 37.43 |
$ 1,438,360 |
20 |
11,138 |
$ 100.37 |
$ 37.43 |
$ 416,895 |
11 |
6,126 |
$ 7.68 |
|
$ 47,048 |
100 |
55,692 |
|
|
$ 1,902,303 |
79 |
118,955 |
$ 100.37 |
$ 37.43 |
$ 4,452,486 |
16 |
24,092 |
$ 100.37 |
$ 37.43 |
$ 901,764 |
5 |
7,529 |
$ 7.68 |
|
$ 57,823 |
100 |
150,576 |
|
|
$ 5,412,073 |
|
2,062,682 |
|
|
$ 42,660,500 |
100 |
4,020,032 |
$ 39.29 |
|
$ 157,947,057 |
100 |
4,020,032 |
|
|
$ 157,947,057 |
45 |
878,619 |
$ 41.23 |
|
$ 36,225,461 |
11 |
205,559 |
$ 41.23 |
|
$ 8,475,198 |
31 |
597,451 |
$ 34.39 |
|
$ 20,546,340 |
13 |
252,572 |
$ 50.61 |
|
$ 12,782,669 |
100 |
1,934,201 |
|
|
$ 78,029,668 |
|
8,016,915 |
|
|
$ 278,637,225 |
|
|
|
|
$ 34.76 |
from data for infants at 3 and 6 mo of age (CDC, 2004b, 2004c; Abbott Labs, 2002, 2003 [2001 data]). gPercentages of infants fully or partially breast-fed at 6–11.9 mo of age were calculated as the average of data reported for infants at 6 mo (CDC, 2004b, 2004c) and 12 mo of age (CDC, 2004b, 2004c; Briefel et al., 2004a). hIncludes 0.8% of children, age 1–4.9 y, who were reported as “age not reported.” iPercentage distribution of women as fully breastfeeding (55% of the total) or partially breastfeeding (45%of the total) was calculated according to the distribution of infants identified as fully or partially breast-fed (see notes f and g). NOTES FOR TABLE E-4: This table is similar to Table 5-2; more detail is presented here in Appendix E. DATA SOURCES: Price data are from Economic Research Service, USDA (ERS, 2004b, 1999 price data; Oliveira et al., 2001, 2000 infant formula price data); ACNielsen Homescan (ACNielsen, 2001, price data for 2001obtained through ERS, USDA); and the Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Department of Labor (BLS, 2004a, 2002 price data). Data on rates of participation are from resources published by USDA (Bartlett et al., 2003, 2002 data; Kresge, 2003, 2002 data). Data on percentages of infants breast-fed were obtained from the 2003 National Immunization Survey (CDC, 2004b, 2004c) and published resources (Abbott Labs, 2002, 2003; Briefel et al, 2004a). |
TABLE E-5 Estimated Program Costs for Food per Month Using Revised Packages (2002)a
Group |
Age or Participant Categoryb |
Description |
Package |
Infants |
0–3.9 mo |
Fully formula-fed |
I |
—(0–0.9 mo) |
|||
I (1–3.9 mo) |
|||
Fully breast-fedd |
— |
||
Subtotalsg |
|
|
|
4–5.9 mo |
Fully formula-fed |
II |
|
Partially breast-fedh |
II |
||
Fully breast-fedh |
II |
||
Subtotalsg |
|
|
|
6–11.9 mo |
Fully formula-fed |
II |
|
Partially breast-fedi |
II |
||
Fully breast-fedi |
II |
||
Subtotalsg |
|
|
|
Totals for infantsg |
|
|
|
Children |
1–1.9 y j |
|
IV-A |
2–4.9 y j |
|
IV-B |
|
Totals for childreng |
|
|
|
Women |
Pregnantg |
|
V |
Partially breastfeedingk |
|
V |
|
Non-breastfeeding postpartumg |
|
VI |
|
Fully breastfeedingk |
|
VII |
|
Totals for womeng |
|
|
|
Totals for program Average food package cost per participant (per month) |
|||
aAll costs use market purchase-weighted prices estimated using 1999–2002 price data as described in Chapter 5—Evaluation of Cost. Data on number of participants were obtained from 2002 (Bartlett et al., 2003). bThe analyses presented in Tables E-4 and E-5 used published data for FY2002 from FNS (Bartlett et al., 2003, Exhibits 3.1 and 5.7) for the number of participants in total and in each participant category, including age groups within the infant category. The data presented by Bartlett et al. were derived from data collected on participants at the time of certification in the WIC program. If the analyses are done using the assumption that infant ages were distributed equally across twelve months, instead of by age at certification, the average package cost per participant would be $37.10 for the current packages and $38.02 for the revised packages. This represents an increase of $0.92 for the revised packages compared to the current packages. Thus, by these estimates the revised packages would be 2.5 percent higher in cost than the current packages. These estimates represent the upper bound of effects on costs because attrition in participation rates occurs as infants mature; for example, FY2002 enrollment was 2.1 million for infants and 1.4 million for one-year-olds (Bartlett et al., 2003). In using the data presented by Bartlett et al., the participant numbers throughout FY2002 were |
Percentage Within Age or Participant Category |
Number of Participantsb |
Cost (pre-rebate, if applicable) |
Cost Post-Rebatec |
Program Cost (post rebate, if applicable) |
36 |
668,309 |
$ 92.69 |
$ 29.75 |
$ 19,882,193 |
7 |
129,949 |
$ 4.65f |
$ 1.49 |
$ 193,624 |
21 |
389,847 |
$ 37.25 |
$ 11.96 |
$ 4,662,570 |
36 |
668,309 |
0 |
|
|
100 |
1,856,414 |
|
|
$ 24,738,387 |
69 |
38,428 |
$ 101.66 |
$ 32.63 |
$ 1,253,906 |
20 |
11,138 |
$ 50.83 |
$ 16.32 |
$ 181,772 |
11 |
6,126 |
0 |
|
|
100 |
55,692 |
|
|
$ 1,435,678 |
79 |
118,955 |
$ 91.02 |
$ 42.30 |
$ 5,031,797 |
16 |
24,092 |
$ 55.14 |
$ 30.78 |
$ 741,552 |
5 |
7,529 |
$ 57.10 |
|
$ 429,906 |
100 |
150,576 |
|
|
$ 6,203,255 |
|
2,062,682 |
|
|
$ 32,377,320 |
36 |
1,447,212 |
$ 38.98 |
|
$ 56,412,324 |
64 |
2,572,820 |
$ 38.49 |
|
$ 99,027,842 |
100 |
4,020,032 |
|
|
$ 155,440,166 |
45 |
878,619 |
$ 48.45 |
|
$ 42,569,090 |
11 |
205,559 |
$ 48.45 |
|
$ 9,959,334 |
31 |
597,451 |
$ 37.41 |
|
$ 22,350,642 |
13 |
252,572 |
$ 57.05 |
|
$ 14,409,233 |
100 |
1,934,201 |
|
|
$ 89,288,299 |
|
8,016,915 |
|
|
$ 277,105,785 |
|
|
|
|
$ 34.57 |
overestimated. If the analyses were done using FY2002 data presented as totals per participant category calculated from monthly averages (FNS, 2004f) instead of the annual totals from data collected at certification (Bartlett et al., 2003), the average package cost per participant would be $34.75 for the current packages and $34.57 for the revised packages. This represents a decrease of $0.18 for the revised packages compared to the current packages. Please note that the material in footnote b of Table E-5 was added after the report was released. cThe committee used data provided by FNS (public communication during open session, February, 2004, J. Hirschman, Office of Analysis, Nutrition and Evaluation, Food and Nutrition Service, USDA) to estimate that the average post-rebate cost of formula was 32.1% of the pre-rebate cost in 2002. dPercentage of infants fully breast-fed at 3 mo of age was reported (CDC, 2004b, 2004c). Percentage of partially breast-fed infants was calculated from these data and data on the percentage of infants who had ever been breast-fed at 3 mo of age (CDC, 2004b, 2004c). |
eFor the category of partially breast-fed infants 0–3.9 mo, the committee estimated that the number of infants aged 0–0.9 mo was 25% of the category total and the number of infants aged 1–3.9 mo was 75% of the total. In the absence of data on the proportion of infants to anticipate in each of the first 4 mo after birth, the committee assumed the distribution would be approximately equal in each month, using the census data for children under the age of 5 y as a model (20.0% ± 0.3%, mean ± SD) (U.S. Census Bureau, 2004). fOne alternative is to provide one small can (up to 15 oz) of powdered formula to breastfed infants during the first mo postpartum if requested by the mother. The committee used the assumption that the number of breastfeeding mothers requesting formula in the first mo would approximate 50% of the current number of partially breastfeeding mother/infants pairs. The additional monthly cost per participant who choose this option would be $9.30 in pre-rebate costs and $2.98 in post-rebate costs. Using the estimate of 50% of the current partially breastfeeding participants (0.5 × 129,949 = 64,747) for the first mo postpartum, the additional monthly program cost would be $193,626 or an additional 2.4¢ in the average cost per participant. gNumber of participants was calculated using data Exhibit 3.1 from USDA’s WIC Participant and Program Characteristics, 2002 (Bartlett et al., 2003), recognizing that some discrepancies exist in these data. An infant is defined as a participant who, at certification, is under 1 y of age and who would be classified as a child at the age of 366 d. However, in 2002, about 2.84% of WIC participants categorized as 1-y-old children are, in fact, 11-mo-old infants who have been recertified as 1-y-old children; additionally, about 0.38% of WIC participants who are classified as infants are participants who are older than 366 days. hPercentage of infants fully or partially breast-fed at 4–5.9 mo of age was extrapolated from data for infants at 3 and 6 mo of age (CDC, 2004b; Abbott Labs, 2002, 2003 [2001 data]). iPercentages of infants fully or partially breast-fed at 6–11.9 mo of age were calculated as the average of data reported for infants at 6 mo (CDC, 2004b, 2004c) and 12 mo of age (CDC, 2004b, 2004c; Briefel et al., 2004a). jThe committee calculated the number of participants in each category using data from the USDA sponsored WIC Participant and Program Characteristics 2002 (Bartlett et al., 2003); data from Exhibit 3.1 (Bartlett et al., 2003) were used to estimate the number of participants ages 1–1.9 y and 2–4.9 y. kPercentage distribution of women as fully breastfeeding (55% of the total) or partially breastfeeding (45% of the total) was calculated according to the distribution of infants identified as fully or partially breast-fed (see notes h and i). NOTES FOR TABLE E-5: This table is similar to Table 5-3; more detail is presented here in Appendix E. DATA SOURCES: Price data are from Economic Research Service, USDA (ERS, 2004b, 1999 price data; Oliveira et al., 2001, 2000 infant formula price data); ACNielsen Homescan (ACNielsen, 2001, price data for 2001obtained through ERS, USDA); and the Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Department of Labor (BLS, 2004a, 2002 price data). Data on rates of participation are from resources published by USDA (Bartlett et al., 2003, 2002 data; Kresge, 2003, 2002 data). Data on percentages of infants breast-fed were obtained from the 2003 National Immunization Survey (CDC, 2004b, 2004c) and published resources (Abbott Labs, 2002, 2003; Briefel et al, 2004a). |