Blog Home

Archive for the 'Quality' Category




Four Years Into A Commercial ACO For CalPERS: Substantial Savings And Lessons Learned


April 17th, 2014
 
by Glenn Melnick and Lois Green

Editor’s note: In addition to Glenn Melnick, this post is coauthored by Lois Green.

Background: In a very short period of time, Accountable Care Organizations (ACOs) have become an important and widespread part of the US health care landscape. A recent Health Affairs Blog post estimates the total number of public (Medicare) and private ACOs at more than 600 nationally, covering more than 18 million insured population. Despite their rapid and widespread adoption, relatively little is known about how ACOs actually work and how successful they have been. This is due in part to their relative “newness,” as many reported ACOs are just getting up and running. Others have been operational for short periods of time and have yet to produce meaningful or long-term sustainable results.

This Health Affairs Blog post helps fill some of this void by reporting on the operational experiences of one of the oldest (4+ years) and largest commercial ACOs in the nation. A previous Health Affairs Blog post reported on its initial planning and start-up phase, and a subsequent Health Affairs article reported on its early financial results.

In 2007, Blue Shield of California, along with provider and employer partner organizations, began exploring development of one of the first ACO-like programs in the country to serve Commercial patients. It launched in 2010 and, as reported below, has been generating savings to consumers throughout the period. Located in the competitive Sacramento market of northern California, the ACO is an example of an innovative shared savings model involving a large insurer—Blue Shield of California; a purchaser—the California Public Employees Retirement System (CalPERS); a physician group—Hill Physicians Medical Group (HPMG); and a hospital system—Dignity Health. The population served approximately 42,000 CalPERS employees and their families covered by Blue Shield.

In this Health Affairs Blog interview, senior executives from each of the partnership organizations, all of whom have operational responsibilities and oversight of this ground-breaking Commercial ACO, discuss key operational aspects of the ACO and its implementation. They discuss evolution of the culture, governance and essential “partnership” relationships an ACO requires to survive and thrive. In addition, they detail specific operational initiatives designed to coordinate and manage care, and report on how these initiatives have fared over the four-year period since the ACO’s launch. Empirical results show success in many areas, with challenges in some others. Of particular note has been overall cost of health care (COHC) savings reported at gross savings of more than $105 million, with net savings of $95 million to CalPERS members, since 2010. Finally, the partners illuminate the ACO’s future directions and offer lessons for other organizations considering development of an ACO delivery system for the Commercial market.

The interview was supported by funding from the California HealthCare Foundation.

Read the rest of this entry »

We’ll Need A Bigger Boat: Reimagining The Hospital-Physician Partnership


April 17th, 2014
 
by Francis J. Crosson and John Combes

Editor’s note: In addition to Francis J. Crosson, this post is coauthored by John Combes.

Change is underway in the delivery and financing of American health care, and it is manifested in the evolving relationship of hospitals and physicians across the U.S. These developments are most striking in California, but are appearing in various forms in almost all states. Physicians and hospitals are being both “pushed” and “pulled” together in new ways by a variety of market forces, including the development of Accountable Care Organizations (ACOs) for both Medicare and commercially insured patients, increased direct employment of physicians by hospitals, the emergence of new payment mechanisms such as global payments, and, in general, by the need for physicians, physician groups and hospitals to deliver greater “value.”

All of this presents the opportunity to redesign care to be more coordinated, efficient, patient-driven, and effective. These integration forces could lead to the kind of organizations envisioned 15 years ago in the Institute of Medicine report “Crossing the Quality Chasm”, resulting in the Triple Aim of better health, better patient care experiences and outcomes, and improved affordability — driven, in part, by new patient care models and payment methods including incentives for improving the value of health care services.

Many physicians are uncomfortable with the idea of physician-hospital integration for several reasons. The long tradition of “professional autonomy”– perhaps best described as “the need for physicians to be able to make appropriate and scientifically based patient-by-patient decisions in the best interest of those patients” — can raise fears among some physicians about becoming part of a larger practice or institution and losing that autonomy. Additionally, some physician groups have shown that they can develop a successful ACO without the need for hospital and insurance partners, preferring to manage the clinical and financial risk alone.

Read the rest of this entry »

Payment and Delivery Reform Case Study: Congestive Heart Failure


April 15th, 2014
by Darshak Sanghavi

Editor’s note: In addition to Darshak Sanghavi (photo and bio above), this post is coauthored by Meaghan George, a project manager at the Engelberg Center for Health Care Reform at the Brookings Institution. The post is adapted from a full-length case study, the first in a series of case studies made possible through the Engelberg Center’s Merkin Initiative on Physician Payment Reform and Clinical Leadership, a special project to develop clinician leadership of health care delivery, payment and financing reform. The case studies will be presented using a “MEDTalk” format featuring live story-telling and knowledge-sharing from patients, providers, and policymakers. The event series will kickoff on Wednesday, April 16 from 10 a.m. – Noon EST.

Introduction

Clinicians and hospitals across the nation struggle with providing and paying for optimal care for their congestive health failure (CHF) patients. However, there are opportunities to make care better. In fact, of the more than 10,000 pages in the Affordable Care Act (ACA) implementing regulations, the least talked about are the dozens of small experiments led by the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation (CMMI) that test new ways to pay for medical services.

We use a case study approach to investigate and tell the story of what two academic medical centers, Duke University Health System (“Duke”) and University of Colorado Hospital (“Colorado”), are doing to innovate and improve CHF care while implementing alternative payment models offered by CMMI.

Read the rest of this entry »

Clinical Nuance: Benefit Design Meets Behavioral Economics


April 3rd, 2014

On Capitol Hill, there’s a growing chorus of support from both sides of the aisle to move the focus of health care payment incentives from volume to value. Earlier this month, legislators introduced proposals that would have fixed the sustainable growth rate in Medicare, as well as made other changes, including allowing for clinical nuance in Medicare benefit designs. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, too, is embracing this trend, recently asking for partners in a demonstration project to used value-based arrangements in benefit design. These efforts of policymakers and agencies to innovate Medicare’s benefit design are crucial both for the health of seniors and to ensure value in the Medicare program.

The concept of clinical nuance, implemented using value-based insurance design (V-BID), is a key innovation already widely implemented in the private and public payers. It recognizes two important facts about the provision of medical care: 1) medical services differ in the amount of health produced, and 2) the clinical benefit derived from a medical service depends on who is using it, who is delivering the service, and where it is being delivered.

Today’s Medicare beneficiaries face little clinical nuance in their benefit structure. Medicare largely uses a “one-size-fits-all” structure that does not recognize that some treatments, drugs or tests are more important to health than others. Not only does it create inefficiencies in the health system, it can actually harm the health of beneficiaries.

Read the rest of this entry »

Embarking On A New Journey With Health Affairs


March 31st, 2014
by Alan Weil

I am delighted to be taking on the role of editor-in-chief of Health Affairs. This is a dynamic time in all aspects of health and health care: insurance coverage expansions, delivery system changes, and growing attention to population health.  Building upon thirty-three years of peer-reviewed scholarship, Health Affairs will continue to serve as the nation’s primary resource for the health policy community.

My goals for Health Affairs coalesce around a single theme: broadening the reach of the journal.

Health Affairs is strong in the core health policy community, but our scholarship is relevant to myriad actors in the one-sixth of the United States economy represented by health care.  My goal is to broaden our engagement with the worlds of law, finance, design, and many others.

Read the rest of this entry »

Should Provider Performance Measures Be Risk-Adjusted For Sociodemographic Factors?


March 27th, 2014
by Christine Cassel

The National Quality Forum released draft recommendations on March 18 to change the way we assess the care that doctors and hospitals provide, and they are sure to cause a buzz in and beyond the health care community. That’s a good thing, because reflection and conversation are vital pieces of ‘getting it right’ when determining how measures can be used to gauge healthcare performance.

The recommendations come from a panel of 26 national experts convened by NQF at the request of the federal government. The question before them: Should the measures we use to assess providers’ performance be risk-adjusted to account for patients who are poor, homeless, illiterate, uneducated, or have other indicators of lower socioeconomic status? The panel’s recommendations are discussed below, and we encourage you to register your views by commenting on the report by April 16 and on this post.

Read the rest of this entry »

A March Madness Health Wonk Review


March 27th, 2014
by Chris Fleming

Welcome to the “March Madness” edition of the Health Wonk Review. The NCAA college basketball tournament seemed like a natural theme for a health care policy blog post: huge amounts of money floating around in ways that only sometimes correlate with performance, and head-to-head match-ups that can yield results no one expected (though in the tournament those unexpected results produce quicker and more certain changes than is often the case in health care).

We considered illustrating each blog post with pictures of a college basketball team from the author’s home state celebrating a championship, but we thought better of that after seeing this cautionary tale. So let’s get to the great collection of posts from our Wonkers.

Read the rest of this entry »

PCORI’s Research Will Answer Patients’ Real-World Questions


March 25th, 2014
by Joe Selby

As a physician, I know the challenge of helping patients determine which health care options might work best for them given their personal situation and preferences. Too often they — and their clinicians — must make choices about preventing, diagnosing and treating diseases and health conditions without adequate information. The Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI) was created to help solve this problem — to help patients and those who care for them make better-informed health decisions.

Established by Congress through the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act as an independent research institute, PCORI is designed to answer real-world questions about what works best for patients based on their particular circumstances and concerns. We do this primarily by funding comparative clinical effectiveness research (CER), studies that compare multiple care options. But more research by itself won’t improve clinical decision-making. Patients and those who care for them must be able to easily find relevant evidence they can trust. That’s why our mandate is not just to fund high-quality CER and evidence synthesis but to share the results in ways that are meaningful to patients, clinicians and others. We’re also charged with improving the methods used in conducting those studies and enhancing our nation’s capacity to do such research.

We will be evaluated ultimately on whether the research we fund can change clinical practice and help reduce the variations and disparities that stand between patients and better outcomes. We’re confident that the work we’re funding brings us and the audiences we serve closer to that goal.

Recently, some questions have been raised in health policy circles about our holistic approach to PCORI’s work. That view holds that direct comparisons of health care options — especially those involving high-priced interventions — should be the dominant if not sole focus of PCORI’s research funding approach as a path to limiting the use of expensive, less-effective options.

We agree that discovering new knowledge on how therapies compare with one another is a critical mandate of PCORI and is essential to improving the quality and effectiveness of care. However, ensuring that patients and those who care for them have timely access to and can use this knowledge, so that they can effectively apply it to improve their decisions, is also very important. That is the reasoning behind our integrated approach path that addresses the gaps in available evidence, and also studies how best to make the evidence available and usable.

Read the rest of this entry »

The Health Workforce: A Critical Component Of The Health Care Infrastructure


March 24th, 2014
by Edward Salsberg

Editor’s note: This is the first in a periodic series of Health Affairs Blog posts on health workforce issues by Edward Salsberg. Mr. Salsberg has spent over 30 years studying the health workforce, including nearly 20 years establishing and directing three centers dedicated to workforce data collection, analysis and research. The first center, at the University at Albany, was focused on state health workforce data collection and issues. The second, at the Association of American Medical Colleges, was focused on the physician workforce across the nation. The third, the National Center for Health Workforce Analysis, was authorized by the Affordable Care Act. Mr. Salsberg has now joined the faculty at George Washington University where they are establishing a new Center for Health Workforce Research and Policy.

In the post below, Mr. Salsberg provides an overview of workforce issues. Future posts will discuss more specific health workforce questions and developments.

It could be argued that the health workforce — the people who provide direct patient care, as well as the staff that support caregivers and health care institutions — is the most significant component of the infrastructure of the health care system. Yet as a nation we have invested very little in collecting and analyzing health workforce data or in supporting the necessary research to inform effective public and private decision making. The results of this lack of investment are surpluses and shortages, significant mal-distribution, and less efficient and effective care than would be possible with better intelligence on our workforce needs.

For many health care professions, it takes years to build education and training capacity to increase, supply, or to change curriculum and modify the profession’s skill set. For these professions, we need to not only assess today’s needs but to project our future needs.

What the nation needs is a system to provide data, research findings, and information to thousands of individual stakeholders. This includes individuals considering a health career; colleges, universities and training programs that will educate and prepare them; the health organizations who will employ them; policy makers who need to decide what, if any, programs and policies to support; and the private sector that needs to decide whether to invest in workforce development. The responsibility for assuring an adequate supply and a well prepared health workforce is shared between the public and private sectors at both the national and the state and local level. Regardless of who is making the decisions related to health professions education and training capacity and health professions preparation, accurate and timely data is extremely important to support informed decisions.

Read the rest of this entry »

Nine Questions About My New Medical Home


March 17th, 2014
by Matthew Anderson

Sometime in the past five years — it’s hard for me to say exactly when — I suddenly found myself living in a new home. I must admit I am still a bit disoriented by how this happened. But it did. People keep telling me that everything will be ok but I am not entirely sure.

For example, in my old home we had occasional family meetings; things are different now. We now have weekly (and monthly) meetings. The many new administrators ask us to complete personality surveys. Once we had to figure out what items we should take from a sinking yacht in the South Pacific (hint: the $100 bill will be useful). Another time we had to decide if we were a “Wow” or a “Thinker.” We are asked to figure out how we can do a better job for them. I guess, like all forms of therapy you don’t get better unless you change.

Despite all these meetings there are a series of things I still don’t understand. I am afraid to raise my hand at the meetings and give the impression I’m a bad sport so I have written my questions down. Please, please don’t think I am a Luddite who wants to go back to the old home. In fact, what I dislike most about the new home is precisely the way — even in its differences — it resembles the old home.

Read the rest of this entry »

The Latest Health Wonk Review


March 14th, 2014
by Chris Fleming

Brad Wright at Wright on Health offers this week’s edition of the Health Wonk Review. His “Mud Season Edition” is an entertaining read and includes a Health Affairs Blog post by Suzanne Delbanco on pay-for-performance.

Read the rest of this entry »

Physicians’ Concerns About Electronic Health Records: Implications And Steps Towards Solutions


March 11th, 2014

Policy makers and professional organizations have become increasingly concerned about physician professional satisfaction. As in the managed care expansion of the 1990s, recent health reforms, including but not limited to the Affordable Care Act (ACA) and the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA), have begun to have effects “in the exam room,” changing how patients, physicians, and allied health professionals interact. To better understand how these reforms are affecting patient care and other aspects of physicians’ professional lives, we recently conducted an in-depth study of professional satisfaction using a combination of open-ended interviews and written surveys with physicians and other professionals in 30 practices (encompassing 55 distinct practice sites) across the United States.

We found several factors that enhanced physician professional satisfaction in 2013, including:
.

  • perceived ability to deliver high-quality patient care
  • reasonable control over the environment, pace, and content of work
  • sharing clinical values with organizational leadership
  • respectful professional relationships
  • incomes perceived as predictable and fair

Intense Physician Reaction To Electronic Health Records

At the time of our study, the ACA did not yet seem to have measurable effects on physician professional satisfaction, either positive or negative. Instead, regulations stemming from the ARRA—specifically, incentives and penalties to adopt electronic health records (EHRs)—have provoked widespread and intense responses from practicing physicians. Despite recognizing the value of EHRs in concept, many physicians are struggling to use their EHRs, which they describe as negatively impacting patient care in several important ways and undermining their professional satisfaction.

Read the rest of this entry »

The Dangers Of Quality Improvement Overload: Insights From The Field


March 7th, 2014

Editor’s note: This post is also co-authored by Ksenia O Gorbenko, Catherine van de Ruit, and Charles Bosk of the University of Pennsylvania.

Quality improvement (QI) and patient safety initiatives are created with the laudable goal of saving lives and reducing “preventable harms” to patients. As the number of QI interventions continues to rise, and as hospitals become increasingly subject to financial pressures and penalties for hospital-acquired conditions (HACs), we believe it is important to consider the impact of the pressure to improve everything at once on hospitals and their staff.

We argue that a strategy that capitalizes on “small wins” is most effective. This approach allows for the creation of steady momentum by first convincing workers they can improve, and then picking some easily obtainable objectives to provide evidence of improvement.

National Quality Improvement Initiatives

Our qualitative team is participating in two large ongoing national quality improvement initiatives, funded by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ). Each initiative targets a single HAC and its reduction in participating hospitals. We have visited hospital sites across six states in order to understand why QI initiatives achieve their goals in some settings but not others. To date, we have conducted over 150 interviews with hospital workers ranging from frontline staff in operating rooms and intensive care units to hospital administrators and executive leadership. In interviews for this ethnographic research, one of our interviewees warned us about unrealistic expectations for change, “you cannot go from imperfect to perfect. It’s a slow process.”

While there is much to learn about how to achieve sustainable QI in the environment of patient care, one thing is certain from the growing wisdom of ethnographic studies of QI: buy-in from frontline providers is essential for creating meaningful change. Front-line providers often bristle at expectations from those they believe have little understanding of the demands of their daily work. Requiring health care providers to improve on all mandated measures at once—in an atmosphere of reduced reimbursements and frequent staff shortages—is a goal that risks burnout, discouragement, and apathy – all signs of initiative fatigue.

Read the rest of this entry »

The Payment Reform Landscape: Pay-For-Performance


March 4th, 2014
by Suzanne Delbanco

Editor’s note: This is the second post in a Health Affairs Blog series by Catalyst for Payment Reform Executive Director Suzanne Delbanco. Over the coming months, Delbanco will examine how different methods of payment reform are being employed and how well they’re working. The first post in the series provided an overview of payment reform; this post examines pay-for-performance.

One of our core beliefs at Catalyst for Payment Reform (CPR) is that we need to move away from fee-for-service, toward new models that pay for care based on value, not volume. And while our National Scorecard on Payment Reform shows these new payment models are spreading, we still don’t know if they are really delivering the value we hope for — higher-quality care at more affordable prices. So we decided to make 2014 a year “all about the evidence,” taking an in-depth look at different payment reform models and assessing whether they are proving to enhance value. We’re delighted Health Affairs Blog is our partner in this journey. This month we examine pay-for-performance.

What is pay-for-performance? Is it widespread?

A pay-for-performance (P4P) model provides what are typically financial incentives to providers to improve the quality of the care they deliver and/or reduce costs. In CPR’s terminology, pay-for-performance is an “upside only” method of payment reform. The model gives health care providers the chance for a financial upside – such as a bonus — but no added financial risk, or downside. Our 2013 National Scorecard on Payment Reform demonstrated that almost 11 percent of commercial payments are value-oriented; approximately 1.6 percent of commercial payments are fee-for-service with pay-for-performance.

Despite the small portion of dollars flowing through pay-for-performance programs, we know it is a relatively popular model of payment reform. According to a 2010 report issued by the National Conference on State Legislatures (NCSL), an estimated 85 percent of state Medicaid programs were expected to operate some type of pay-for-performance program by 2011. Provisions in the Affordable Care Act expand the amount of pay-for-performance in Medicare as well.

Read the rest of this entry »

HA Issue Briefing: The ACA And The Future Of HIV/AIDS In America


February 28th, 2014
by Chris Fleming

One of the least explored yet most important parts of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) are provisions that hold promise for addressing serious health care challenges facing the 1.1 million Americans who are living with HIV/AIDS — and others like them — most of whom are impoverished and uninsured.

Please join Health Affairs Founding Editor John Iglehart on Tuesday, March 11, in Washington, DC, for a Health Affairs briefing where we will spotlight issues related to the ACA and people with HIV/AIDS.

WHEN:
Tuesday, March 11, 2014
9:00 a.m. – Noon

WHERE:
National Press Club
529 14th Street NW, Washington, DC, 13th Floor (Metro Center)

REGISTER ONLINE

Follow live Tweets from the briefing @HA_Events, and join in the conversation with the hashtag #HA_HIVAIDS

Read the rest of this entry »

HA Web First: Improved Prescribing And Reimbursement Practices In China


February 26th, 2014
by Tracy Gnadinger

Pay-for-performance—reimbursing health care providers based on the results they achieved with their patients as a way to improve quality and efficiency—has become a major component of health reforms in the United States, the United Kingdom, and other affluent countries. Although the approach has also become popular in the developing world, there has been little evaluation of its impact. A new study, released today as a Web First by Health Affairs, examines the effects of pay-for-performance, combined with capitation, in China’s largely rural Ningxia Province.

Between 2009 and 2012, authors Winnie Yip, Timothy Powell-Jackson, Wen Chen, Min Hu, Eduardo Fe, Mu Hu, Weiyan Jian, Ming Lu, Wei Han, and William C. Hsiao, in collaboration with the provincial government, conducted a matched-pair, cluster-randomized experiment to review that province’s primary care providers’ antibiotic prescribing practices, health spending, and several other factors. They found a near-15 percent reduction in antibiotic prescriptions and a small decline in total spending per visit to community clinics.

The authors note that the success of this experiment has motivated the government of Ningxia Province to expand this intervention to the entire province. “From a policy perspective, our study offers several additional valuable lessons,” they conclude. “Provider patterns of overprescribing and inappropriate prescribing cannot be changed overnight; nor can patient demand, for which antibiotics are synonymous with quality care. Provider payment reform probably needs to be accompanied by training for providers and health education for patients.”

Read the rest of this entry »

Recent Health Policy Brief Updates: CO-OP Insurance and SHOP Exchanges


February 26th, 2014
by Tracy Gnadinger

The latest Health Policy Brief update from Health Affairs and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, published February 6, describes the new marketplaces created for small businesses to buy cheaper coverage more easily. These exchanges were created under the Affordable Care Act (ACA)’s Small Business Health Options Program (SHOP). Employers with fewer than 25 employees must purchase coverage through a SHOP if they want the small-business tax credit. This policy brief discusses the potential impact of the problems with the online exchange systems on health benefits offered by small employers.

The preceding Health Policy Brief update, published January 23, describes the current status of the Consumer Operated and Oriented Plan (CO-OP) program especially now that ACA implementation has begun. Because of funding cuts, one CO-OP was disbanded, and now 23 remain in 23 states. An updated partial list of approved CO-OPs and their sponsoring organizations is included. This policy brief discusses CO-OP funding, competency, competitive premium rates, and provision of care. Despite its early success, the next steps will be to see how many people the CO-OPs are able to enroll, whether their premium rates are sustainable, and their plans offer the same quality and care as the commercial market.

Read the rest of this entry »

Empathy: The First Step To Improving Health Outcomes


February 25th, 2014
by Aubrey Hill

Health care providers across the country are diagnosing, prescribing, and bandaging, but for many patients, that may not be enough to improve health.

Health care providers have a unique opportunity to improve patient health outcomes by practicing empathy for their patients and complex life circumstances. Empathy is defined as, “the ability to understand and share the feelings of another,” and studies have shown that empathy is an important skill for health care providers and is significantly associated with improved clinical outcomes.

Social Determinants of Health

Social and environmental factors (also known as social determinants of health) have a larger impact on health than medical intervention. Social determinants of health such as income, education, food and housing access, and racial and ethnic inequality affect the health of a person from birth to death, and can be difficult to understand and control for within a health care visit. Due to a lack of social resources, patients are unable to fully comply with treatment plans, follow provider instructions, return for a follow-up visit, and ultimately, experience good health outcomes. A few specific examples include: problems accessing care without insurance, finding funds to cover needed services or prescriptions, securing transportation to get to and from appointments on time, or speaking the same language as a health care provider.

Read the rest of this entry »

Cesarean Rates: A Global Perspective


February 24th, 2014
by Christine Spencer

As noted in a previous Health Affairs Blog post by Katy Kozhimannil and Ezra Golberstein, there is significant variability in cesarean delivery rates across the United States, but this is also true worldwide. Worldwide cesarean delivery rates have come under scrutiny and criticism since the World Health Organization (WHO) suggested in 1985 that the optimal rate should not exceed 10 to 15 percent.

Although currently there is no expert agreement on a single optimal level, a general consensus has emerged that extremely low rates (less than 5 percent) suggest underuse and higher rates (greater than 10-15 percent) suggest overuse. Globally, the average rate sits slightly above that recommended level at 16 percent. However, the mean value masks the underlying variability that exists across countries and the different issues inherent in the variation. Of countries which report at least some cesarean deliveries, the range of use runs from 1 percent (Niger) to 52 percent (Brazil) of live child births.

Middle and High-Income Countries

Cesarean rates in middle and high-income countries have continued to increase over the last decade (most are significantly over 15 percent). The average rate among the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD)-member countries is 26.9 per 100 live births (range: 14.7 to 49.0). Comparatively, the United States has a very high rate of cesarean delivery (31.4 per 100 live births). In Switzerland, for example, cesarean section rates varied in 2010 from less than 20 percent to over 40 percent in a region. Within a region, the rates also varied by hospital. A study in France found more cesarean sections were performed in for-profit hospitals than in public hospitals, which treat more complicated pregnancies, suggesting that financial incentives may also play a role in explaining excess cesarean deliveries.

Read the rest of this entry »

Jeffrey Brenner On GrantWatch: The Future For Population Health


February 21st, 2014
by Tracy Gnadinger

In a recent GrantWatch Blog post, Jeffrey Brenner raises the question, “What if Thomas Edison had to write grant proposals to invent the light bulb?” Brenner is a MacArthur fellow, medical director of the Urban Health Institute, and executive director and founder of the Camden Coalition of Healthcare Providers.

Brenner uses the Edison analogy to look at current grant funding and population health.

Since 1945 the National Institutes of Health (NIH), a federal government agency that funds medical research, has spent $547 billion dollars to cure disease and push the frontiers of medical knowledge. This spending has been supplemented by funding from private foundations. Sadly, despite all of this spending we have little understanding of how to deliver better care at lower cost to every American. At best, in the field of population health, we have a few light bulbs that stay lit for an hour or two, but we lack even basic knowledge to drive this field forward.

With 85 million baby boomers in the midst of retiring and a health care system that consumes 18 percent of our economy, it is not a small problem. We do not understand the fundamental drivers of health care utilization; the basic rules for designing and implementing effective interventions; the best ways to use data to plan, implement, manage, and evaluate interventions; nor how to train staff to run and lead these interventions. Why the lack of progress?

Read the rest of this entry »

Click here to email us a new post.