Countering the Tragedy of the Health Care Commons by Exnovation: Bringing Unexpected Problems and Solutions into View

In the health sciences and policy, it is common to view rising health care costs as a tragedy of the commons, i.e., a situation in which the unhampered use of a resource by rational individuals leads to its depletion. By monitoring a set of outcomes, not only the costs but also patient experience and population health, simultaneously, it is claimed that the “triple aim” approach changes what is rational for health care stakeholders and, thus, can counter the rapidly rising health care costs. This approach has an important limitation: it reduces the monitored innovations to merely their outcomes; yet, how health care professionals and patients give shape to care delivery remains invisible. To get a more in-depth understanding of the consequences of adopting such an approach, in this article I use the method of exnovation instead. Exnovation foregrounds the everyday accomplishments of health care practices to enable reflection and learning. I draw on an ethnographic study into an innovation in care delivery aimed at rendering it more sustainable: Primary Care Plus. I reflected with both professionals and patients on what happened during 40 Primary Care Plus consultations. By presenting and analyzing three of these consultations, I foreground what is rendered invisible with the triple aim: improvisations, surprises and habits unfolding in practice. With exnovation, health care innovations can provide fertile soil for creating new forms of sustainable care that can help prevent the impending exhaustion of health care systems.

Präferenzen von Patienten, pflegenden Angehörigen, Leistungserbringern, Kostenträgern und politischen Entscheidungsträgern bei der integrierten Versorgung in Deutschland: Ein Discrete Choice Experiment

Zusammenfassung Ziel Ziel dieser Studie ist Präferenzen zu erheben, die multimorbide Patienten, pflegende Angehörige, Leistungserbringer, Kostenträger oder politische Entscheidungsträger verschiedenen Endpunkten von integrierten Versorgungsprogrammen (IV-Programmen) in Deutschland beimessen und diese zu vergleichen. Methodik Mit Hilfe eines Discrete Choice Experiments (DCE) wurden die Präferenzen der Befragten für die Endpunkte von zwei IV-Programmen ermittelt. Jedes IV-Programm wurde anhand von Attributen, bzw.Endpunkten präsentiert, die das „Triple Aim“ abbilden. Sie waren in die Endpunkte Wohlbefinden, Erfahrung mit Versorgung und Kosten unterteilt, mit insgesamt acht Attributen und jeweils drei Ausprägungen. Ergebnisse Die Ergebnisse von 676 Fragebögen zeigen, dass die Attribute „Lebensfreude“ und „Kontinuität der Versorgung“ interessengruppenübergreifend die höchsten Bewertungen erhalten. Am geringsten blieben die relativen Bewertungen für alle Interessengruppen bei dem Attribut „Kosten“. Die Präferenzen der Leistungserbringer und pflegenden Angehörigen unterschieden sich am deutlichsten von denen der Patienten. Diese Unterschiede betrafen meist die „körperliche Funktionsfähigkeit“, die von Patienten am höchsten bewertet wurde, die „Personenzentrierung“ und „Kontinuität der Versorgung“, die die höchsten Bewertungen von den Leistungserbringern erhielten. Schlussfolgerung Die identifizierten Präferenzheterogenitäten in Bezug auf die Endpunkte von IV-Programmen zwischen den Interessengruppen verdeutlichen, wie wichtig es für eine optimale Ausgestaltung von IV-Programmen ist, Vertreter der Praxis und politische Entscheidungsträger über die unterschiedlichen Perspektiven zu informieren. Die Ergebnisse unterstreichen zudem die Relevanz von gemeinsamen Entscheidungsfindungs- und Abstimmungsprozessen zwischen Leistungserbringern, pflegenden Angehörigen und Patienten.

Simulation modeling to assess performance of integrated healthcare systems: Literature review to characterize the field and visual aid to guide model selection

Background The guiding principle of many health care reforms is to overcome fragmentation of service delivery and work towards integrated healthcare systems. Even though the value of integration is well recognized, capturing its drivers and its impact as part of health system performance assessment is challenging. The main reason is that current assessment tools only insufficiently capture the complexity of integrated systems, resulting in poor impact estimations of the actions taken towards the ‘Triple Aim’. We describe the unique nature of simulation modeling to consider key health reform aspects: system complexity, optimization of actions, and long-term assessments. Research question How can the use and uptake of simulation models be characterized in the field of performance assessment of integrated healthcare systems? Methods A systematic search was conducted between 2000 and 2018, in 5 academic databases (ACM D. Library, CINAHL, IEEE Xplore, PubMed, Web of Science) complemented with grey literature from Google Scholar. Studies using simulation models with system thinking to assess system performance in topics relevant to integrated healthcare were selected for revision. Results After screening 2274 articles, 30 were selected for analysis. Five modeling techniques were characterized, across four application areas in healthcare. Complexity was defined in nine aspects, embedded distinctively in each modeling technique. ‘What if?’ & ‘How to?’ scenarios were identified as methods for system optimization. The mean time frame for performance assessments was 18 years. Conclusions Simulation models can evaluate system performance emphasizing the complex relations between components, understanding the system’s adaptability to change in short or long-term assessments. These advantages position them as a useful tool for complementing performance assessment of integrated healthcare systems in their pursuit of the ‘Triple Aim’. Besides literacy in modeling techniques, accurate model selection is facilitated after identification and prioritization of the complexities that rule system performance. For this purpose, a tool for selecting the most appropriate simulation modeling techniques was developed.

A Hybrid Value-Based Lifestyle Medicine Practice Model

A lifestyle medicine approach to primary care that is value based can provide positive triple aim outcomes and demonstrate market equivalent reimbursement for the practitioner.

The triple aim of clinical research

The proposed triple aim of health care—enhanced patient experience, improved population health, and reduced per capita costs—can be applied to clinical research. A triple aim for clinical research would (1) improve the individual research participant’s experience; (2) promote the health of populations; and (3) reduce per capita costs of clinical research. Such an approach is possible by designing trials around the needs of participants rather than sites, embracing digital measures of health, and advancing decentralized studies. Recent studies, including those evaluating therapies for COVID-19, have demonstrated the value of such an approach. Accelerating the adoption of these methods can help fulfill this new triple aim of clinical research.