Christopher A. Langston, PhD, is the Program Director of the John A. Hartford Foundation, and is responsible for the Foundation’s grantmaking in support of its mission to improve the health of older Americans.
From left, featured experts Peggy O’Kane, Robert Berenson, and Caroline Blaum listen intently.
Like so many stakeholders in health care, we at the John A. Hartford Foundation have many of our hopes pinned on enhanced primary care as a way of improving health outcomes, particularly for older Americans who face multiple chronic conditions.
Primary care providers will need more skills, more teammates, community partners, and, of course, more money, to live up to these hopes. But we believe that better primary care can prevent some of the acute and expensive events such as hospitalizations that they experience, and thereby also lower total costs of health care.
July is an important month in history, with Bastille Day, on July 14, coming just 10 days after our own 4th of July. So what better time to consider issues of justice and equality?
There are lots of different ways to interpret equality: equality of outcomes, equality of opportunity, or perhaps—as an even more complex relative equality—matching of resources to individuals’ needs.
In the context of improving health care delivery to older adults, there are several important examples of these principles of equality in what is called “risk adjustment.” And I find myself with very different reactions to the different kinds.
Like a lot of new concepts, population health seems to be on everyone’s lips and there seems to be a lot of excitement to “do” population health. It sure sounds good and yet I am entirely unclear about the specifics and I’m pretty sure that everyone is feeling a different part of the elephant.
Unfortunately, a recent paper published on BMJ Open suggests that these divergent views are common.
We can all understand the goals of the triple aim: better care—higher quality health care with fewer defects; better health—a related but independent goal that the population at large is actually healthier; and lower cost, at least on a per capita basis—reducing total costs of care.
The grants totaling $2.13 million will support an additional 44 Health and Aging Policy Fellows (HAPF) over the next three years and help co-support a new Institute of Medicine (IOM) study on family caregiving of older adults. Both projects also offer great opportunities for our new Hartford Change AGEnts to bring their talents, expertise, and skills to bear on important issues related to creating policy and practice change that improves the health of older Americans.
Jennie Chin Hansen, CEO of AGS, left, with Cory Rieder, the Hartford Foundation’s executive director and treasurer.
In honor of the American Geriatrics Society’s (AGS) annual meeting opening today in Orlando, we want to reflect on the key role this partner organization has played in our joint efforts to improve the health of older Americans.
Over the years, AGS has been one of our largest and most frequent grantees, leading a diverse array of projects. Many grants have aimed at strengthening the field of geriatrics, such as the leadership development award through the AGS affiliate organization, the Association of Directors of Geriatric Academic Programs (ADGAP) or the Health Outcomes Research Scholars through another affiliate, the Foundation for Health in Aging.
Last week on Health AGEnda, I stuck up for the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation (CMMI) in the face of what seemed to me fairly unrealistic criticism from a Wall Street Journal op-ed.
I approached the issue from my perspective as a funder and as a very, very, much smaller player in the reform of the health care delivery system than CMMI. It got me thinking that, while I have offered advice directly to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) and CMMI staff and mentioned various concerns here on the blog in passing, I haven’t really tried to think through what our experience at Hartford suggests might help CMMI be as effective as possible.
CMMI is the big player in health care delivery reform—the changes to culture, training, regulation, payment, and organization in health care that we all hope will lead to higher quality care, a healthier public, and lower costs of care per capita.
When I first saw the Wall Street Journal op-ed attacking the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation (CMMI) for many purported sins, my first thought was that I should just congratulate CMMI for having arrived. After all, in our hyper-partisan environment, you aren’t anybody unless you are considered worth bashing by someone.
CMMI was set up and funded as part of the Affordable Care Act under section 3021of Title III, the hitherto relatively noncontroversial part of the law aimed at “IMPROVING THE QUALITY AND EFFICIENCY OF HEALTH CARE.” The agency’s goal is one that the John A. Hartford Foundation has pursued on behalf of older Americans for 30 years and one that we feel passionate about:
The purpose of the CMI is to test innovative payment and service delivery models to reduce program expenditures under the applicable titles while preserving or enhancing the quality of care furnished to individuals under such titles. In selecting such models, the Secretary shall give preference to models that also improve the coordination, quality, and efficiency of health care services furnished to applicable individuals defined in paragraph (4)(A).
If our work at the John A. Hartford Foundation has taught us one thing, it’s this: In the quest to transform primary care for older adults, a huge part of the answer is deploying more geriatrically expert primary care teams that can coordinate and deliver care designed around the patient’s needs. You could call this the low-hanging fruit of health care reform, because, if there is a population in which we have the biggest opportunity to see improvements in both cost and quality of care outcomes, it is older Americans.
The debate on how best to deliver effective primary care has gone on a long time, sometimes frustratingly so, but it has almost never included a crucial constituency: older adults. Today we are pleased to help change that.
We believe that listening to older adults is essential if we are ever going to transform our primary care system so it can and does deliver well-coordinated, comprehensive, accessible care centered on their needs and goals. This belief has already led the Hartford Foundation to conduct two previous public opinion polls, focused exclusively on adults 65 and older, examining serious gaps in geriatric primary care and mental health care.
Once again I want to call the Hartford community (all of the grantees, fellows, scholars, alums, and friends) to respond to an opportunity to put geriatrics expertise to work.
The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), the 900-pound gorilla with a checkbook whose actions shape so much of health care for older adults, and its relatively new transformation arm the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation (CMMI), are requesting input from the public on how to achieve large scale transformation of clinician practices. This input will help guide CMS’s policy considerations and potentially lead to the testing of new payment and service delivery models.
This week, a RAND research team published a report in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) on a three-year evaluation of Patient-Centered Medical Homes in Pennsylvania, funded by the Commonwealth Fund and Aetna. Since, like almost everyone else, we believe in the potential benefits of enhanced primary care, this is an important paper.
However, its implications are very complicated. I believe the results confirm concerns I had from the beginning that this kind of project wouldn’t work. Why? Because it wasn’t focused enough on the complexly ill and it didn’t incorporate enough special expertise in their care.
The evaluation was led by Mark Friedberg, MD, and used a pre-post, matched practice/patient design where 32 practices worked to become medical homes. The outcomes of the practices and the patients were tracked over three years. A non-random comparison group was created by looking at other practices and patients followed over the same time period to serve as a contrast group not implementing medical home elements.