Vital Directions for Health and Health Care: Priorities From a National Academy of Medicine Initiative.

Importance: Recent discussion has focused on questions related to the repeal and replacement of portions of the Affordable Care Act (ACA). However, issues central to the future of health and health care in the United States transcend the ACA provisions receiving the greatest attention. Initiatives directed to certain strategic and infrastructure priorities are vital to achieve better health at lower cost. Objectives: To review the most salient health challenges and opportunities facing the United States, to identify practical and achievable priorities essential to health progress, and to present policy initiatives critical to the nation's health and fiscal integrity. Evidence Review: Qualitative synthesis of 19 National Academy of Medicine-commissioned white papers, with supplemental review and analysis of publicly available data and published research findings. Findings: The US health system faces major challenges. Health care costs remain high at $3.2 trillion spent annually, of which an estimated 30% is related to waste, inefficiencies, and excessive prices; health disparities are persistent and worsening; and the health and financial burdens of chronic illness and disability are straining families and communities. Concurrently, promising opportunities and knowledge to achieve change exist. Across the 19 discussion papers examined, 8 crosscutting policy directions were identified as vital to the nation's health and fiscal future, including 4 action priorities and 4 essential infrastructure needs. The action priorities-pay for value, empower people, activate communities, and connect care-recurred across the articles as direct and strategic opportunities to advance a more efficient, equitable, and patient- and community-focused health system. The essential infrastructure needs-measure what matters most, modernize skills, accelerate real-world evidence, and advance science-were the most commonly cited foundational elements to ensure progress. Conclusions and Relevance: The action priorities and essential infrastructure needs represent major opportunities to improve health outcomes and increase efficiency and value in the health system. As the new US administration and Congress chart the future of health and health care for the United States, and as health leaders across the country contemplate future directions for their programs and initiatives, their leadership and strategic investment in these priorities will be essential for achieving significant progress.

The empirical foundations of telemedicine interventions for chronic disease management.

The telemedicine intervention in chronic disease management promises to involve patients in their own care, provides continuous monitoring by their healthcare providers, identifies early symptoms, and responds promptly to exacerbations in their illnesses. This review set out to establish the evidence from the available literature on the impact of telemedicine for the management of three chronic diseases: congestive heart failure, stroke, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. By design, the review focuses on a limited set of representative chronic diseases because of their current and increasing importance relative to their prevalence, associated morbidity, mortality, and cost. Furthermore, these three diseases are amenable to timely interventions and secondary prevention through telemonitoring. The preponderance of evidence from studies using rigorous research methods points to beneficial results from telemonitoring in its various manifestations, albeit with a few exceptions. Generally, the benefits include reductions in use of service: hospital admissions/re-admissions, length of hospital stay, and emergency department visits typically declined. It is important that there often were reductions in mortality. Few studies reported neutral or mixed findings.

The future of remote health services: summary of an expert panel discussion.

Health Technology Center (HealthTech), a nonprofit research and education organization that develops objective technology forecasts, hosted an expert panel discussion aimed at delineating the future of remote health services (RHS). RHS is defined as involving patient care interactions that are geographically disparate and enabled by telecommunications, information technology, and sensor technology. Key players involved are physicians and nonphysician clinicians, sick or healthy individuals, and their friends or family. An expert panel gathered October 2006, in San Francisco, CA, to respond to the forecasts generated by HealthTech regarding the expected impact of RHS on health care in the next 2 to 5 years and beyond. The panel consisted of a carefully selected group of experts representing diverse viewpoints, and included clinicians, providers, engineers, lawyers, consumer representatives, policy makers, developers, representatives of large employers, academics, and workforce experts. The interaction of the interdisciplinary expert panel produced a number of key implications pertaining to the delivery of RHS and its influence on the healthcare industry. Drivers and barriers to the diffusion of RHS were delineated, and the full potential value of the technology to patients, health delivery systems, and health plans was analyzed in depth. The expert panel provided a plethora of information predicting the future course of RHS and its impact on health delivery. While the complete report and set of forecasts that stems from this research are proprietary, this paper offers a summary of that meeting.

New technology planning and approval: critical factors for success.

The steady evolution of technology, with the associated increased costs, is a major factor affecting health care delivery. In the face of limited capital resources, it is important for hospitals to integrate technology management with the strategic plan, mission, and resource availability of the organization. Experiences in technology management have shown that having a well-organized, consistent approach to technology planning, assessment, committee membership, approval, evaluation, implementation, and monitoring are key factors necessary to ensure a successful program. We examined the results of a survey that assessed the structure, processes, and cultural support behind hospital committees for new technology planning and approval.