Are health systems redesigning how health care is delivered?

OBJECTIVE: To explore why and how health systems are engaging in care delivery redesign (CDR)-defined as the variety of tools and organizational change processes health systems use to pursue the Triple Aim. STUDY SETTING: A purposive sample of 24 health systems across 4 states as part of the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality's Comparative Health System Performance Initiative. STUDY DESIGN: An exploratory qualitative study design to gain an "on the ground" understanding of health systems' motivations for, and approaches to, CDR, with the goals of identifying key dimensions of CDR, and gauging the depth of change that is possible based on the particular approaches to redesign care being adopted by the health systems. DATA COLLECTION: Semi-structured telephone interviews with health system executives and physician organization leaders from 24 health systems (n = 162). PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: We identify and define 13 CDR activities and find that the health systems' efforts are varied in terms of both the combination of activities they are engaging in and the depth of innovation within each activity. Health system executives who report strong internal motivation for their CDR efforts describe more confidence in their approach to CDR than those who report strong external motivation. Health system leaders face uncertainty when implementing CDR due to a limited evidence base and because of the slower than expected pace of payment change. CONCLUSIONS: The ability to validly and reliably measure CDR activities-particularly across varying organizational contexts and markets-is currently limited but is key to better understanding CDR's impact on intended outcomes, which is important for guiding both health system decision making and policy making.

Understanding how health systems facilitate primary care redesign.

OBJECTIVE: To understand how health systems are facilitating primary care redesign (PCR), examine the PCR initiatives taking place within systems, and identify barriers to this work. STUDY SETTING: A purposive sample of 24 health systems in 4 states. STUDY DESIGN: Data were systematically reviewed to identify how system leaders define and implement initiatives to redesign primary care delivery and identify challenges. Researchers applied codes which were based on the theoretical PCR literature and created new codes to capture emerging themes. Investigators analyzed coded data then produced and applied a thematic analysis to examine how health systems facilitate PCR. DATA COLLECTION: Semi-structured telephone interviews with 162 system executives and physician organization leaders from 24 systems. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Leaders at all 24 health systems described initiatives to redesign the delivery of primary care, but many were in the early stages. Respondents described the use of centralized health system resources to facilitate PCR initiatives, such as regionalized care coordinators, and integrated electronic health records. Team-based care, population management, and care coordination were the most commonly described initiatives to transform primary care delivery. Respondents most often cited improving efficiency and enhancing clinician job satisfaction, as motivating factors for team-based care. Changes in payment and risk assumption as well as community needs were commonly cited motivators for population health management and care coordination. Return on investment and the slower than anticipated rate in moving from fee-for-service to value-based payment were noted by multiple respondents as challenges health systems face in redesigning primary care. CONCLUSIONS: Given their expanding role in health care and the potential to leverage resources, health systems are promising entities to promote the advancement of PCR. Systems demonstrate interest and engagement in this work but face significant challenges in getting to scale until payment models are in alignment with these efforts.

Community Efforts to Reduce Racial and Ethnic Health Disparities: Challenges and Facilitators Identified by 16 Multistakeholder Alliances.

The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation's Aligning Forces for Quality (AF4Q) program aimed to improve health care quality and reduce racial and ethnic disparities in 16 diverse communities in the United States from 2006 to 2015; yet most communities failed to make substantive progress toward advancing health care equity by the program's end. This qualitative analysis of key stakeholder interviews aims to identify the major contributors to success versus failure in addressing local health disparities during AF4Q and identified five major themes. Three themes highlight challenges related to collecting local data on racial and ethnic health disparities and transitioning from data collection to action. Two themes capture the critical contribution of stakeholder engagement and access to technical expertise to successful efforts. The challenges and facilitators experienced by these 16 AF4Q communities may help inform the disparities reduction efforts of other communities and guide state or federal policies to reduce health disparities.

The longitudinal impact of Aligning Forces for Quality on measures of population health, quality and experience of care, and cost of care.

OBJECTIVE: To summarize the results from the quantitative analyses conducted during the summative evaluation of the Aligning Forces for Quality (AF4Q) initiative. STUDY DESIGN: Longitudinal design using linear difference-in-difference (DD) regression models with fixed effects. Outcomes were selected based on the AF4Q program logic model and organized according to the categories of the Triple Aim: improving population health, improving quality and experience of care, and reducing the cost of care. DATA: Two primary data sources: the AF4Q Consumer Survey and the National Study of Physician Organizations (NSPO); and 4 secondary data sources: the Dartmouth Atlas Medicare claims database, the Truven Health MarketScan commercial claims database, the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS), and the Hospital Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (HCAHPS). RESULTS: In total, 144 outcomes were analyzed, 27 were associated with improving population health, 87 were associated with improving care quality and experience, and 30 were associated with reducing the cost of care. Based on the estimated DD coefficients, there is no consistent evidence that AF4Q regions, over the life of the program, showed greater improvement in these measures compared with the rest of the United States. For less than 12% of outcomes (17/144), the AF4Q initiative was associated with a significant positive impact (P ≤.05), although the magnitude of the impact was often small. Among the remaining outcomes, with some exceptions, similarly improving trends were observed in both AF4Q and non-AF4Q areas over the period of intervention. Conclusion and Policy and Practice Implications: Our quantitative findings, which suggest that the AF4Q initiative had less impact than expected, are potentially due to the numerous other efforts to improve healthcare across the United States, including regions outside the AF4Q program over the same period of time. The limited overall impact may also be due to the variability in the "dose" of the interventions across AF4Q regions. However, these results should not be interpreted as a conclusive statement about the AF4Q initiative. More nuanced discussions of the implementation of interventions in the specific AF4Q programmatic areas and their potential success (or lack thereof) in the participating communities are included in other articles in this supplement.

Lessons learned about advancing healthcare equity from the Aligning Forces for Quality initiative.

OBJECTIVE: The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation's (RWJF's) Aligning Forces for Quality (AF4Q) initiative aimed to advance healthcare quality and equity in 16 communities across the United States through multi-stakeholder alliances of healthcare payers, providers, and consumers. Our objectives are (1) to summarize the major approaches and activities undertaken by the AF4Q alliances that were most successful in tracking and implementing programs that aimed to reduce local healthcare disparities by race, ethnicity, and primary language spoken (REL), and socioeconomic status (SES); and (2) to identify the major lessons learned from the successes and failures of the AF4Q alliances to inform other equity-focused initiatives. METHODS: We analyzed data from 6 rounds of key informant interviews conducted between 2010 and 2015, and triannual progress reports submitted by the alliances to RWJF between 2008 and 2015. RESULTS: Of the 16 AF4Q alliances, 2 succeeded in developing community wide systems to track local healthcare disparities, 5 alliances implemented substantive programs that aimed to reduce local disparities, and 3 alliances were successful in disparity measurement and program implementation. The alliances that were most active in addressing disparities tended to have long-established relationships with relevant community organizations, focused on improving the quality of care provided by safety-net providers, and shifted quickly toward working to address disparities even if their initial efforts to stratify performance measures by REL failed. CONCLUSION: Few alliances were able to develop community wide systems to track local healthcare disparities or implement large-scale initiatives to reduce disparities during the 7 years that these objectives were advanced by the AF4Q initiative. Establishing robust local disparity-tracking systems and establishing productive relationships with key community stakeholders took substantial time. The AF4Q experience suggests that efforts to reduce disparities should not be held up by disparity measurement challenges.