After The Demonstration: What States Sustained After the End of Federal Grants to Improve Children's Health Care Quality.

Introduction Under the CHIPRA Quality Demonstration Grant Program, CMS awarded $100 million through 10 grants that 18 state Medicaid agencies implemented between 2010 and 2015. The program's legislatively-mandated purpose was to evaluate promising ideas for improving the quality of children's health care provided through Medicaid and CHIP. As part of the program's multifaceted evaluation, this study examined the extent to which states sustained key program activities after the demonstration ended. Methods We identified 115 potentially sustainable elements within states' CHIPRA demonstrations and analyzed data from grantee reports and key informant interviews to assess sustainment outcomes and key influential factors. We also assessed sustainment of the projects' intellectual capital. Results 56% of potentially sustainable elements were sustained. Sustainment varied by topic area: Elements related to quality measure reporting and practice facilitation were more likely to be sustained than others, such as parent advisors. Broad contextual factors, the state's Medicaid environment, implementation partners' resources, and characteristics of the demonstration itself all shaped sustainment outcomes. Discussion Assessing sustainment of key elements of states' CHIPRA quality demonstration projects provides insight into the fates of the "promising ideas" that the grant program was designed to examine. As a result of the federal government's investment in this grant program, many demonstration states are in a strong position to extend and spread specific strategies for improving the quality of care for children in Medicaid and CHIP. Our findings provide insights for policymakers and providers working to improve the quality of health care for low income children.

Strengthening Multipayer Collaboration: Lessons From the Comprehensive Primary Care Initiative.

Policy Points: Collaboration across payers to align financial incentives, quality measurement, and data feedback to support practice transformation is critical, but challenging due to competitive market dynamics and competing institutional priorities. The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services or other entities convening multipayer initiatives can build trust with other participants by clearly outlining each participant's role and the parameters of collaboration at the outset of the initiative. Multipayer collaboration can be improved if participating payers employ neutral, proactive meeting facilitators; develop formal decision-making processes; seek input on decisions from practice representatives; and champion the initiative within their organizations. CONTEXT: With increasing frequency, public and private payers are joining forces to align goals and resources for primary care transformation. However, sustaining engagement and achieving coordination among payers can be challenging. The Comprehensive Primary Care (CPC) initiative is one of the largest multipayer initiatives ever tested. Drawing on the experience of the CPC initiative, this paper examines the factors that influence the effectiveness of multipayer collaboration. METHODS: This paper draws largely on semistructured interviews with CPC-participating payers and payer conveners that facilitated CPC discussions and on observation of payer meetings. We coded and analyzed these qualitative data to describe collaborative dynamics and outcomes and assess the factors influencing them. FINDINGS: We found that several factors appeared to increase the likelihood of successful payer collaboration: contracting with effective, neutral payer conveners; leveraging the support of payer champions, and seeking input on decisions from practice representatives. The presence of these factors helped some CPC regions overcome significant initial barriers to achieve common goals. We also found that leadership from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) was key to achieving broad payer engagement in CPC, but CMS's dual role as initiative convener and participating payer at times made collaboration challenging. CMS was able to build trust with other payers by clarifying which parts of CPC could be adapted to regional contexts, deferring to other payers for these decisions, and increasing opportunities for payers to meet with CMS representatives. CONCLUSIONS: CPC demonstrates that when certain facilitating factors are present, payers can overcome competitive market dynamics and competing institutional priorities to align financial incentives, quality measurement, and data feedback to support practice transformation. Lessons from this large-scale, multipayer initiative may be helpful for other multipayer efforts getting under way.

Understanding the pathway between the transplant experience and health-related quality of life outcomes in adolescents.

Developments in solid organ transplantation have resulted in improved survival for children with advanced kidney, liver, and heart disease; however, concerns have been raised regarding the quality of life of survivors. This study examined HRQOL in adolescent transplant recipients. We examined the influence of demographic, treatment regimen, and family factors on physical and mental health domains of HRQOL. The current single-center investigation involved 68 solid organ transplant recipients and their parents. All families participated in a structured interview to collect information on demographics, characteristics of the adolescents' disease and treatment regimen, family functioning, and HRQOL for parents and adolescents. Using hierarchical regression analyses, predictive models of physical functioning and mental health outcomes for adolescent transplant recipients were developed for parent-proxy and adolescent self-report. Perceived frequency of medication side-effects and family conflict significantly contributed to adolescent physical functioning and mental health outcomes. Taken together, transplant consequences and family environment significantly impact physical and mental health outcomes in adolescent transplant recipients. Our findings demonstrate the need for pharmacological considerations and psychological interventions to address these areas.

The Comprehensive Primary Care Initiative: Effects On Spending, Quality, Patients, And Physicians.

The Comprehensive Primary Care Initiative (CPC), a health care delivery model developed by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), tested whether multipayer support of 502 primary care practices across the country would improve primary care delivery, improve care quality, or reduce spending. We evaluated the initiative's effects on care delivery and outcomes for fee-for-service Medicare beneficiaries attributed to initiative practices, relative to those attributed to matched comparison practices. CPC practices reported improvements in primary care delivery, including care management for high-risk patients, enhanced access, and improved coordination of care transitions. The initiative slowed growth in emergency department visits by 2 percent in CPC practices, relative to comparison practices. However, it did not reduce Medicare spending enough to cover care management fees or appreciably improve physician or beneficiary experience or practice performance on a limited set of Medicare claims-based quality measures. As CMS and other payers increasingly use alternative payment models that reward quality and value, CPC provides important lessons about supporting practices in transforming care.

Rebuilding health systems to improve health and promote statebuilding in post-conflict countries: a theoretical framework and research agenda.

Violent conflicts claim lives, disrupt livelihoods, and halt delivery of essential services, such as health care and education. Health systems are often devastated in conflicts as health professionals flee, infrastructure is destroyed, and the supply of drugs and supplies is halted. We propose that early reconstruction of a functioning, equitable health system in countries recovering from conflict is an investment with a range of benefits for post-conflict countries. Building on the growing literature about health systems as social and political institutions, we elaborate a logic model that outlines how health systems may contribute not only to improved health status but also potentially to broader statebuilding and enhanced prospects for peace. Specifically, we propose that careful design of the core elements of the health system by national governments and their development partners can promote reliable provision of essential health services while demonstrating a commitment to equity, strengthening government accountability to citizens, and building the capacity of government to manage core social programs. We review the conceptual basis and extant empirical evidence for these mechanisms, identify knowledge gaps, and suggest a research agenda.