Food Is Medicine: A Presidential Advisory From the American Heart Association.

Unhealthy diets are a major impediment to achieving a healthier population in the United States. Although there is a relatively clear sense of what constitutes a healthy diet, most of the US population does not eat healthy food at rates consistent with the recommended clinical guidelines. An abundance of barriers, including food and nutrition insecurity, how food is marketed and advertised, access to and affordability of healthy foods, and behavioral challenges such as a focus on immediate versus delayed gratification, stand in the way of healthier dietary patterns for many Americans. Food Is Medicine may be defined as the provision of healthy food resources to prevent, manage, or treat specific clinical conditions in coordination with the health care sector. Although the field has promise, relatively few studies have been conducted with designs that provide strong evidence of associations between Food Is Medicine interventions and health outcomes or health costs. Much work needs to be done to create a stronger body of evidence that convincingly demonstrates the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of different types of Food Is Medicine interventions. An estimated 90% of the $4.3 trillion annual cost of health care in the United States is spent on medical care for chronic disease. For many of these diseases, diet is a major risk factor, so even modest improvements in diet could have a significant impact. This presidential advisory offers an overview of the state of the field of Food Is Medicine and a road map for a new research initiative that strategically approaches the outstanding questions in the field while prioritizing a human-centered design approach to achieve high rates of patient engagement and sustained behavior change. This will ideally happen in the context of broader efforts to use a health equity-centered approach to enhance the ways in which our food system and related policies support improvements in health.

A Nationwide Analysis of Aneurysmal Subarachnoid Hemorrhage Mortality, Complications, and Health Economics in the USA.

Aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage (aSAH) is a devastating neurological condition. Endovascular coiling or surgical clipping have equivocal success rates, but relatively little is known regarding the health economics and complications of these procedures at the population level. We aimed to analyze the complication profiles and healthcare resource utilization (HRCU) associated with the treatment of aSAH in the USA. We performed a retrospective analysis utilizing the IBM MarketScan database between 2008 and 2015. Primary outcomes included economic analysis stratified by post-operative complication; determination of the effect of several factors on total cost by multivariable regression; and analysis of the incidence, timing, and associated HCRU of aSAH-related post-operative complications. Of the 2374 patients meeting inclusion criteria for economic analysis, 1783 (75.1%) patients had at least one of the ten complications. The most common complications included hydrocephalus (43.8%), transient cerebral ischemia (including vasospasm) (30.6%), ischemic stroke (29.1%), syndrome of inappropriate antidiuretic hormone (SIADH)/hyposmolarity/hyponatremia (22.1%), and seizures (14.9%). Patients who experienced complications had higher median 90-day total costs [$161,127 (Q1 to Q3, $101,411 to $257,662)] than those who did not [$97,376 (Q1 to Q3, $55,692 to $147,447)]. Length of stay was longest for those with pulmonary embolism and pneumonia (27 days) and shortest for those with SIADH/hyposmolarity/hyponatremia (16 days). Brain compression/herniation had the highest mortality rate (19.5%). In total, 14.6% of all patients experienced a readmission within 30 days. In conclusion, patients with aSAH have high post-operative complication rates and costs. Development of novel interventions to reduce complications and improve outcomes is crucial.

Association of ACO Shared Savings Success and Serious Illness Spending.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: Accountable care organizations (ACOs) need confidence in their return on investment to implement changes in care delivery that prioritize seriously ill and high-cost Medicare beneficiaries. The objective of this study was to characterize spending on seriously ill beneficiaries in ACOs with Medicare Shared Savings Program (MSSP) contracts and the association of spending with ACO shared savings. The population included Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries identified with serious illness (N = 2,109,573) using the Medicare Master Beneficiary Summary File for 100% of ACO-attributed beneficiaries linked to MSSP beneficiary files (2014-2016). Lower spending for seriously ill Medicare beneficiaries and risk-bearing contracts in ACOs were associated with achieving ACO shared savings in the MSSP. For most ACOs, the seriously ill contribute approximately half of the spending and constitute 8%-13% of the attributed population. Patient and geographic (county) factors explained $2,329 of the observed difference in per beneficiary per year spending on seriously ill beneficiaries between high- and low-spending ACOs. The remaining $12,536 may indicate variation as a result of potentially modifiable factors. Consequently, if 10% of attributed beneficiaries were seriously ill, an ACO that moved from the worst to the best quartile of per capita serious illness spending could realize a reduction of $1,200 per beneficiary per year for the ACO population overall. Though the prevalence and case mix of seriously ill populations vary across ACOs, this association suggests that care provided for seriously ill patients is an important consideration for ACOs to achieve MSSP shared savings.

Vital Directions For Health And Health Care: Priorities For 2021.

In 2016, in anticipation of the US presidential election and forthcoming new administration, the National Academy of Medicine launched a strategic initiative to marshal expert guidance on pressing health and health care priorities. Published as Vital Directions for Health and Health Care, the products of the initiative provide trusted, nonpartisan, evidence-based analysis of critical issues in health, health care, and biomedical science. The current collection of articles published in Health Affairs builds on the initial Vital Directions series by addressing a set of issues that have a particularly compelling need for attention from the next administration: health costs and financing, early childhood and maternal health, mental health and addiction, better health and health care for older adults, and infectious disease threats. The articles also reflect the current experience with both the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic and the health inequities that have been drawn out sharply by COVID-19, as well as the implications going forward for action.

Improving patient-reported measures in oncology: a payer call to action.

Despite rising interest in integrating the patient voice in value-based payment (VBP) models for oncology, barriers persist to implementing patient-reported measures (PRMs), including patient-reported performance measures (PR-PMs). This article describes the landscape of oncology PRMs and PR-PMs, identifies implementation barriers, and recommends solutions for public and private payers to accelerate the appropriate use of PRMs in oncology VBP programs. Our research used a multimethod approach that included a literature review, landscape scan, stakeholder interviews and survey, and a multistakeholder roundtable. The literature review and landscape scan found that limited oncology-specific PR-PMs are available and some are already used in VBP programs. Diverse stakeholder perspectives provided insight into filling current gaps in measurement and removing implementation barriers, such as limited relevance of existing PRMs and PR-PMs for oncology; methodological challenges; patient burden and survey fatigue; and provider burden from resource constraints, competing priorities, and insufficient incentives. Key recommendations include: (a) identify or develop meaningful measures that fill gaps, engaging patients throughout measure and program development and evaluation; (b) design programs that include scientifically sound measures standardized to reduce patient and provider burden while supporting care; and (c) engage providers using a stepwise approach that offers resources and incentives to support implementation. DISCLOSURES: Funding for this project was provided by the National Pharmaceutical Council. Schmidt, Perkins, Riposo, and Patel are employees of Discern Health, a consulting firm with many clients, including government, life sciences, nonprofit, and provider organizations. Valuck is a partner at Discern Health. Westrich is an employee of the National Pharmaceutical Council, an industry-funded health policy research group that is not involved in lobbying or advocacy. Basch reports grants from National Cancer Institute and Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute; fees from serving as a consultant on research projects at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, and Research Triangle Institute/CMS; and fees from serving as a scientific advisor to CareVive Systems, Sivan Healthcare, Navigating Cancer, and AstraZeneca, outside the submitted work. McClellan reports fees from serving on the boards of Johnson & Johnson and Seer Bio and as an advisor to Cota outside the submitted work; and McClellan is an independent board member on the boards of Cigna and Alignment Healthcare, co-chair of the Guiding Committee for the Health Care Payment Learning and Action Network, and receives fees for serving as an advisor for MITRE, outside the submitted work.

Prospective or retrospective ACO attribution matters for seriously ill patients.

OBJECTIVES: Since 2019, the Medicare Shared Savings Program (MSSP) has allowed accountable care organizations (ACOs) to choose either retrospectively or prospectively attributed ACO populations. To understand how ACOs' choice of attribution method affects incentives for care among seriously ill Medicare beneficiaries, this study compares beneficiary characteristics and Medicare per capita expenditures between prospective and retrospective ACO populations. STUDY DESIGN: This retrospective, cross-sectional analysis describes survival, patient characteristics, and Medicare spending for Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries identified with serious illness (n = 1,600,629) using 100% Medicare Master Beneficiary Summary and MSSP beneficiary files (2014-2016). METHODS: We used generalized linear models with ACO and year fixed effects to estimate the average within-ACO difference between potential retrospective and prospective ACO populations. RESULTS: Dying in the first 90 days of the performance year was associated with reduced odds of retrospective ACO attribution (odds ratio [OR], 0.24; 95% CI, 0.24-0.25) relative to beneficiaries surviving 270 days or longer. Similarly, hospice use was associated with reduced odds of retrospective assignment (OR, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.79-0.80). Among ACOs that did not achieve shared savings, average per capita Medicare expenditures (after truncation) were $2459 (95% CI, $2192-$2725) higher for prospective vs retrospective ACO populations. The difference was $834 (95% CI, $402-$1266) greater per capita among ACOs that achieved shared savings. CONCLUSIONS: The difference in survival and spending for ACO populations captured by prospective vs retrospective attribution methods means that ACOs may need to employ different care management strategies to improve performance depending on their attribution method.

The Past Decade of Paying for Value : From the Affordable Care Act to COVID-19.

The Affordable Care Act played a major role in transitioning American health care away from fee-for-service payment. We explore the spread of payment reforms since the implementation of the ACA, both nationally and in North Carolina; the corresponding effects on health care costs and quality; and further steps needed to achieve greater transformation.

Pediatric accountable health communities: Insights on needed capabilities and potential solutions.

BACKGROUND: Pediatric accountable health communities (AHCs) are emerging collaborative models that integrate care across health and social service sectors. We aimed to identify needed capabilities and potential solutions for implementing pediatric AHCs. METHODS: We conducted a directed content analysis of responses to a Request for Information (RFI) from the Center for Medicare & Medicaid Innovation on the Integrated Care for Kids Model (n = 1550 pages from 202 respondents). We then interviewed pediatric health policy stakeholders (n = 18) to further investigate responses from the RFI. All responses were coded using a consensual qualitative research approach in 2019. RESULTS: To facilitate service integration, respondents emphasized the need for cross-sector organizational alignment and data sharing. Recommended solutions included designating "Bridge Organizations" to operationalize service integration across sectors and developing integrated data sharing systems. Respondents called for improved validation and collection methods for data relating to school performance, social drivers of health, family well-being, and patient experience. Recommended solutions included aligning health and education data privacy regulations and utilizing metrics with cross-sector relevance. Respondents identified that mechanisms are needed to blend health and social service funding in alternative payment models (APMs). Recommended solutions included guidance on cross-sector care coordination payments, shared savings arrangements, and capitation to maximize spending flexibility. CONCLUSIONS: Pediatric AHCs could provide more integrated, high-value care for children. Respondents highlighted the need for shared infrastructure and cross-sector alignment of measures and financing. IMPLICATIONS: Insights and solutions from this study can inform policymakers planning or implementing innovative, child-centered AHC models. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level V.

Frontiers of Upstream Stroke Prevention and Reduced Stroke Inequity Through Predicting, Preventing, and Managing Hypertension and Atrial Fibrillation: A Call to Action From the Value in Healthcare Initiative's Predict & Prevent Learning Collaborative.

Stroke is one of the leading causes of morbidity and mortality in the United States. While age-adjusted stroke mortality was falling, it has leveled off in recent years due in part to advances in medical technology, health care options, and population health interventions. In addition to adverse trends in stroke-related morbidity and mortality across the broader population, there are sociodemographic inequities in stroke risk. These challenges can be addressed by focusing on predicting and preventing modifiable upstream risk factors associated with stroke, but there is a need to develop a practical framework that health care organizations can use to accomplish this task across diverse settings. Accordingly, this article describes the efforts and vision of the multi-stakeholder Predict & Prevent Learning Collaborative of the Value in Healthcare Initiative, a collaboration of the American Heart Association and the Robert J. Margolis, MD, Center for Health Policy at Duke University. This article presents a framework of a potential upstream stroke prevention program with evidence-based implementation strategies for predicting, preventing, and managing stroke risk factors. It is meant to complement existing primary stroke prevention guidelines by identifying frontier strategies that can address gaps in knowledge or implementation. After considering a variety of upstream medical or behavioral risk factors, the group identified 2 risk factors with substantial direct links to stroke for focusing the framework: hypertension and atrial fibrillation. This article also highlights barriers to implementing program components into clinical practice and presents implementation strategies to overcome those barriers. A particular focus was identifying those strategies that could be implemented across many settings, especially lower-resource practices and community-based enterprises representing broad social, economic, and geographic diversity. The practical framework is designed to provide clinicians and health systems with effective upstream stroke prevention strategies that encourage scalability while allowing customization for their local context.

Streamlining and Reimagining Prior Authorization Under Value-Based Contracts: A Call to Action From the Value in Healthcare Initiative's Prior Authorization Learning Collaborative.

Utilization management strategies, including prior authorization, are commonly used to facilitate safe and guideline-adherent provision of new, individualized, and potentially costly cardiovascular therapies. However, as currently deployed, these approaches encumber multiple stakeholders. Patients are discouraged by barriers to appropriate access; clinicians are frustrated by the time, money, and resources required for prior authorizations, the frequent rejections, and the perception of being excluded from the decision-making process; and payers are weary of the intensive effort to design and administer increasingly complex prior authorization systems to balance value and appropriate use of these treatments. These issues highlight an opportunity to collectively reimagine utilization management as a transparent and collaborative system. This would benefit the entire healthcare ecosystem, especially in light of the shift to value-based payment. This article describes the efforts and vision of the multistakeholder Prior Authorization Learning Collaborative of the Value in Healthcare Initiative, a partnership between the American Heart Association and the Robert J. Margolis, MD, Center for Health Policy at Duke University. We outline how healthcare organizations can take greater utilization management responsibility under value-based contracting, especially under different state policies and local contexts. Even with reduced payer-mandated prior authorization in these arrangements, payers and healthcare organizations will have a continued shared need for utilization management. We present options for streamlining these programs, such as gold carding and electronic and automated prior authorization processes. Throughout the article, we weave in examples from cardiovascular care when possible. Although reimagining prior authorization requires collective action by all stakeholders, it may significantly reduce administrative burden for clinicians and payers while improving outcomes for patients.

Paying For Value From Costly Medical Technologies: A Framework For Applying Value-Based Payment Reforms.

Innovative medical products offer significant and potentially transformative impacts on health, but they create concerns about rising spending and whether this rise is translating into higher value. The result is increasing pressure to pay for therapies in a way that is tied to their value to stakeholders through improving outcomes, reducing disease complications, and addressing concerns about affordability. Policy responses include the growing application of health technology assessments based on available evidence to determine unit prices, as well as alternatives to volume-based payment that adjust product payments based on predictors or measures of value. Building on existing frameworks for value-based payment for health care providers, we developed an analogous framework for medical products, including drugs, devices, and diagnostic tools. We illustrate each of these types of alternative payment mechanisms and describe the conditions under which each may be useful. We discuss how the use of this framework can help track reforms, improve evidence, and advance policy analysis involving medical product payment.

Preclinical Alzheimer Disease Drug Development: Early Considerations Based on Phase 3 Clinical Trials.

The number of people in the United States living with Alzheimer disease (AD) is growing, resulting in significant clinical and economic impact. Substantial research investment has led to drug development in stages of AD before symptomatic dementia, such as preclinical AD. Although there are no treatments approved for preclinical AD, there are currently 6 phase 3 clinical trials for preclinical AD treatments. In this article, we review these clinical trials and highlight considerations for future coverage decisions. In line with the definition of preclinical AD, enrollment in these trials focuses on cognitively unimpaired patients that are at high risk of AD because of family history and then genetic testing or brain imaging. Enrollment in most of these trials also allows for younger patients, including those aged under 65 years. Primary clinical trial endpoints focus on cognition often 4 or more years after treatment. Secondary endpoints include other measures of cognition and function, as well as biomarkers. Review of these trials brings to light a few potential considerations when covering these new medications in the future. First, novel and potentially costly approaches involving genetic testing and/or positron emission tomography imaging may be needed to identify appropriate patients and should be developed efficiently. Second, the long duration of these clinical trials suggest that there may be a need for alternative payment approaches in the United States that encourage early payers to pay for a medication for which the long-term benefits may not be realized until after the beneficiary is no longer with the health plan. Third, the value of AD treatments may differ across populations, creating a potential role for indication-based or population-based contracting. Finally, considering the potentially high budgetary impact and little real-world evidence for a new drug class, payers and manufacturers may want to consider outcomes-based payment approaches and coverage with evidence development to mitigate uncertainty about the value of the treatment demonstrated in well-defined populations in clinical trials versus more heterogeneous real-world settings. DISCLOSURES: This work was funded through a generous gift from the Global CEO Initiative on Alzheimer Disease. Hung reports grants from Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality and Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America outside the submitted work and past employment at CVS Health and BlueCross BlueShield Association. McClellan is an independent board member on the boards of Johnson & Johnson, Cigna, Alignment Healthcare, and Seer; co-chairs the Accountable Care Learning Collaborative and the Guiding Committee for the Health Care Payment Learning and Action Network; and receives fees for serving as an advisor for Cota and MITRE. Hamilton Lopez and Schneider have nothing to disclose. Part of this work was presented at the 2019 AMCP Nexus Meeting, October 29-November 1, 2019, in National Harbor, MD.

Advancing Value-Based Models for Heart Failure: A Call to Action From the Value in Healthcare Initiative's Value-Based Models Learning Collaborative.

Heart failure (HF) is a leading cause of hospitalizations and readmissions in the United States. Particularly among the elderly, its prevalence and costs continue to rise, making it a significant population health issue. Despite tremendous progress in improving HF care and examples of innovation in care redesign, the quality of HF care varies greatly across the country. One major challenge underpinning these issues is the current payment system, which is largely based on fee-for-service reimbursement, leads to uncoordinated, fragmented, and low-quality HF care. While the payment landscape is changing, with an increasing proportion of all healthcare dollars flowing through value-based payment models, no longitudinal models currently focus on chronic HF care. Episode-based payment models for HF hospitalization have yielded limited success and have little ability to prevent early chronic disease from progressing to later stages. The available literature suggests that primary care-based longitudinal payment models have indirectly improved HF care quality and cardiovascular care costs, but these models are not focused on addressing patients' longitudinal chronic disease needs. This article describes the efforts and vision of the multi-stakeholder Value-Based Models Learning Collaborative of The Value in Healthcare Initiative, a collaboration of the American Heart Association and the Robert J. Margolis, MD, Center for Health Policy at Duke University. The Learning Collaborative developed a framework for a HF value-based payment model with a longitudinal focus on disease management (to reduce adverse clinical outcomes and disease progression among patients with stage C HF) and prevention (an optional track to prevent high-risk stage B pre-HF from progressing to stage C). The model is designed to be compatible with prevalent payment models and reforms being implemented today. Barriers to success and strategies for implementation to aid payers, regulators, clinicians, and others in developing a pilot are discussed.

North Carolina's Health Care Transformation to Value: Progress to Date and Further Steps Needed.

North Carolina has received national attention for its approach to health care payment and delivery reform. Importantly, payment reform alone is not enough to drive systematic changes in care delivery. We highlight the importance of progress in four complementary areas to achieve system-wide payment and care reform.

Medicaid and CHIP Child Health Beneficiary Incentives: Program Landscape and Stakeholder Insights.

OBJECTIVES: To describe the landscape of Medicaid and the Children's Health Insurance Program beneficiary incentive programs for child health and garner key stakeholder insights on incentive program rationale, child and family engagement, and program evaluation. METHODS: We identified beneficiary health incentive programs from 2005 to 2018 through a search of peer-reviewed and publicly available documents and through semistructured interviews with 80 key stakeholders (Medicaid and managed-care leadership, program evaluators, patient advocates, etc). This study highlights insights from 23 of these stakeholders with expertise on programs targeting child health (<18 years old) to understand program rationale, beneficiary engagement, and program evaluation. RESULTS: We identified 82 child health-targeted beneficiary incentive programs in Medicaid and the Children's Health Insurance Program. Programs most commonly incentivized well-child checks (n = 77), preventive screenings (n = 30), and chronic disease management (n = 30). All programs included financial incentives (eg, gift cards, premium incentives); some also offered incentive material prizes (n = 12; eg, car seats). Loss-framed incentives were uncommon (n = 1; eg, lost benefits) and strongly discouraged by stakeholders. Stakeholders suggested family engagement strategies including multigenerational incentives or incentives addressing social determinants of health. Regarding evaluation, stakeholders suggested incentivizing evidence-based preventive services (eg, vaccinations) rather than well-child check attendance, and considering proximal measures of child well-being (eg, school functioning). CONCLUSIONS: As the landscape of beneficiary incentive programs for child health evolves, policy makers have unique opportunities to leverage intergenerational and social approaches for family engagement and to more effectively increase and evaluate programs' impact.