The potential for artificial intelligence to transform healthcare: perspectives from international health leaders.

Artificial intelligence (AI) has the potential to transform care delivery by improving health outcomes, patient safety, and the affordability and accessibility of high-quality care. AI will be critical to building an infrastructure capable of caring for an increasingly aging population, utilizing an ever-increasing knowledge of disease and options for precision treatments, and combatting workforce shortages and burnout of medical professionals. However, we are not currently on track to create this future. This is in part because the health data needed to train, test, use, and surveil these tools are generally neither standardized nor accessible. There is also universal concern about the ability to monitor health AI tools for changes in performance as they are implemented in new places, used with diverse populations, and over time as health data may change. The Future of Health (FOH), an international community of senior health care leaders, collaborated with the Duke-Margolis Institute for Health Policy to conduct a literature review, expert convening, and consensus-building exercise around this topic. This commentary summarizes the four priority action areas and recommendations for health care organizations and policymakers across the globe that FOH members identified as important for fully realizing AI's potential in health care: improving data quality to power AI, building infrastructure to encourage efficient and trustworthy development and evaluations, sharing data for better AI, and providing incentives to accelerate the progress and impact of AI.

Addressing Housing-Related Social Needs Through Medicaid: Lessons From North Carolina's Healthy Opportunities Pilots Program.

North Carolina Medicaid's Healthy Opportunities Pilots program is the country's first comprehensive program to evaluate the impact of paying community-based organizations to provide eligible Medicaid enrollees with an array of evidence-based services to address four domains of health-related social needs, one of which is housing. Using a mixed-methods approach, we mapped the distribution of severe housing problems and then examined the design and implementation of Healthy Opportunities Pilots housing services in the three program regions. Four cross-cutting implementation and policy themes emerged: accounting for variation in housing resources and needs to address housing insecurity, defining and pricing housing services in Medicaid, engaging diverse stakeholders across sectors to facilitate successful implementation, and developing sustainable financial models for delivery. The lessons learned and actionable insights can help inform the efforts of stakeholders elsewhere, particularly other state Medicaid programs, to design and implement cross-sectoral programs that address housing-related social needs by leveraging multiple policy-based resources. These lessons can also be useful for federal policy makers developing guidance on addressing housing-related needs in Medicaid.

Analysis of North Carolina Medicaid Claims Data to Simulate a Pediatric Accountable Care Organization.

Importance: Despite momentum for pediatric value-based payment models, little is known about tailoring design elements to account for the unique needs and utilization patterns of children and young adults. Objective: To simulate attribution to a hypothetical pediatric accountable care organization (ACO) and describe baseline demographic characteristics, expenditures, and utilization patterns over the subsequent year. Design, Setting, and Participants: This retrospective cohort study used Medicaid claims data for children and young adults aged 1 to 20 years enrolled in North Carolina Medicaid at any time during 2017. Children and young adults receiving at least 50% of their primary care at a large academic medical center (AMC) in 2017 were attributed to the ACO. Data were analyzed from April 2020 to March 2021. Main Outcomes and Measures: Primary outcomes were total cost of care and care utilization during the 2018 performance year. Results: Among 930 266 children and young adults (377 233 children [40.6%] aged 6-12 years; 470 612 [50.6%] female) enrolled in Medicare in North Carolina in 2017, 27 290 children and young adults were attributed to the ACO. A total of 12 306 Black non-Hispanic children and young adults (45.1%), 6308 Hispanic or Latinx children and young adults (23.1%), and 6531 White non-Hispanic children and young adults (23.9%) were included. Most attributed individuals (23 133 individuals [84.7%]) had at least 1 claim in the performance year. The median (IQR) total cost of care in 2018 was $347 ($107-$1123); 272 individuals (1.0%) accounted for nearly half of total costs. Compared with children and young adults in the lowest-cost quartile, those in the highest-cost quartile were more likely to have complex medical conditions (399 individuals [6.9%] vs 3442 individuals [59.5%]) and to live farther from the AMC (median [IQR distance, 6.0 [4.6-20.3] miles vs 13.9 [4.6-30.9] miles). Total cost of care was accrued in home (43%), outpatient specialty (19%), inpatient (14%) and primary (8%) care. More than half of attributed children and young adults received care outside of the ACO; the median (IQR) cost for leaked care was $349 ($130-$1326). The costliest leaked encounters included inpatient, ancillary, and home health care, while the most frequently leaked encounters included behavioral health, emergency, and primary care. Conclusions and Relevance: This cohort study found that while most children attributed to the hypothetical Medicaid pediatric ACO lived locally with few health care encounters, a small group of children with medical complexity traveled long distances for care and used frequent and costly home-based and outpatient specialty care. Leaked care was substantial for all attributed children, with the cost of leaked care being higher than the total cost of care. These pediatric-specific clinical and utilization profiles have implications for future pediatric ACO design choices related to attribution, accounting for children with high costs, and strategies to address leaked care.

Overcoming Barriers to the Implementation of Integrated Musculoskeletal Pain Management Programs: A Multi-Stakeholder Qualitative Study.

Integrated pain management (IPM) programs can help to reduce the substantial population health burden of musculoskeletal pain, but are poorly implemented. Lessons learned from existing programs can inform efforts to expand IPM implementation. This qualitative study describes how health care systems, payers, providers, health policy researchers, and other stakeholders are overcoming barriers to developing and sustaining IPM programs in real-world settings. Primary data were collected February 2020 through September 2021 from a multi-sector expert panel of 25 stakeholders, 53 expert interviews representing 30 distinct IPM programs across the United States, and 4 original case studies of exemplar IPM programs. We use a consensual team-based approach to systematically analyze qualitative findings. We identified 4 major themes around challenges and potential solutions for implementing IPM programs: navigating coverage, payment, and reimbursement; enacting organizational change; making a business case to stakeholders; and overcoming regulatory hurdles. Strategies to address payment challenges included use of group visits, linked visits between billable and nonbillable providers, and development of value-based payment models. Organizational change strategies included engagement of clinical and administrative champions and co-location of services. Business case strategies involved demonstrating the ability to initially break even and potential to reduce downstream costs, while improving nonfinancial outcomes like patient satisfaction and provider burnout. Regulatory hurdles were overcome with innovative credentialing methods by leveraging available waivers and managed care contracting to expand access to IPM services. Lessons from existing programs provide direction on to grow and support such IPM delivery models across a variety of settings. PERSPECTIVE: Integrated pain management (IPM) programs face numerous implementation challenges related to payment, organizational change, care coordination, and regulatory requirements. Drawing on real-world experiences of existing programs and from diverse IPM stakeholders, we outline actionable strategies that health care systems, providers, and payers can use to expand implementation of these programs.

Using a home time measure to differentiate ACO performance for seriously ill populations.

BACKGROUND: Alternative Payment Models (APMs) piloted by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) such as ACO Realizing Equity, Access and Community Health (REACH) seek to improve care and quality of life among seriously ill populations (SIP). Days at Home (DAH) was proposed for use in this model to evaluate organizational performance. It is important to assess the utility and feasibility of person-centered outcomes measures, such as DAH, as CMS seeks to advance care models for seriously ill beneficiaries. We leverage existing Accountable Care Organization (ACO) contracts to evaluate the feasibility of ACO-level DAH measure and examine characteristics associated with ACOs with more DAH. METHODS: We calculated DAH for Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries aged 68 and over who were retrospectively attributed to a Medicare ACO between 2014 and 2018 and met the seriously ill criteria. We then aggregated to the ACO level DAH for each ACO's seriously ill beneficiaries and risk-adjusted this aggregated measure. Finally, we evaluated associations between risk-adjusted DAH per person-year and ACO, beneficiary, and market characteristics. RESULTS: ACOs' seriously ill beneficiaries spent an average of 349.3 risk-adjusted DAH per person-year. Risk-adjusted ACO variation, defined as the interquartile range, was 4.21 days (IQR = 347.32-351.53). Beneficiaries of ACOs are composed of a less racially diverse beneficiary cohort, opting for two-sided risk models, and operating in markets with fewer hospital and Skilled Nursing Facility beds had more DAH. CONCLUSIONS: Substantial variation across ACOs in the DAH measure for seriously ill beneficiaries suggests the measure can differentiate between high and low performing provider groups. Key to the success of the metric is accurate risk adjustment to ensure providers have adequate resources to care for seriously ill beneficiaries. Organizational factors, such as the ACO size and level of risk, are strongly associated with more days at home.

Profiles and trajectories of mental health service utilisation during early intervention in psychosis.

BACKGROUND: Early intervention in psychosis services (EIS) support individuals experiencing a first episode of psychosis. Support required will vary in response to the remittance and reoccurrence of symptoms, including relapses. Characterising individuals who will need more intensive support can inform care planning. This study explores service utilisation profiles and their trajectories of service use in a sample of individuals referred to EIS. METHOD: We analysed service utilisation during the 3 years following referral to EIS (n = 2363) in West London between 2011 and 2020. Mental health service utilisation data were submitted to model-based clustering. Latent growth models were then estimated for identified profiles. Profiles were compared regarding clinical and demographic characteristics and onward pathways of care. RESULTS: Analyses revealed 5 profiles of individuals attending EIS based on their service utilisation over 3 years. 55.5% of the sample were members of a low utilisation and less clinically severe profile. The distinct service use patterns of these profiles were associated with Health of the Nations Outcome Scale scores at treatment initiation (at total, subscale, and individual item level), along with age and gender. These patterns of use were also associated with onward care and ethnicity. CONCLUSIONS: Profiles and trajectories of service utilisation call for development of integrated care pathways and use of more personalised interventions. Services should consider patient symptoms and characteristics when making clinical decisions informing the provision of care. The profiles represent typical patterns of service use, and identifying factors associated with these subgroups might help optimise EIS support.

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.

Hospital-level compliance with the commission on cancer's quality of care measures and the association with patient survival.

BACKGROUND: Quality measurement has become a priority for national healthcare reform, and valid measures are necessary to discriminate hospital performance and support value-based healthcare delivery. The Commission on Cancer (CoC) is the largest cancer-specific accreditor of hospital quality in the United States and has implemented Quality of Care Measures to evaluate cancer care delivery. However, none has been formally tested as a valid metric for assessing hospital performance based on actual patient outcomes. METHODS: Eligibility and compliance with the Quality of Care Measures are reported within the National Cancer Database, which also captures data for robust patient-level risk adjustment. Hospital-level compliance was calculated for the core measures, and the association with patient survival was tested using Cox regression. RESULTS: Seven hundred sixty-eight thousand nine hundred sixty-nine unique cancer cases were included from 1323 facilities. Increasing hospital-level compliance was associated with improved survival for only two measures, including a 35% reduced risk of mortality for the gastric cancer measure G15RLN (HR 0.65, 95% CI 0.58-0.72) and a 19% reduced risk of mortality for the colon cancer measure 12RLN (HR 0.81, 95% CI 0.77-0.85). For the lung cancer measure LNoSurg, increasing compliance was paradoxically associated with an increased risk of mortality (HR 1.14, 95% CI 1.08-1.20). For the remaining measures, hospital-level compliance demonstrated no consistent association with patient survival. CONCLUSION: Hospital-level compliance with the CoC's Quality of Care Measures is not uniformly aligned with patient survival. In their current form, these measures do not reliably discriminate hospital performance and are limited as a tool for value-based healthcare delivery.

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.

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.

Improving Cardiovascular Drug and Device Development and Evidence Through Patient-Centered Research and Clinical Trials: A Call to Action From the Value in Healthcare Initiative's Partnering With Regulators Learning Collaborative.

The pipeline of new cardiovascular drugs is relatively limited compared with many other clinical areas. Challenges causing lagging drug innovation include the duration and expense of cardiovascular clinical trials needed for regulatory evaluation and approvals, which generally must demonstrate noninferiority to existing standards of care and measure longer-term outcomes. By comparison, there has been substantial progress in cardiovascular device innovation. There has also been progress in cardiovascular trial participation equity in recent years, especially among women, due in part to important efforts by Food and Drug Administration, National Institutes of Health, American Heart Association, and others. Yet women and especially racial and ethnic minority populations remain underrepresented in cardiovascular trials, indicating much work ahead to continue recent success. Given these challenges and opportunities, the multistakeholder Partnering with Regulators 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, identified how to improve the evidence generation process for cardiovascular drugs and devices. Drawing on a series of meetings, literature reviews, and analyses of regulatory options, the Collaborative makes recommendations across four identified areas for improvement. First, we offer strategies to enhance patient engagement in trial design, convenient participation, and meaningful end points and outcomes to improve patient recruitment and retention (major expenses in clinical trials). Second, new digital technologies expand the potential for real-world evidence to streamline data collection and reduce cost and time of trials. However, technical challenges must be overcome to routinely leverage real-world data, including standardizing data, managing data quality, understanding data comparability, and ensuring real-world evidence does not worsen inequities. Third, as trials are driven by evidence needs of regulators and payers, we recommend ways to improve their collaboration in trial design to streamline and standardize efficient and innovative trials, reducing costs and delays. Finally, we discuss creative ways to expand the minuscule proportion of sites involved in cardiovascular evidence generation and medical product development. These actions, paired with continued policy research into better ways to pay for and equitably develop therapies, will help reduce the cost and complexity of drug and device research, development, and trials.