Addressing Viral Medical Rumors and False or Misleading Information.

The rapid spread of medical rumors and false or misleading information on social media during times of uncertainty is a vexing challenge that threatens public health. Understanding the information ecosystem, social media networks, and the scope of incentives that drive users and social media platforms can provide critical insights for strong coordination between stakeholders and funders to address this challenge. The COVID-19 pandemic created an opportunity to demonstrate the role of media monitoring and counter-messaging efforts in responding to dangerous medical rumors, misinformation, and disinformation. It also highlighted the challenges. The efforts of ThisIsOurShot and VacunateYa to spread accurate health information about COVID-19 and COVID-19 vaccines are described and lessons learned are discussed. These lessons include the need for substantial financial investments at the local and national levels to sustain and scale these types of programs. Examples in other fields that offer a path forward include Information Sharing and Analysis Centers and Public Health Emergency Operations Centers. Understanding the scale and scope of what it takes to address viral medical rumors, misinformation, and disinformation in a networked information environment should inspire elected leaders to consider policy and regulatory reforms. Our transformed information ecosystem requires new public health infrastructure to address information that threatens personal safety and population health.

Health Communication Science in the Balance.

Authors of this Viewpoint discuss the recent "pause" of the NIH Common Fund's research program that was designed to study the communication of science and the possible detrimental effect of not addressing scientific misinformation and disinformation.

Structuring payment to medical homes after the affordable care act.

The Patient-Centered Medical Home (PCMH) is a leading model of primary care reform, a critical element of which is payment reform for primary care services. With the passage of the Affordable Care Act, the Accountable Care Organization (ACO) has emerged as a model of delivery system reform, and while there is theoretical alignment between the PCMH and ACOs, the discussion of physician payment within each model has remained distinct. Here we compare payment for medical homes with that for accountable care organizations, consider opportunities for integration, and discuss implications for policy makers and payers considering ACO models. The PCMH and ACO are complementary approaches to reformed care delivery: the PCMH ultimately requires strong integration with specialists and hospitals as seen under ACOs, and ACOs likely will require a high functioning primary care system as embodied by the PCMH. Aligning payment incentives within the ACO will be critical to achieving this integration and enhancing the care coordination role of primary care in these settings.

Staffing patterns of primary care practices in the comprehensive primary care initiative.

PURPOSE: Despite growing calls for team-based care, the current staff composition of primary care practices is unknown. We describe staffing patterns for primary care practices in the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) Comprehensive Primary Care (CPC) initiative. METHODS: We undertook a descriptive analysis of CPC initiative practices' baseline staffing using data from initial applications and a practice survey. CMS selected 502 primary care practices (from 987 applicants) in 7 regions based on their health information technology, number of patients covered by participating payers, and other factors; 496 practices were included in this analysis. RESULTS: Consistent with the national distribution, most of the CPC initiative practices included in this study were small: 44% reported 2 or fewer full-time equivalent (FTE) physicians; 27% reported more than 4. Nearly all reported administrative staff (98%) and medical assistants (89%). Fifty-three percent reported having nurse practitioners or physician assistants; 47%, licensed practical or vocational nurses; 36%, registered nurses; and 24%, care managers/coordinators-all of these positions are more common in larger practices. Other clinical staff were reported infrequently regardless of practice size. Compared with other CPC initiative practices, designated patient-centered medical homes were more likely to have care managers/coordinators but otherwise had similar staff types. Larger practices had fewer FTE staff per physician. CONCLUSIONS: At baseline, most CPC initiative practices used traditional staffing models and did not report having dedicated staff who may be integral to new primary care models, such as care coordinators, health educators, behavioral health specialists, and pharmacists. Without such staff and payment for their services, practices are unlikely to deliver comprehensive, coordinated, and accessible care to patients at a sustainable cost.

New pathways for primary care: an update on primary care programs from the innovation center at CMS.

Those in practice find that the fee-for-service system does not adequately value the contributions made by primary care. The Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation (Innovation Center) was created by the Affordable Care Act to test new models of health care delivery to improve the quality of care while lowering costs. All programs coming out of the Innovation Center are tests of new payment and service delivery models. By changing both payment and delivery models and moving to a payment model that rewards physicians for quality of care instead of volume of care, we may be able to achieve the kind of health care patients want to receive and primary care physicians want to provide.

How to scale up primary care transformation: what we know and what we need to know?

Becoming a medical home is a radical change, requiring both a new mental model for primary care and the skills and resources to accomplish it. Although numerous reports indicate practice change is feasible--particularly with technical support and either insulation from or alignment with financial incentives--sustained transformation appears difficult. We identified the following critical success factors: leadership, financial resources, personal and organizational relationships, engagement with patients and families, competence in management, improvement methods and coaching, health information technology properly applied, care coordination support, and staff development. Each factor raises researchable questions about what policies can facilitate achieving success so that transformation becomes mainstream rather than the province of the innovative few.

Seeking Consensus on the Terminology of Value-Based Transformation Through use of a Delphi Process.

Collaboration among diverse stakeholders involved in the value transformation of health care requires consistent use of terminology. The objective of this study was to reach consensus definitions for the terms value-based care, value-based payment, and population health. A modified Delphi process was conducted from February 2017 to July 2017. An in-person panel meeting was followed by 3 rounds of surveys. Panelists anonymously rated individual components of definitions and full definitions on a 9-point Likert scale. Definitions were modified in an iterative process based on results of each survey round. Participants were a panel of 18 national leaders representing population health, health care delivery, academic medicine, payers, patient advocacy, and health care foundations. Main measures were survey ratings of definition components and definitions. At the conclusion of round 3, consensus was reached on the following definition for value-based payment, with 13 of 18 panelists (72.2%) assigning a high rating (7- 9) and 1 of 18 (5.6%) assigning a low rating (1-3): "Value-based payment aligns reimbursement with achievement of value-based care (health outcomes/cost) in a defined population with providers held accountable for achieving financial goals and health outcomes. Value-based payment encourages optimal care delivery, including coordination across healthcare disciplines and between the health care system and community resources, to improve health outcomes, for both individuals and populations." The iterative process elucidated specific areas of agreement and disagreement for value-based care and population health but did not reach consensus. Policy makers cannot assume uniform interpretation of other concepts underlying health care reform efforts.

A Trust Initiative in Health Care: Why and Why Now?

The authors describe the importance of trust in health care, while noting with concern the documented decline in Americans' trust in the medical system, its leaders, and to a lesser degree, physicians themselves. They examine a number of reasons for this decline, including both larger societal trends and elements that are specific to health care. They then link trust to medical professionalism, explaining why the ABIM Foundation has decided to champion trust as an issue in the coming years. Finally, they offer thoughts on the specific actions the ABIM Foundation may take, including the launch of a Trust Practice Challenge designed to uncover practices that are currently working to build trust in a variety of practice settings and health care relationships, and the exploration of potential avenues to combat medical misinformation.