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.

Understanding Clinician Trust in Health Care Organizations Should Be a Research Priority.

This Viewpoint discusses the urgent need to build trust between physicians and the organizations in which they work.

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.

Government As Innovation Catalyst: Lessons From The Early Center For Medicare And Medicaid Innovation Models.

Congress established the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation (CMMI) to design, test, and spread innovative payment and service delivery models that either reduce spending without reducing the quality of care or improve the quality of care without increasing spending. CMMI sought to leverage these models to foster market innovation and accelerate the transformation of payment and care delivery to achieve the Triple Aim of better health, better care, and lower cost. This article provides a perspective on the design and execution of CMMI's five initial models, the resulting outcomes and lessons, and how their core concepts evolved within and spread beyond CMMI. This experience yields three key insights that could inform future efforts by CMMI and public and private payers, including model designs and policy decisions. These insights center on the need for iterative testing and learning guided by market feedback, more realistic time frames to demonstrate impact on cost and quality, and greater integration of models.