Meikirch model: new definition of health as hypothesis to fundamentally improve healthcare delivery.

The unrelenting rise in healthcare costs over the past 50 years has caused policymakers to respond. Their reactions have led to a gradual economic transformation of medicine. As a result, detailed billing, quality controls, financial incentives, savings targets and digitalisation are now putting increasing pressures on the nursing and medical staff. In addition, the humanity of care of the patient-doctor and/or patient-nurse interactions has been cast aside to a great extent. Therefore, the immaterial side of care has been neglected or even removed from these relationships. These changes are now perceived as intolerable by most health workers and patients. Yet healthcare costs are still rising. This paper presents a hypothesis that should enable healthcare systems to respond more effectively. It proposes the introduction of the Meikirch model, a new comprehensive definition of health. The Meikirch model takes human nature fully into account, including health and disease. The inclusion of the individual potentials, the social surroundings and the natural environment leads to the concept of health as a complex adaptive system (CAS). Care for such a definition of health requires medical organisations to change from top-down management to bottom-up leadership. Such innovations are now mature and ready for implementation. They require a long-term investment, a comprehensive approach to patient care and new qualifications for leadership. The Meikirch model reads: 'To be healthy a human individual must be able to satisfy the demands of life. For this purpose, each person disposes of a biologically given and a personally acquired potential, both of which are closely related to the social surroundings and the natural environment. The resulting CAS enables the individual to unfold a personal identity and to develop it further until death. Healthcare has the purpose to empower each individual to fully realize optimal health'. This hypothesis postulates that the new definition of health will further develop healthcare systems in such a way that better health results at lower costs.

Better and fulfilling healthcare at lower costs: The need to manage health systems as complex adaptive systems.

Rising healthcare costs are major concerns in most high-income countries. Yet, political measures to reduce costs have so far remained futile and have damaged the best interests of patients and citizen. We therefore explored the possibilities to analyze healthcare systems as a socially constructed complex adaptive system (CAS) and found that by their very nature such CAS tend not to respond as expected to top-down interventions. As CAS have emergent behaviors, the focus on their drivers - purpose, economy and behavioral norms - requires particular attention. First, the importance of understanding the purpose of health care as improvement of health and its experience has been emphasized by two recent complementary re-definitions of health and disease. The economic models underpinning today's healthcare - profit maximization - have shifted the focus away from its main purpose. Second, although economic considerations are important, they must serve and not dominate the provision of healthcare delivery. Third, expected health professionals' behavioral norms - to first consider the health and wellbeing of patients - have been codified in the universally accepted Declaration of Geneva 2017. Considering these three aspects it becomes clear that complex adaptive healthcare systems need mindful top-down/bottom-up leadership that supports the nature of innovation for health care driven by local needs. The systemic focus on improving people's health will then result in significant cost reductions.

Health and Disease-Emergent States Resulting From Adaptive Social and Biological Network Interactions.

Health is an adaptive state unique to each person. This subjective state must be distinguished from the objective state of disease. The experience of health and illness (or poor health) can occur both in the absence and presence of objective disease. Given that the subjective experience of health, as well as the finding of objective disease in the community, follow a Pareto distribution, the following questions arise: What are the processes that allow the emergence of four observable states-(1) subjective health in the absence of objective disease, (2) subjective health in the presence of objective disease, (3) illness in the absence of objective disease, and (4) illness in the presence of objective disease? If we consider each individual as a unique biological system, these four health states must emerge from physiological network structures and personal behaviors. The underlying physiological mechanisms primarily arise from the dynamics of external environmental and internal patho/physiological stimuli, which activate regulatory systems including the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis and autonomic nervous system. Together with other systems, they enable feedback interactions between all of the person's system domains and impact on his system's entropy. These interactions affect individual behaviors, emotional, and cognitive responses, as well as molecular, cellular, and organ system level functions. This paper explores the hypothesis that health is an emergent state that arises from hierarchical network interactions between a person's external environment and internal physiology. As a result, the concept of health synthesizes available qualitative and quantitative evidence of interdependencies and constraints that indicate its top-down and bottom-up causative mechanisms. Thus, to provide effective care, we must use strategies that combine person-centeredness with the scientific approaches that address the molecular network physiology, which together underpin health and disease. Moreover, we propose that good health can also be promoted by strengthening resilience and self-efficacy at the personal and social level, and via cohesion at the population level. Understanding health as a state that is both individualized and that emerges from multi-scale interdependencies between microlevel physiological mechanisms of health and disease and macrolevel societal domains may provide the basis for a new public discourse for health service and health system redesign.

Will the Meikirch Model, a New Framework for Health, Induce a Paradigm Shift in Healthcare?

Over the past decades, scientific medicine has realized tremendous advances. Yet, it is felt that the quality, costs, and equity of medicine and public health have not improved correspondingly and, both inside and outside the USA, may even have changed for the worse. An initiative for improving this situation is value-based healthcare, in which value is defined as health outcomes relative to the cost of achieving them. Value-based healthcare was advocated in order to stimulate competition among healthcare providers and thereby reduce costs. The approach may be well grounded economically, but in the care of patients, "value" has ethical and philosophical connotations. The restriction of value to an economic meaning ignores the importance of health and, thus, leads to misunderstandings. We postulate that a new understanding of the nature of health is necessary. We present the Meikirch model, a conceptual framework for health and disease that views health as a complex adaptive system. We describe this model and analyze some important consequences of its application to healthcare. The resources each person needs to meet the demands of life are both biological and personal, and both function together. While scientific advances in healthcare are hailed, these advances focus mainly on the biologically given potential (BGP) and tend to neglect the personally acquired potential (PAP) of an individual person. Personal growth to improve the PAP strongly contributes to meeting the demands of life. Therefore, in individual and public health care, personal growth deserves as much attention as the BGP. The conceptual framework of the Meikirch model supports a unified understanding of healthcare and serves to develop common goals, thereby rendering interprofessional and intersectoral cooperation more successful. The Meikirch model can be used as an effective tool to stimulate health literacy and improve health-supporting behavior. If individuals and groups of people involved in healthcare interact based on the model, mutual understanding of and adherence to treatments and preventive measures will improve. In healthcare, the Meikirch model also makes it plain that neither pay-for-performance nor value-based payment is an adequate response to improve person-centered healthcare. The Meikirch model is not only a unifying theoretical framework for health and disease but also a scaffold for the practice of medicine and public health. It is fully in line with the theory and practice of evidence-based medicine, person-centered healthcare, and integrative medicine. The model offers opportunities to self-motivate people to improve their health-supporting behavior, thereby making preventive approaches and overall healthcare more effective. We believe that the Meikirch model could induce a paradigm shift in healthcare. The healthcare community is hereby invited to acquaint themselves with this model and to consider its potential ramifications.

Applying a complex adaptive system's understanding of health to primary care.

This paper explores the diagnostic and therapeutic potential of a new concept of health. Investigations into the nature of health have led to a new definition that explains health as a complex adaptive system (CAS) and is based on five components (a-e). Humans like all biological creatures must satisfactorily respond to (a) the demands of life. For this purpose they need (b) a biologically given potential (BGP) and (c) a personally acquired potential (PAP). These properties of individuals are embedded within (d) social and (e) environmental determinants of health. Between these five components of health there are 10 complex interactions that justify health to be viewed as a CAS. In each patient, the current state of his health as a CAS evolved from the past, will move forward to a new future, and has to be analyzed and treated as an autonomous whole. A diagnostic procedure is suggested as follows: together with the patient, the five components and 10 complex interactions are assessed. This may help the patient to better understand his situation and to recognize possible next steps that may be useful for him to evolve toward more health by himself. In this process mutual trust in the patient-physician interaction is critical. The described approach offers new possibilities to help patients to improve their health.

Understanding the nature of health: New perspectives for medicine and public health. Improved wellbeing at lower costs.

BACKGROUND: Current dilemmas of health care systems call for a new look at the nature of health. This is offered by the Meikirch model. We explore its hypothetical benefit for the future of medicine and public health. Meikirch model: It states: "Health is a dynamic state of wellbeing emergent from conducive interactions between individuals' potentials, life's demands, and social and environmental determinants." "Throughout the life course health results when an individuals' biologically given potential (BGP) and his or her personally acquired potential (PAP), interacting with social and environmental determinants, satisfactorily respond to the demands of life." METHODS: We explored the Meikirch model's possible applications for personal and public health care. RESULTS: The PAP of each individual is the most modifiable component of the model. It responds to constructive social interactions and to personal growth. If an individual's PAP is nurtured to develop further, it likely will contribute much more to health than without fostering. It may also compensate for losses of the BGP. An ensuing new culture of health may markedly improve health in the society. The rising costs of health care presumably are due in part to the tragedy of the commons and to moral hazard. Health as a complex adaptive system offers new possibilities for patient care, particularly for general practitioners. DISCUSSION: Analysis of health systems by the Meikirch model reveals that in many areas more can be done to improve people's health and to reduce health care costs than is done today. The Meikirch model appears promising for individual and public health in low and high income countries. Emphasizing health instead of disease the Meikirch model reinforces article 12 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights of the United Nations - that abandons the WHO definition - and thereby may contribute to its reinterpretation.

Defining health by addressing individual, social, and environmental determinants: new opportunities for health care and public health.

The Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) mobilized global commitments to promote health, socioeconomic, and sustainable development. Trends indicate that the health MDGs may not be achieved by 2015, in part because of insufficient coordination across related health, socioeconomic, and environmental initiatives. Explicitly acknowledging the need for such collaboration, the Meikirch Model of Health posits that: Health is a state of wellbeing emergent from conducive interactions between individuals' potentials, life's demands, and social and environmental determinants. Health results throughout the life course when individuals' potentials--and social and environmental determinants--suffice to respond satisfactorily to the demands of life. Life's demands can be physiological, psychosocial, or environmental, and vary across contexts, but in every case unsatisfactory responses lead to disease. This conceptualization of the integrative nature of health could contribute to ongoing efforts to strengthen cooperation across actors and sectors to improve individual and population health--leading up to 2015 and beyond.

Towards a dynamic definition of health and disease.

A multifactorial and growing crisis of health care systems in the developed world has affected medicine. In order to provide rational responses, some central concepts of the past, such as the definitions of health and disease, need to be updated. For this purpose physicians should initiate a new debate. As a point of departure the following definitions are proposed: Health is a dynamic state of wellbeing characterized by a physical, mental and social potential, which satisfies the demands of a life commensurate with age, culture, and personal responsibility. If the potential is insufficient to satisfy these demands the state is disease. This term includes sickness, illness, ill health, and malady. The described potential is divided into a biologically given and a personally acquired partial potential. Their proportions vary throughout the life cycle. The proposed definitions render it empirically possible to diagnose persons as healthy or diseased and to apportion some of the responsibility for their state of health to individuals themselves. Treatment strategies should always consider three therapeutic routes: improvements of the biologically given and of the personally acquired partial potentials and adaptations of the demands of life. These consequences favourably contrast with those resulting from the WHO-definition of health.