RESUMEN
The U.S. direct care workforce employs nearly 4.6 million people and represents one of the fastest growing occupations in the United States. Direct care workers, or "caregivers," include nursing assistants, home care workers, and residential care aides, all of whom provide basic care to older adults and individuals with disabilities in various health care settings. Despite a growing need for caregivers, supply has not kept up with demand due to high turnover and low wages. In addition, caregivers often face high levels of workplace stress, limited training and growth opportunities, and personal stressors. Ranging from 35 to 90 percent, depending on the health care setting, the turnover rates of direct care workers pose a major challenge for health systems, as well as care recipients and workers themselves. In 2019, the Ralph C. Wilson Jr. Foundation funded three health systems to support the implementation of a new program: Transformational Healthcare Readiness through Innovative Vocational Education (THRIVE). This 12-month program was designed to help address barriers that entry-level caregivers experience and reduce turnover through a comprehensive risk assessment, training, and one-on-one coaching. Researchers from RAND conducted a process and outcome evaluation to determine whether THRIVE was meeting its goals of improving retention and achieving a positive return on investment (ROI). They also examined potential areas for program improvement.
RESUMEN
Palliative care has expanded rapidly in recent years. Hence, there has been a growing awareness of and emphasis on the importance of developing quality measures specific to palliative care. This article describes information-gathering activities conducted by RAND to develop two measures of palliative care quality for patients receiving such care in outpatient, clinic-based settings. The authors describe the consensus that has developed for measurement priorities in the palliative care community, provide a summary of clinical practice guidelines, and review the evidence base for palliative care. The authors also review current relevant regulations, existing measures of patient and caregiver experience, findings from a gap analysis on palliative care assessment, and findings from provider focus groups and interviews with patients and caregivers or family members.
RESUMEN
Through the Comprehensive Primary Care (CPC) and Comprehensive Primary Care Plus (CPC+) programs, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) has encouraged primary care practices to invest in "comprehensive primary care" capabilities. Empirical evidence suggests these capabilities are under-reimbursed or not reimbursed under prevailing fee-for-service payment models. To help CMS design alternative payment models (APMs) that reimburse the costs of these capabilities, the authors developed a method for estimating related practice expenses. Fifty practices, sampled for diversity across CPC+ participation status, geographic region, rural status, size, and parent-organization affiliation, completed the study. Researchers developed a mixed-methods strategy, beginning with interviews of practice leaders to identify their capabilities and the types of costs incurred. This was followed by researcher-assisted completion of a workbook tailored to each practice, which gathered related labor and nonlabor costs. In a final interview, practice leaders reviewed cost estimates and made any needed corrections before approval. A main goal was to address a persistent question faced by CMS: When practices reported widely divergent costs for a given capability, was that divergence due to practices having different prices for the same capability or from their having substantially different capabilities? The cost estimation method developed in this project collected detailed data on practice capabilities and their costs. However, the small sample did not allow quantitative estimation of the contributions of service level and pricing to the variation in overall costs. This cost estimation method, deployed on a larger scale, could generate robust data to inform new payment models aimed at incentivizing and sustaining comprehensive primary care.
RESUMEN
The Air Force uses the Strength Aptitude Test (SAT) to determine whether recruits meet the fitness levels needed to perform the duties of various Air Force specialties with physical strength requirements. However, the SAT was developed in the early 1980s and has not been revalidated since then. In the interim, the duties associated with many Air Force Specialty Code classifications may have changed, and new ones have been added. These changes require a reevaluation of the SAT's utility and effectiveness for qualifying recruits into these specialties. This study evaluates the status and validity of the SAT in a series of studies and summarizes the studies RAND has completed independently and one study conducted in conjunction with HumRRO, which provided the additional data necessary to develop some courses of action for the Air Force to follow to ensure airmen can meet job-related physical requirements.
