Vital Directions for Health and Health Care: Priorities From a National Academy of Medicine Initiative.

Importance: Recent discussion has focused on questions related to the repeal and replacement of portions of the Affordable Care Act (ACA). However, issues central to the future of health and health care in the United States transcend the ACA provisions receiving the greatest attention. Initiatives directed to certain strategic and infrastructure priorities are vital to achieve better health at lower cost. Objectives: To review the most salient health challenges and opportunities facing the United States, to identify practical and achievable priorities essential to health progress, and to present policy initiatives critical to the nation's health and fiscal integrity. Evidence Review: Qualitative synthesis of 19 National Academy of Medicine-commissioned white papers, with supplemental review and analysis of publicly available data and published research findings. Findings: The US health system faces major challenges. Health care costs remain high at $3.2 trillion spent annually, of which an estimated 30% is related to waste, inefficiencies, and excessive prices; health disparities are persistent and worsening; and the health and financial burdens of chronic illness and disability are straining families and communities. Concurrently, promising opportunities and knowledge to achieve change exist. Across the 19 discussion papers examined, 8 crosscutting policy directions were identified as vital to the nation's health and fiscal future, including 4 action priorities and 4 essential infrastructure needs. The action priorities-pay for value, empower people, activate communities, and connect care-recurred across the articles as direct and strategic opportunities to advance a more efficient, equitable, and patient- and community-focused health system. The essential infrastructure needs-measure what matters most, modernize skills, accelerate real-world evidence, and advance science-were the most commonly cited foundational elements to ensure progress. Conclusions and Relevance: The action priorities and essential infrastructure needs represent major opportunities to improve health outcomes and increase efficiency and value in the health system. As the new US administration and Congress chart the future of health and health care for the United States, and as health leaders across the country contemplate future directions for their programs and initiatives, their leadership and strategic investment in these priorities will be essential for achieving significant progress.

Medicare and Medicaid at 50 Years: Perspectives of Beneficiaries, Health Care Professionals and Institutions, and Policy Makers.

IMPORTANCE: Medicare and Medicaid are the nation's 2 largest public health insurance programs, serving the elderly, those with disabilities, and mostly lower-income populations. The 2 programs are the focus of often deep partisan disagreement. Medicare and Medicaid payment policies influence the health care system and Medicare and Medicaid spending influences federal and state budgets. Debate about Medicare and Medicaid policy sometimes influences elections. OBJECTIVE: To review the roles of Medicare and Medicaid in the health system and the challenges the 2 programs face from the perspectives of the general public and beneficiaries, health care professionals and health care institutions, and policy makers. EVIDENCE: Analysis of publicly available data and private surveys of the public and beneficiaries. FINDINGS: Together, Medicare and Medicaid serve 111 million beneficiaries and account for $1 trillion in total spending, generating 43% of hospital revenue and representing 39% of national health spending. The median income for Medicare beneficiaries is $23,500 and the median income for Medicaid beneficiaries is $15,000. Future issues confronting both programs include whether they will remain open-ended entitlements, the degree to which the programs may be privatized, the scope of their cost-sharing structures for beneficiaries, and the roles the programs will play in payment and delivery reform. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: As the number of beneficiaries and the amount of spending for both Medicare and Medicaid increase, these programs will remain a focus of national attention and policy debate. Beneficiaries, health care professionals, health care organizations, and policy makers often have different interests in Medicare and Medicaid, complicating efforts to make changes to these large programs.

The White House Conference on Hunger, Nutrition and Health is an opportunity for transformational change.

In every country, a clear national strategy, goals and metrics are needed to end hunger, improve nutrition, reduce diet-related diseases and create a just, sustainable and equitable food system. We identify six policy domains where real change can be made to deliver this vision in the United States.

Development of a Tobacco Control Prescription in a Southern US City.

THE PROBLEM: Nationwide efforts to reduce smoking in the United States have been successful. Yet, there is unequal geographic progress in reducing rates of smoking and smoking-related illnesses. Located in a tobacco-producing state with weak tobacco laws, Nashville, Tennessee, has an adult smoking rate of 22.0%, requiring 45,000 smokers to quit to meet the Healthy People 2020 goal of 12%. PURPOSE: The purpose of this article was to detail the development a community-academic partnership (CAP) and its process for devising a local implementation strategy for tobacco control. KEY POINTS: Nashville's CAP developed with a community-based organization (CBOs) seeking out an academic partner. This unique approach addressed many of the challenges CAPs face, helped identify priorities and potential barriers to success and led to early wins. CONCLUSION: The success of Nashville's efforts suggests that CAPs should clearly delineate roles for members of the CAP, engage diverse stakeholders, be responsive to the community, and allow adequate time for planning and prioritizing.

Overcoming disparities in U.S. health care.

Disparities in U.S. health care result from a complex mixture of systemic quality and access problems intertwined with historic injury. The many dimensions of health disparities include race, ethnicity, socioeconomic status, and geography. It is critically important for policymakers to define the problem correctly so that our solutions address their intended goal-health security for all regardless of socioeconomic characteristics. Further, U.S. efforts to eliminate disparities must also be part of a broader effort to transform health care and thus must focus, first and foremost, on improving the quality of care delivered to the individual patient.

Training the next generation of doctors in palliative care is the key to the new era of value-based care.

There is a common misperception that palliative care is just another term for hospice care. Although it includes hospice, palliative care is also the long-term coordinated care of the chronically ill, which is delivered at a cost savings. Why does it matter that the average American understand what palliative care means? Because the evidence shows that U.S. patients near the end of life are spending exorbitant amounts of money on health care they do not want and the country cannot afford. To better understand why palliative care is an important issue in the current debate about health care reform, the authors first briefly review landmark legal cases in the area of end-of-life care. They then discuss the role of palliative care in conversations in the current health care climate and conclude by emphasizing the importance of integrating palliative care into the standard medical curriculum. The authors predict that palliative care will be accepted in the United States as a much-needed and desirable field of medicine. Getting there, however, will require a multifaceted approach including payment reform, encouraging an open conversation among the U.S. public, and training physicians to offer the best possible care and guidance until a patient's last breath.

A modified bronchial anastomosis technique for lung transplantation.

BACKGROUND: Low rates of major complications have been reported for the intussuscepting bronchial anastomotic technique but stenosis, malacia, and granulation tissue at the anastomosis may cause clinically important morbidity. We hypothesized that a modification of the telescoping technique that improves bronchial wall apposition might be associated with improved bronchial healing and clinical outcomes. METHODS: The telescoping horizontal mattress "U-stitch" suture technique was modified to incorporate figure-of-eight sutures placed in the cartilaginous wall between each of three intussuscepting U stitches. Serial videotape records of 152 individual anastomoses (99 modified, 53 telescoped) in 118 consecutive operative survivors were retrospectively reviewed by examiners blinded with respect to technique used. Stenosis, airway instability, mucosa quality, and devascularized luminal tissue were graded at 4 to 14 days (initial), 4 to 12 weeks (early), and 6 to 12 months (late) after transplantation. RESULTS: The incidence of anastomotic stenosis was significantly lower using the modified technique at the initial (p = 0.025) and late (p = 0.015) observations. In the initial phase airway instability (p = 0.015) and devascularization grades (p = 0.001) were also significant lower in the modified group. There were no significant differences in mucosal condition between techniques. The modified telescoping technique was associated with significant survival advantage (mean 17.7%; p = 0.029) by multivariate analysis. The incidence of major airway complications (dehiscences and stenoses required stents) tended to be lower (3% versus 6%) in the modified group. CONCLUSIONS: The modified telescoping bronchial anastomosis technique is associated with improved early and late bronchial healing and higher 5-year survival without increased major airway complications.

Commentary: improving the supply and distribution of primary care physicians.

The current medical education system and reimbursement policies in the United States have contributed to a maldistribution of physicians by specialty and geography. The causes of this maldistribution include financial barriers that prevent the individuals who would be the most likely to serve in primary care and underserved areas from entering the profession, large taxpayer subsidies to teaching hospitals that provide incentives to act in ways that are not in the best interest of society, and reimbursement policies that discourage physicians from providing primary care. The authors propose that the maldistribution of physicians can be addressed successfully by reducing the financial barriers to becoming a primary care physician, aligning subsidies with societal interests, and providing financial incentives that target primary care. They suggest that the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010 takes steps in the right direction but that more financially prudent measures should be taken as politicians revisit health care reform with heightened financial scrutiny.