Search

Funded in part by taxpayer dollars, Dell Medical School has a mandate to improve community health. It's also identifying novel ways to reward value.

In a 2015 global study of low-cost or frugal innovations, we identified five leading innovations that scaled successfully in their original contexts and that may provide insights for scaling such innovations in the United States. We describe common themes among these diverse innovations, critical factors for their translation to the United States to improve the efficiency and quality of health care, and lessons for the implementation and scaling of other innovations. We highlight promising trends in the United States that support adapting these innovations, including growing interest in moving care out of health care facilities and into community and home settings; the growth of alternative payment models and incentives to experiment with new approaches to population health and care delivery; and the increasing use of diverse health professionals, such as community health workers and advanced practice providers. Our findings should inspire policy makers and health care professionals and inform them about the potential for globally sourced frugal innovations to benefit US health care.

Driven by evidence of continuing gaps in health care quality and efficiency and inspired by the emergence of new value-based payment models, both large and small health care organizations are developing and deploying a wide range of care delivery innovations. But how can decision makers in these organizations determine if the innovations really improve service delivery, patient experience, clinical outcomes, or costs? Organization leaders need appropriate, timely evidence to inform their decision making. In this article we describe a range of approaches to evaluating innovations and pose key questions about the validity of the results. We highlight a specific type of evaluation approach-the stepped wedge design-because it can balance the need for internal and external validity with the ability to generate timely results. We elaborate on three key steps in the innovation assessment phase (identifying the target population, describing baseline performance, and documenting the components of the innovation) that are useful for both organizations that will generate new evidence and those using evidence generated by others. We conclude with a discussion of payer approaches for supporting health care organizations in their efforts to develop new evidence on innovations., (Project HOPE—The People-to-People Health Foundation, Inc.)

The need for innovations in care delivery is recognized by providers, payers, and patients alike. Hospitals, physicians, and other clinicians are experimenting with new models of care designed to better meet patients' needs, reduce administrative burdens, and lower costs. The Affordable Care Act placed the Medicare and Medicaid programs at the center of a national effort to experiment with delivery and payment models designed to improve care and contain costs. These public-sector efforts have often aligned with private initiatives, such as the use of reference pricing-in which an insurer will only pay for a service at the price available from the lowest-cost provider. Employers in the public and private sectors have adopted value-based insurance design, in which copayments and deductibles are calibrated to the clinical benefit obtained from different services. Patients have the most to gain-or lose-from delivery innovations. Better, more efficient care should translate into better health and lower costs, but payment models designed to encourage innovation may have the unintended effect of limiting access to care., (Project HOPE—The People-to-People Health Foundation, Inc.)

Using delivery system innovations to advance health care reform continues to be of widespread interest. However, it is difficult to generalize about the success of specific types of innovations, since they have been examined in only a few studies. To gain a broader perspective, we analyzed the results of forty-three ambulatory care programs funded by the first round of the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation's Health Care Innovations Awards. The innovations' impacts on total cost of care were estimated by independent evaluators using multivariable difference-in-differences models. Through the first two years, most of the innovations did not show a significant effect on total cost of care. Using meta-regression, we assessed the effects on costs of five common components of these innovations. Innovations that used health information technology or community health workers achieved the greatest cost savings. Savings were also relatively large in programs that targeted clinically fragile patients-clinically complex populations at risk for disease progression. While the magnitude of these effects was often substantial, none achieved conventional levels of significance in our analyses. Meta-analyses of a larger number of delivery system innovations are needed to more clearly establish their potential for patient care cost savings., (Project HOPE—The People-to-People Health Foundation, Inc.)

Multidrug-resistant bacterial diseases pose serious and growing threats to human health. While innovation is important to all areas of health research, it is uniquely important in antibiotics. Resistance destroys the fruit of prior research, making it necessary to constantly innovate to avoid falling back into a pre-antibiotic era. But investment is declining in antibiotics, driven by competition from older antibiotics, the cost and uncertainty of the development process, and limited reimbursement incentives. Good public health practices curb inappropriate antibiotic use, making return on investment challenging in payment systems based on sales volume. We assess the impact of recent initiatives to improve antibiotic innovation, reflecting experience with all sixty-seven new molecular entity antibiotics approved by the Food and Drug Administration since 1980. Our analysis incorporates data and insights derived from several multistakeholder initiatives under way involving governments and the private sector on both sides of the Atlantic. We propose three specific reforms that could revitalize innovations that protect public health, while promoting long-term sustainability: increased incentives for antibiotic research and development, surveillance, and stewardship; greater targeting of incentives to high-priority public health needs, including reimbursement that is delinked from volume of drug use; and enhanced global collaboration, including a global treaty., (Project HOPE—The People-to-People Health Foundation, Inc.)

Many factors combine to drive the growth in health spending worldwide, but the introduction of new technologies, drugs, and therapies is probably the most important. However, in contrast to other industries, innovations in health care have not tended to reduce the need for labor. In fact, labor still accounts for the largest proportion of expenditures in many health systems. But labor-saving technologies, workforce innovations, and patient self-care approaches are now emerging and altering health care's labor structure. For example, in Mexico more than one million households pay $5 per month to access a health advice hotline before setting foot in a physician's office. In India assembly line-style eye surgery has dramatically reduced cost without sacrificing quality. Policy makers should focus on such labor-saving innovations; reform reimbursement systems to encourage them; tackle professionals' resistance; and remove regulatory barriers. Bold experiments to redesign health services around patient self-care approaches are also warranted.