Search

Competing Interests: The author declares no conflicts of interest.

Thousands of health systems are now recognized as "Age-Friendly Health Systems," making this model one of the most widely disseminated - and most promising- models to redesign care delivery for older adults. Sustaining these gains will require demonstrating the impact on care delivery and outcomes of older adults. We propose a new measurement model to more tightly link Age-Friendly Health System transformation to outcomes within each "M" (What Matters, Medications, Mobility, and Mentation). We evaluated measures based on the following characteristics: (1) conceptual responsiveness to changes brought about by practicing "4Ms" care; (2) degree to which they represent outcomes that matter to older adults; and (3) how they can be feasibly, reliably, and validly measured. We offer specific examples of how novel measures are currently being used where available. Finally, we present measures that could capture system-level effects across "M"s. We tie these suggestions together into a conceptual measurement model for AFHS transformation, with the intent to spur discussion, debate, and iterative improvement in measures over time., (© 2022 The American Geriatrics Society. This article has been contributed to by U.S. Government employees and their work is in the public domain in the USA.)

Background: Slow progress in quality improvement (QI) has prompted calls to identify new QI ideas. Leaders guiding these efforts are advised to use evidence-based tactics, or specific approaches to address a goal, to promote clinician and staff engagement in the generation and implementation of QI ideas, but little evidence about effective tactics exists., Objective: Examine the association between leader tactics and the creativity, implementation outcome, and evolution of QI ideas from clinicians and staff., Design: Prospective panel analysis of 220 ideas generated by 12 leaders and teams (N = 72 members) from federally qualified community health practices in one center over 18 months. Measures were extracted from meeting minutes (note-taking by a member during meetings) and expert panel review. Multi-level models were used., Measures: Leader tactics, idea creativity, implementation outcome, evolution pathways, center, and idea-submitter characteristics., Results: Leaders used one of four approaches: no tactic, meeting ground rules, team brainstorming, or reflection on team process. Implemented ideas evolved in three pathways: Plug and Play, Slow Burn, and Iterate and Generate. Compared with no leader tactic, meeting ground rules resulted in ideas not significantly different in creativity, implementation outcome, or evolution pathway. Brainstorming was associated with greater idea creativity, idea implementation, and ideas following a Plug and Play path (low member engagement and implementation over 2 months or less). Reflection on team process was associated with idea implementation (versus not), and ideas following an Iterate and Generate path (high member engagement and implementation over 3 months or more)., Conclusions: Two tactics, brainstorming and reflection, are helpful depending on goals. Brainstorming may aide leaders seeking disruptive change via more creative, rapidly implemented ideas. Reflection on team process may aide leaders seeking high-engagement ideas that may be implemented slowly. Both tactics may help leaders cultivate dynamics that increase implementation of ideas that improve healthcare.

Nudges are subtle changes to the design of the environment or the framing of information that can influence our behaviors. There is significant potential to use nudges in health care to improve patient outcomes and transform health care delivery. However, these interventions must be tested and implemented using a systematic approach. In this article, we describe several ways to design nudges for success by focusing on optimizing and fitting them into the clinical workflow, engaging the right stakeholders, and rapid experimentation., (© 2020 American Medical Association. All Rights Reserved.)

Community health workers (CHWs) are essential to primary health care systems and are a cost-effective strategy to achieve the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Nepal is strongly committed to universal health coverage and the SDGs. In 2017, the Nepal Ministry of Health and Population partnered with the nongovernmental organization Nyaya Health Nepal to pilot a program aligned with the 2018 World Health Organization guidelines for CHWs. The program includes CHWs who: (1) receive regular financial compensation; (2) meet a minimum education level; (3) are well supervised; (4) are continuously trained; (5) are integrated into local primary health care systems; (6) use mobile health tools; (7) have consistent supply chain; (8) live in the communities they serve; and (9) provide service without point-of-care user fees. The pilot model has previously demonstrated improved institutional birth rate, antenatal care completion, and postpartum contraception utilization. Here, we performed a retrospective costing analysis from July 16, 2017 to July 15, 2018, in a catchment area population of 60,000. The average per capita annual cost is US$3.05 (range: US$1.94 to US$4.70 across 24 villages) of which 74% is personnel cost. Service delivery and administrative costs and per beneficiary costs for all services are also described. To address the current discourse among Nepali policy makers at the local and federal levels, we also present 3 alternative implementation scenarios that policy makers may consider. Given the Government of Nepal's commitment to increase health care spending (US$51.00 per capita) to 7.0% of the 2030 gross domestic product, paired with recent health care systems decentralization leading to expanded fiscal space in municipalities, this CHW program provides a feasible opportunity to make progress toward achieving universal health coverage and the health-related SDGs. This costing analysis offers insights and practical considerations for policy makers and locally elected officials for deploying a CHW cadre as a mechanism to achieve the SDG targets., (© Nepal et al.)

Background: Hospitals utilize three ideal type models for governing relationships with their physicians: the traditional medical staff, strategic alliances, and employment. Little is known about how these models impact physician alignment., Purpose: The study compares the level of physician-hospital alignment across the three models., Approach: We used survey data from 1,895 physicians in all three models across 34 hospitals in eight systems to measure several dimensions of alignment. We used logistic equations to predict survey nonresponse and differential physician selection into the alliance and employment models. Controlling for these selection effects, we then used multiple regression to estimate the effects of alliance and employment models on alignment., Results: Physicians in employment models express greater alignment with their hospital on several dimensions, compared to physicians in alliances and the traditional medical staff. There were no differences in physician alignment between the latter two models., Conclusions: Employment models promote greater alignment on some (but not all) dimensions, controlling for physician selection. The impact of employment on alignment is not large, however., Practice Implications: Hospitals and accountable care organizations that rely on employment may achieve higher physician alignment compared to the other two models. It is not clear that the gain in alignment is worth the cost of employment. Given the small impact of employment on alignment, it is also clear that they are not identical. Hospitals may need to go beyond structural models of integration to achieve alignment with their physicians.

Although the management of patients with rheumatic diseases has evolved substantially over the past 20 to 30 years, lifestyle changes (such as weight reduction, physical activity and medication adherence) remain an important and unmet challenge in improving patient outcomes. The field of behavioural economics considers the many ways that individuals behave irrationally and uses the predictability of these patterns to create opportunities to anticipate and avoid or harness these behaviours to improve patient outcomes. Existing among other motivational approaches, the concepts in behavioural economics have only been applied to health care in the past 10 to 15 years. Although few published examples have applied behavioural economic concepts in the management of patients with rheumatic diseases specifically, these concepts have been applied in other chronic diseases, and such interventions could also be applicable in rheumatology. In this Perspectives article, we introduce six principles in behavioural economics (loss aversion, framing effect, present bias, status quo bias, time inconsistency and social normalization), discuss how these concepts have been addressed in other fields and examine their potential application in rheumatology. Using physical activity as an example, we describe how these concepts could be applied to promote healthy behaviour in patients with inflammatory arthritis.

Background: Pay-for-performance (P4P) has been used expansively to improve quality of care delivered by physicians. However, to what extent P4P works through the provision of information versus financial incentives is poorly understood., Objective: To determine whether an increase in information feedback without changes to financial incentives resulted in improved physician performance within an existing P4P program., Intervention/exposure: Implementation of a new registry enabling real-time feedback to physicians on quality measure performance., Design: Observational, predictive piecewise model at the physician-measure level to examine whether registry introduction associated with performance changes. We used detailed physician quality measure data 3 years prior to registry implementation (2010-2012) and 2 years after implementation (2014-2015). We also linked physician-level data including age, gender, and board certification; group-level data including registry click rates; and patient panel data including chronic conditions., Participants: Four hundred thirty-four physicians continuously affiliated with Advocate from 2010 to 2015., Main Measures: Physician performance on ten quality metrics., Key Results: We found no consistent pattern of improvement associated with the availability of real-time information across ten measures. Relative to predicted performance without the registry, average performance increased for two measures (childhood immunization status-rotavirus (p < 0.001) and diabetes care-medical attention for nephropathy (p = 0.024)) and decreased for three measures (childhood immunization status-influenza (p < 0.001) and diabetes care-HbA1c testing (p < 0.001) and poor HbA1c control (p < 0.001)). Results were consistent for subgroup analysis on those most able to improve, i.e., physicians in the bottom tertile of performance prior to registry introduction. Physicians who improved most were in groups that accessed the registry more than those who improved least (8.0 vs 10.0 times per week, p = 0.010)., Conclusions: More frequent provision of information, provided in real-time, was insufficient to improve physician performance in an existing P4P program with high baseline performance. Results suggest that electronic registries may not themselves drive performance improvement. Future work should consider testing information feedback enhancements with financial incentives.

Healthcare organizations have invested significant resources into integrating comprehensive electronic health record (EHR) systems into clinical care. EHRs digitize healthcare in ways that allow for repurposing of clinical information to support quality improvement, research, population health, and health system analytics. This has facilitated the development of Learning Health Systems. Learning health systems (LHS) merge healthcare delivery with research, data science, and quality improvement processes. The LHS cycle begins and ends with the clinician-patient interaction, and aspires to provide continuous improvements in quality, outcomes, and health care efficiency. Although, the health sector has been slow to embrace the LHS concept, innovative approaches for improving healthcare, such as a LHS, have shown that better outcomes can be achieved by engaging patients and physicians in communities committed to a common purpose. Here, we explore the mission of a pediatric LHS, such as PEDSnet, which is driven by the distinctive goals of a child's well-being. Its vision is to create a national LHS architecture in which all pediatric institutions can participate. While challenges still exist in the development and adoption of LHS, these challenges are being met with innovative strategies and strong collaborative relationships to reduce system uncertainty while improving patient outcomes., (Copyright © 2018 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

The third section of our Special Task Force report identifies and defines a series of elements that warrant consideration in value assessments of medical technologies. We aim to broaden the view of what constitutes value in health care and to spur new research on incorporating additional elements of value into cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA). Twelve potential elements of value are considered. Four of them-quality-adjusted life-years, net costs, productivity, and adherence-improving factors-are conventionally included or considered in value assessments. Eight others, which would be more novel in economic assessments, are defined and discussed: reduction in uncertainty, fear of contagion, insurance value, severity of disease, value of hope, real option value, equity, and scientific spillovers. Most of these are theoretically well understood and available for inclusion in value assessments. The two exceptions are equity and scientific spillover effects, which require more theoretical development and consensus. A number of regulatory authorities around the globe have shown interest in some of these novel elements. Augmenting CEA to consider these additional elements would result in a more comprehensive CEA in line with the "impact inventory" of the Second Panel on Cost-Effectiveness in Health and Medicine. Possible approaches for valuation and inclusion of these elements include integrating them as part of a net monetary benefit calculation, including elements as attributes in health state descriptions, or using them as criteria in a multicriteria decision analysis. Further research is needed on how best to measure and include them in decision making., (Copyright © 2018 International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research (ISPOR). Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

The second section of our Special Task Force builds on the discussion of value and perspective in the previous article of the report by 1) defining a health economics approach to the concept of value in health care systems; 2) discussing the relationship of value to perspective and decision context, that is, how recently proposed value frameworks vary by the types of decisions being made and by the stakeholders involved; 3) describing the patient perspective on value because the patient is a key stakeholder, but one also wearing the hat of a health insurance purchaser; and 4) discussing how value is relevant in the market-based US system of mixed private and public insurance, and differs from its use in single-payer systems. The five recent value frameworks that motivated this report vary in the types of decisions they intend to inform, ranging from coverage, access, and pricing decisions to those defining appropriate clinical pathways and to supporting provider-clinician shared decision making. Each of these value frameworks must be evaluated in its own decision context for its own objectives. Existing guidelines for cost-effectiveness analysis emphasize the importance of clearly specifying the perspective from which the analysis is undertaken. Relevant perspectives may include, among others, 1) the health plan enrollee, 2) the patient, 3) the health plan manager, 4) the provider, 5) the technology manufacturer, 6) the specialty society, 7) government regulators, or 8) society as a whole. A valid and informative cost-effectiveness analysis could be conducted from the perspective of any of these stakeholders, depending on the decision context., (Copyright © 2018 International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research (ISPOR). Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

The fourth section of our Special Task Force report focuses on a health plan or payer's technology adoption or reimbursement decision, given the array of technologies, on the basis of their different values and costs. We discuss the role of budgets, thresholds, opportunity costs, and affordability in making decisions. First, we discuss the use of budgets and thresholds in private and public health plans, their interdependence, and connection to opportunity cost. Essentially, each payer should adopt a decision rule about what is good value for money given their budget; consistent use of a cost-per-quality-adjusted life-year threshold will ensure the maximum health gain for the budget. In the United States, different public and private insurance programs could use different thresholds, reflecting the differing generosity of their budgets and implying different levels of access to technologies. In addition, different insurance plans could consider different additional elements to the quality-adjusted life-year metric discussed elsewhere in our Special Task Force report. We then define affordability and discuss approaches to deal with it, including consideration of disinvestment and related adjustment costs, the impact of delaying new technologies, and comparative cost effectiveness of technologies. Over time, the availability of new technologies may increase the amount that populations want to spend on health care. We then discuss potential modifiers to thresholds, including uncertainty about the evidence used in the decision-making process. This article concludes by discussing the application of these concepts in the context of the pluralistic US health care system, as well as the "excess burden" of tax-financed public programs versus private programs., (Copyright © 2018 International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research (ISPOR). Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

This summary section first lists key points from each of the six sections of the report, followed by six key recommendations. The Special Task Force chose to take a health economics approach to the question of whether a health plan should cover and reimburse a specific technology, beginning with the view that the conventional cost-per-quality-adjusted life-year metric has both strengths as a starting point and recognized limitations. This report calls for the development of a more comprehensive economic evaluation that could include novel elements of value (e.g., insurance value and equity) as part of either an "augmented" cost-effectiveness analysis or a multicriteria decision analysis. Given an aggregation of elements to a measure of value, consistent use of a cost-effectiveness threshold can help ensure the maximization of health gain and well-being for a given budget. These decisions can benefit from the use of deliberative processes. The six recommendations are to: 1) be explicit about decision context and perspective in value assessment frameworks; 2) base health plan coverage and reimbursement decisions on an evaluation of the incremental costs and benefits of health care technologies as is provided by cost-effectiveness analysis; 3) develop value thresholds to serve as one important input to help guide coverage and reimbursement decisions; 4) manage budget constraints and affordability on the basis of cost-effectiveness principles; 5) test and consider using structured deliberative processes for health plan coverage and reimbursement decisions; and 6) explore and test novel elements of benefit to improve value measures that reflect the perspectives of both plan members and patients., (Copyright © 2018 International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research (ISPOR). Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

The fifth section of our Special Task Force report identifies and discusses two aggregation issues: 1) aggregation of cost and benefit information across individuals to a population level for benefit plan decision making and 2) combining multiple elements of value into a single value metric for individuals. First, we argue that additional elements could be included in measures of value, but such elements have not generally been included in measures of quality-adjusted life-years. For example, we describe a recently developed extended cost-effectiveness analysis (ECEA) that provides a good example of how to use a broader concept of utility. ECEA adds two features-measures of financial risk protection and income distributional consequences. We then discuss a further option for expanding this approach-augmented CEA, which can introduce many value measures. Neither of these approaches, however, provide a comprehensive measure of value. To resolve this issue, we review a technique called multicriteria decision analysis that can provide a comprehensive measure of value. We then discuss budget-setting and prioritization using multicriteria decision analysis, issues not yet fully resolved. Next, we discuss deliberative processes, which represent another important approach for population- or plan-level decisions used by many health technology assessment bodies. These use quantitative information on CEA and other elements, but the group decisions are reached by a deliberative voting process. Finally, we briefly discuss the use of stated preference methods for developing "hedonic" value frameworks, and conclude with some recommendations in this area., (Copyright © 2018 International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research (ISPOR). Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Importance: The Affordable Care Act (ACA) has expanded access to health insurance for millions of Americans, but the impact of Medicaid expansion on healthcare delivery and utilization remains uncertain., Objective: To determine the early impact of the Medicaid expansion component of ACA on hospital and ED utilization in California, a state that implemented the Medicaid expansion component of ACA and Florida, a state that did not., Design: Analyze all ED encounters and hospitalizations in California and Florida from 2009 to 2014 and evaluate trends by payer and diagnostic category. Data were collected from State Inpatient Databases, State Emergency Department Databases and the California Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development., Setting: Hospital and ED encounters., Participants: Population-based study of California and Florida state residents., Exposure: Implementation of Medicaid expansion component of ACA in California in 2014., Main Outcomes or Measures: Changes in ED visits and hospitalizations by payer, percentage of patients hospitalized after an ED encounter, top diagnostic categories for ED and hospital encounters., Results: In California, Medicaid ED visits increased 33% after Medicaid expansion implementation and self-pay visits decreased by 25% compared with a 5.7% increase in the rate of Medicaid patient ED visits and a 5.1% decrease in rate of self-pay patient visits in Florida. In addition, California experienced a 15.4% increase in Medicaid inpatient stays and a 25% decrease in self pay stays. Trends in the percentage of patients admitted to the hospital from the ED were notable; a 5.4% decrease in hospital admissions originating from the ED in California, and a 2.1% decrease in Florida from 2013 to 2014., Conclusions and Relevance: We observed a significant shift in payer for ED visits and hospitalizations after Medicaid expansion in California without a significant change in top diagnoses or overall rate of these ED visits and hospitalizations. There appears to be a shift in reimbursement burden from patients and hospitals to the government without a dramatic shift in patterns of ED or hospital utilization.

Organizations seeking to create innovative environments in health care need to pay attention to a number of factors. These include making available sufficient resources, notably money and physical space, but also coordination and consultation regarding intellectual property and licensing; enabling access to engineers, software developers, and behavioral scientists; making providers and patients available to innovators; having a sufficiently long-term view; and insulating the innovation group from operational demands. If there is a single essential key to success, it is making innovation a strategic priority. Academic health systems are enormous generators of innovation in the form of generalizable research in biomedical sciences. Typically, much of that innovation is externally supported, and little is directed to improving care processes internally. In industries other than health care, organizations invest their own funds in research and development to promote innovation, and this investment is seen as a metric for a firm's commitment to its future. Increased investment in care-process innovation is long overdue., (Project HOPE—The People-to-People Health Foundation, Inc.)

As real-world data (RWD) in health care begin to cross over to the Big Data realms, a panel of health economists was gathered to establish how well the current US policy environment further the goals of RWD and, if not, what can be done to improve matters. This report summarizes these discussions spanning the current US landscape of RWD availability and usefulness, private versus public development of RWD assets, the current inherent bias in terms of access to RWD, and guiding principles in providing quality assessments of new RWD studies. Three main conclusions emerge: (1) a business case is often required to incentivize investments in RWD assets. However, access restrictions for public data assets have failed to generate a proper market for these data and hence may have led to an underinvestment of public RWDs; (2) Very weak empirical evidence exist on for-profit entities misusing public RWD data entities to further their own agendas, which is the basis for supporting access restrictions of public RWD data; and (3) perhaps developing standardized metrics that could flag misuse of RWDs in an efficient way could help quell some of the fear of sharing public RWD assets with for-profit entities. It is hoped that these discussions and conclusions would pave the way for more rigorous and timely debates on the greater availability and accessibility of RWD assets.

The world of health care is changing dramatically, as reflected in the number, magnitude, and scope of innovative new approaches-to how illness is treated and how better health is promoted-that are being implemented around the globe. The changes triggered by these initiatives affect both how care is organized, managed, and paid for and the kinds of approaches that are being developed to keep people healthy. Underlying these changes is a more fundamental paradigm shift, a shift in the priority given to "value" in the formulation of policy and management practice. This brief essay highlights five trends that are central in this shift: increasing emphasis on health promotion, movement toward value-based payment, advances in digital/mobile technology, exploitation of big data, and changes in support for biomedical research. Each of these has its own value controversies, and the individual impact of each is impossible to predict. Collectively, however, their impact is likely to be significant., (© 2016 New York Academy of Sciences.)

Background: Sub-Saharan Africa faces a severe health worker shortage, which community health workers (CHWs) may fill. This study describes tasks shifted from clinicians to CHWs in Kenya, places monetary valuations on CHWs' efforts, and models effects of further task shifting on time demands of clinicians and CHWs., Methods: Mixed methods were used for this study. Interviews were conducted with 28 CHWs and 19 clinicians in 17 health facilities throughout Kenya focusing on task shifting involving CHWs, time savings for clinicians as a result of task shifting, barriers and enabling factors to CHWs' work, and appropriate CHW compensation. Twenty CHWs completed task diaries over a 14-day period to examine current CHW tasks and the amount of time spent performing them. A modeling exercise was conducted examining a current task-shifting example and another scenario in which additional task shifting to CHWs has occurred., Results: CHWs worked an average of 5.3 hours per day and spent 36% of their time performing tasks shifted from clinicians. We estimated a monthly valuation of US$ 117 per CHW. The modeling exercise demonstrated that further task shifting would reduce the number of clinicians needed while maintaining clinic productivity by significantly increasing the number of CHWs., Conclusions: CHWs are an important component of healthcare delivery in Kenya. Our monetary estimates of current CHW contributions provide starting points for further discussion, research and planning regarding CHW compensation and programs. Additional task shifting to CHWs may further offload overworked clinicians while maintaining overall productivity.

Radiology practices are seeing both evolutionary and revolutionary changes in their business models. The Task Force to Evaluate the Value Add Impact on Business Models was charged with considering how radiologists and their practices add value in these novel settings. Both traditional and novel forms of added value were considered. Types of new business models that were evaluated included hybrid groups of radiologists and other practitioners, regional or national megagroups, and novel services both within and beyond the traditional purview of radiology practice. Recommendations for both how to measure and how to capture this value were considered at both the practice and national levels.

The concept of "disruptive innovation" by new products of moderately lower quality and much lower cost is useful for the medical care sector. Such products are rarely offered, and when they are (as in the case of health maintenance organizations), they are subject to intense criticism. This Perspective argues that both the legal system and accepted discourse in public policy have inhibited discussion of such alternatives; indeed, the paper by Jason Hwang and Clay Christensen loses its focus on them at the end. The applicability of this concept is quite limited but, given sufficient changes in framing and regulating, might be helpful in the future.

This paper discusses the meaning of the term risk from the economic perspective. It argues that some consumer decisions about insurance and the use of medical care are consistent with the economic model, but many are not. When decisions are inconsistent, real-world democratic governments' ability to intervene is limited by politicians' desire to please voters. The choice of incomplete insurance coverage in private markets is often said to present a case for governmental intervention, but the choice of insurance design in the Medicare drug benefit shows that the political process also may fail to select insurance that is optimal from an economic viewpoint.

The health care industry has undergone dramatic changes over the past decade. Advances in technologies are being implemented, making the health care industry more complex. In response to increasing administrative costs, the inability to control the collection and distribution of an individual's health information, and the rising costs of health care, the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) was passed as part of the Social Security Act in 1996 to address the emerging complexities of the industry. Over the past years, the health care system has focused efforts on compliance with HIPAA regulations. HIPAA compliance can improve efficiency, reduce costs, and protect the privacy of personal medical information; however, some health care providers and other health care entities have experienced various setbacks in efforts to comply with HIPAA. Health care providers may be reluctant to comply with HIPAA regulations because the rules are complex and result in short-term increases in administrative costs. Nevertheless, long-term HIPAA compliance could allow the health care system to improve its effectiveness and efficiency in health care delivery.

Radiologists have always been dedicated to service and quality in imaging. In the past few years, many entities, mostly external to the profession itself, have entered the business of defining, measuring, and reporting both service and quality. There is a great deal at stake in how this unfolds, and there are many potential stakeholders in both the process and the outcome. This article addresses the perspectives of patients on service and quality issues. In particular, it is important for those in the profession to understand that their customers often view their services very differently than those within the business. The author addresses several of the most common and important perceptual issues that practitioners need to address in understanding these disparities. Success or failure will determine how satisfied patients are; how they fill out scorecards and report cards; and what they say about practitioners to their family, their neighbors, and perhaps 2 billion of their closest friends on the Web. Ultimately, how well radiologists address these issues will determine a substantial component of pay for performance, their ability to contract, and the individual decisions of patients and their families to come to them at all.

Marketing and branding are critical business functions that are often ignored or misapplied in the health care sector. Radiology professionals are facing unprecedented competition, turf battles, and other pressures. One tool that can help in meeting this onslaught is to improve your marketing efforts. Some of the most expensive mistakes in marketing (medical and otherwise) are caused by not paying attention to the basics. These "rookie" errors can be avoided by a careful review of the 4 key principles of introductory marketing: product, price, placement, and promotion. This article reviews these concepts as they relate to medical marketing.

Marketing and branding are 2 of the most important factors for business success in the United States. They are particularly critical in service industries such as diagnostic imaging. However, in spite of their strategic importance in radiology success, a search of the peer-reviewed radiology literature reveals a paucity of published work that addresses marketing for imaging practices. In particular, there is a dearth of literature addressing the role (both direct and indirect) of radiologists in marketing efforts. In this article, the authors attempt to identify and correct some common misconceptions that physicians and other scientific and technical professionals have about marketing. Basic terms and preliminary concepts are introduced to provide a foundational understanding of the topic, allowing the interested reader to move forward and explore these critical issues in greater depth.

This article discusses both the current climate for entrepreneurial activity in the fields of biotechnology, health care services, and medical devices as well as key ideas in the process of successful innovation. Basic issues related to the nature of new medical ventures and its importance in the U.S. economy are discussed. A stepwise overview of the process of innovation is provided, starting from the initial idea, through the early and middle stages of growth, and on to an initial public offering or other alternative harvest strategy. The roles of financing sources in generating health care entrepreneurial activity are explored, and the advantages and disadvantages of each are discussed. The article focuses on venture capital investment because of its pivotal role in high-profile successes; however, alternative forms of financing are also covered as appropriate to each stage. In addition, critical nonfinancial issues that affect the success of new enterprises, such as intellectual property protection and the creation of management teams for young companies, are also covered. The magnitude of current investment in the domestic biomedical field is addressed, and future prospects for American medical innovation are briefly discussed.

Market shifts in health care reimbursement have made the improvement of clinical performance a key strategic goal for health care delivery systems, including hospitals, physician groups, and integrated delivery systems. This process requires a clinical management infrastructure, advanced clinical information technology, engaged physicians, and alterations to the strategic plan for the delivery system. Because the change to a clinical efficiency orientation takes several years for organizations to achieve, adoption of this approach must begin before markets become fully mature for managed care and most practicing physicians are aware of the change. This article outlines how to evaluate the costs and benefits of improving clinical performance and how to determine when an organization should begin making this change. It advises delivery systems executives to raise the priority of clinical performance improvement and to measure both the near-term and long-term impact of this approach on revenue, cost, quality, and market share.

Dr. Sharfstein's Introduction: Prospective payment is the major economic change that is reshaping the delivery of medical care. Capitation financing for the chronic mentally ill is an innovative and promising alternative to underfunded and bureaucratically rigid public programs on the one hand and underfunded retrospective cost-based Medicaid programs on the other. This month's column describes one such capitation plan. Its impact on the target population as well as on the use of resources by persons with long-term and severe mental illnesses will require close evaluation.