Search

"Comprehensive Healthcare for America" is a largely single-payer reform proposal that, by applying the insights of behavioral economics, may be able to rally patients and clinicians sufficiently to overcome the opposition of politicians and vested interests to providing all Americans with less complicated and less costly access to needed healthcare. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Private Equity (PE) investment in healthcare has grown substantially in recent years, raising alarm about its impact on patient care, healthcare professionals, and the overall integrity of the healthcare system. The influx of PE investments into healthcare has sparked debates regarding profit-driven motives, cost-cutting measures, and potential risks to patient safety and access to essential services. This article examines the extent and possible impacts of private equity in Canadian healthcare using data from a proprietary database. Drawing upon evidence from academic studies in the United States, this article provides evidence on the adverse impacts on the quality of care, the deterioration in working conditions, and degradation of the healthcare system. It provides suggestions to limit the predatory impacts of PE investment., Competing Interests: Declaration of conflicting interestsThe author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Background: Historically, the US has been the largest contributor to development assistance for health (DAH), although its allocation has shifted in response to outside forces. This included, for example, the establishment of the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) in 2000, which emphasised child mortality, maternal health, HIV/AIDS, and malaria. This led to funds being earmarked for disease-specific interventions rather than health system strengthening (HSS). In 2007, the World Health Organization (WHO) published six health system building blocks, representing essential components of strong health systems. In 2015, the MDGs were replaced by the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), which emphasised capacity-building as opposed to specific health problems. The Lancet Commission on Global Surgery, meanwhile, highlighted surgical capacity building as essential to achieving Universal Health Coverage (UHC). Given the renewed emphasis on a comprehensive approach rather than disease-specific interventions, one might anticipate the US aligning with this rhetoric in its allocation of DAH. However, we hypothesise that this is not the case., Methods: We queried the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) database for allocation of US DAH to low- and middle-income countries between 1995 and 2019, thereby excluding data after 2019 to avoid the influence of the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic. OECD entries were assigned to health systems strengthening (HSS) or disease-specific interventions categories. The WHO building blocks were used as a framework for health systems strengthening., Results: From 1995 to 1999, US DAH allocated to HSS decreased from 42% to 34%. The allocation decreased further from 34% in 2000 to 4% in 2007; correspondingly, DAH allocated to disease-specific interventions increased from 67% to 96%. Between 2008 and 2019, the distribution of US DAH remained relatively stable, with funds allocated to HSS versus disease-specific interventions ranging from 3-12% and 88-98% respectively., Conclusions: While total US DAH contributions in the 1990s and early 2000s were significantly lower compared to the decade that followed, the distribution of these funds was more evenly divided between HSS and disease-specific interventions. Despite attempts by the WHO and United Nations to redirect attention to HSS as the path to achieving UHC, the US continues to largely support disease-specific interventions and overlook the importance of HSS, including surgical capacity building., Competing Interests: Disclosure of interest: The authors completed the ICMJE Disclosure of Interest Form (available upon request from the corresponding author) and disclose no relevant interests., (Copyright © 2024 by the Journal of Global Health. All rights reserved.)

Health financing for children and youth comes mainly from commercial sources (especially, a parent's employer-sponsored insurance) and public sources (especially, Medicaid and Children's Health Insurance Plan [CHIP]). These 2 sources serve populations that differ in race and ethnicity. This inherent segregation perpetuates a system of disparities in health and health care. Medicaid (and CHIP) have become the largest single provider of health insurance to US children and youth, currently insuring over 50% of all children and youth, with even higher rates for children of racial and ethnic minorities. Medicaid provides substantial benefit to the populations it insures, with good evidence of both short- and long-term improved health and developmental outcomes, and better health and well-being as adults. Nonetheless, some characteristics of Medicaid, especially the major state-by-state variation in eligibility, enrollment practices, and covered services, along with persistent low payment rates, have helped to maintain a separate and unequal health program for racial and ethnic minority children and youth. Several changes in Medicaid-including linking CHIP more closely with Medicaid, strengthening national standards of payment and care, assuring coverage of all children, and incorporating social and family risk adjustment-could make the program even more beneficial and diminish racial differences in child health financing., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (Copyright © 2024 Academic Pediatric Association. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

The financing of public health systems and services relies on a complex and fragmented web of partners and funding priorities. Both underfunding and "dys-funding" contribute to preventable mortality, increases in disease frequency and severity, and hindered social and economic growth. These issues were both illuminated and magnified by the COVID-19 pandemic and associated responses. Further complicating issues is the difficulty in constructing adequate estimates of current public health resources and necessary resources. Each of these challenges inhibits the delivery of necessary services, leads to inequitable access and resourcing, contributes to resource volatility, and presents other deleterious outcomes. However, actions may be taken to defragment complex funding paradigms toward more flexible spending, to modernize and standardize data systems, and to assure equitable and sustainable public health investments.

Background: In recent years, there has been growing concern about prejudice in crowdfunding; however, empirical research remains limited, particularly in the context of medical crowdfunding. This study addresses the pressing issue of racial disparities in medical crowdfunding, with a specific focus on cancer crowdfunding on the GoFundMe platform., Objective: This study aims to investigate racial disparities in cancer crowdfunding using average donation amount, number of donations, and success of the fundraising campaign as outcomes., Methods: Drawing from a substantial data set of 104,809 campaigns in the United States, we used DeepFace facial recognition technology to determine racial identities and used regression models to examine racial factors in crowdfunding performance. We also examined the moderating effect of the proportion of White residents on crowdfunding bias and used 2-tailed t tests to measure the influence of racial anonymity on crowdfunding success. Owing to the large sample size, we set the cutoff for significance at P<.001., Results: In the regression and supplementary analyses, the racial identity of the fundraiser significantly predicted average donations (P<.001), indicating that implicit bias may play a role in donor behavior. Gender (P=.04) and campaign description length (P=.62) did not significantly predict the average donation amounts. The race of the fundraiser was not significantly associated with the number of donations (P=.42). The success rate of cancer crowdfunding campaigns, although generally low (11.77%), showed a significant association with the race of the fundraiser (P<.001). After controlling for the covariates of the fundraiser gender, fundraiser age, local White proportion, length of campaign description, and fundraising goal, the average donation amount to White individuals was 17.68% higher than for Black individuals. Moreover, campaigns that did not disclose racial information demonstrated a marginally higher average donation amount (3.92%) than those identified as persons of color. Furthermore, the racial composition of the fundraiser's county of residence was found to exert influence (P<.001); counties with a higher proportion of White residents exhibited reduced racial disparities in crowdfunding outcomes., Conclusions: This study contributes to a deeper understanding of racial disparities in cancer crowdfunding. It highlights the impact of racial identity, geographic context, and the potential for implicit bias in donor behavior. As web-based platforms evolve, addressing racial inequality and promoting fairness in health care financing remain critical goals. Insights from this research suggest strategies such as maintaining racial anonymity and ensuring that campaigns provide strong evidence of deservingness. Moreover, broader societal changes are necessary to eliminate the financial distress that drives individuals to seek crowdfunding support., (©Xupin Zhang, Jingjing Wang, Jamil M Lane, Xin Xu, Silvia Sörensen. Originally published in the Journal of Medical Internet Research (https://www.jmir.org), 12.12.2023.)

Background: Care for Black patients is concentrated at a relatively small proportion of all US hospitals. Some previous studies have documented quality deficits at Black-serving hospitals, which may be due to inequities in financial resources for care., Objective: To assess disparities in funding between hospitals associated with the proportion of Black patients that they serve., Participants: All Medicare-participating hospitals, 2016-2018., Main Measures: Patient care revenues and profits per patient day at Black-serving hospitals (the top 10% of hospitals ranked by the share of Black patients among all Medicare inpatients) and at other hospitals, unadjusted and adjusted for differences in case mix and hospital characteristics., Key Results: Among the 574 Black-serving hospitals, an average of 43.7% of Medicare inpatients were Black, vs. 5.2% at the 5,166 other hospitals. Black-serving hospitals were slightly larger, and were more often urban, teaching, and for-profit or government (vs. non-profit) owned. Patient care revenues and profits averaged $1,736 and $-17 per patient day respectively at Black-serving hospitals vs. $2,213 and $126 per patient day at other hospitals (p<.001 for both comparisons). Adjusted for patient case mix and hospital characteristics, mean revenues were $283 lower/patient day (p<.001) and mean profits were $111/patient day lower (p<.001) at Black-serving hospitals. Equalizing reimbursement levels would have required $14 billion in additional payments to Black-serving hospitals in 2018, a mean of approximately $26 million per Black-serving hospital., Conclusions: US hospital financing effectively assigns a lower dollar value to the care of Black patients. To reduce disparities in care, health financing reforms should eliminate the underpayment of hospitals serving a large share of Black patients., (© 2022. The Author(s).)

The objective of this paper is an analysis of two main attributes of healthcare systems. First of the main attributes is the trend of ever growing expenditures of healthcare systems all across the world. Second attribute is the efficiency of chosen mixed healthcare systems, where mixed system is one which features involvement of both private and public sector. Countries chosen for analysis are USA as the country with high private sector influence on healthcare, France with its mediocre influence and Japan, where the private companies participate in health care but are very strictly regulated by a zero profit rule, and the Czech Republic, where public sector dominates the health care. The result is that the systems with higher influence of the private sector tend to have lesser occupancy, not significantly better performance and higher expenditures. This raise doubts whether the private sector brings anything of value for the patients within the healthcare system. However, more detailed analysis should be carried out to confirm or refuse this hypothesis. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background The United States? multiple-payer health care system requires substantial effort and costs for administration, with billing and insurance-related (BIR) activities comprising a large but incompletely characterized proportion. A number of studies have quantified BIR costs for specific health care sectors, using micro-costing techniques. However, variation in the types of payers, providers, and BIR activities across studies complicates estimation of system-wide costs. Using a consistent and comprehensive definition of BIR (including both public and private payers, all providers, and all types of BIR activities), we synthesized and updated available micro-costing evidence in order to estimate total and added BIR costs for the U.S. health care system in 2012. Methods We reviewed BIR micro-costing studies across healthcare sectors. For physician practices, hospitals, and insurers, we estimated the % BIR using existing research and publicly reported data, re-calculated to a standard and comprehensive definition of BIR where necessary. We found no data on % BIR in other health services or supplies settings, so extrapolated from known sectors. We calculated total BIR costs in each sector as the product of 2012 U.S. national health expenditures and the percentage of revenue used for BIR. We estimated added BIR costs by comparing total BIR costs in each sector to those observed in existing, simplified financing systems (Canadas single payer system for providers, and U.S. Medicare for insurers). Due to uncertainty in inputs, we performed sensitivity analyses. Results BIR costs in the U.S. health care system totaled approximately $471 ($330 ? $597) billion in 2012. This includes $70 ($54 ? $76) billion in physician practices, $74 ($58 ? $94) billion in hospitals, an estimated $94 ($47 ? $141) billion in settings providing other health services and supplies, $198 ($154 ? $233) billion in private insurers, and $35 ($17 ? $52) billion in public insurers. Compared to simplified financing, $375 ($254 ? $507) billion, or 80%, represents the added BIR costs of the current multi-payer system. Conclusions A simplified financing system in the U.S. could result in cost savings exceeding $350 billion annually, nearly 15% of health care spending. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Diagnosis-related group (DRG)-based hospital payment can potentially be inadequately low (or high) for highly variable, highly specialized, and/or low volume care. DRG-based payment can be combined with other payment mechanisms to avoid unintended consequences of inadequate payment. The aim of this study was to analyze these other payment mechanisms for acute inpatient care across six countries (Germany, Denmark, England, Estonia, France, the United States [Medicare])., Methods: Information was collected about elements excluded from DRG-based payment, the rationale for exclusions, and payment mechanisms complementing DRG-based payment. A conceptual framework was developed to systematically describe, visualise and compare payment mechanisms across countries., Results: Results show that the complexity of exclusion mechanisms and associated additional payment components differ across countries. England and Germany use many different additional mechanisms, while there are only few exceptions from DRG-based payment in the Medicare program in the United States. Certain areas of care are almost always excluded (eg, certain areas of cancer care or specialized pediatrics). Denmark and England use exclusion mechanisms to steer service provision for highly complex patients to specialized providers., Conclusion: Implications for researchers and policy-makers include: (1) certain areas of care might be better excluded from DRG-based payment; (2) exclusions may be used to incentivize the concentration of highly specialized care at specialized institutions (as in Denmark or England); (3) researchers may apply our analytical framework to better understand the specific design features of DRG-based payment systems., (© 2022 The Author(s); Published by Kerman University of Medical Sciences This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.)

Social media spreads information about vaccines and can be used to better understand public attitudes about them. Using American crowdfunding campaigns that mentioned COVID-19 vaccines from January 2020 to March 2021, this paper investigates public attitudes towards vaccines, specifically the perceived role vaccines could (or couldn't) play in ending the pandemic. We identified 776 crowdfunding campaigns and coded each for their aims and whether they valued vaccines as returning their community to a pre-pandemic state (utopian), helping some but not all people (cautious), and doubtful about the likely positive impacts of vaccines (skeptical). Cautious and skeptical valuations increased over time whereas utopian views declined. This paper uniquely situates attitudes toward COVID-19 vaccines in the context of financial need (as characterized by the campaigners). It offers insight into the "vaccine class gap" in America and demonstrates the usefulness of crowdfunding campaigns for assessing public views on vaccines., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (Copyright © 2022 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Managed care arrangements are an approach to health care delivery in which the payer or other health care entity has policies that affect where care is delivered, what services are covered, and how payment is determined. When policies are intentionally designed, transparently administered, and continuously monitored, they are more likely to improve the population's utilization of services, access to quality primary and specialty care, and access to appropriate medications. When managed care arrangements are designed well, particularly within evolving payment models, health care can be delivered in a manner that supports the goals of the Quadruple Aim: to reduce per capita costs of health care, to improve the health of populations, to improve the experience of patients receiving care, and to improve the experience of those who are providing care. The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) urges payers and health care entities to use the key principles outlined in this statement when designing and implementing managed care arrangements and policies that cover newborn infants, infants, children, adolescents, and young adults to support the goal of improving the effectiveness of the health care delivery system for the pediatric population. The principles described in this statement are intended to complement those previously published in other AAP policies including "Principles of Child Health Care Financing," "Scope of Health Care Benefits for Children From Birth Through Age 26," "Patient- and Family-Centered Care and the Pediatrician's Role," and the "AAP Access Principles.", (Copyright © 2022 by the American Academy of Pediatrics.)

Children and youth with special health care needs (CYSHCN) use disproportionately more health care resources than non-CYSHCN, and their unique needs merit additional consideration. Spending on health care in the United States is heavily concentrated on acute illnesses through fee-for-service (FFS). Payment reform frameworks have focused on shifting away from FFS, addressing health outcomes and the experience of care while lowering costs, particularly for high resource utilizers. The focus of payment reform efforts to date has been on adults with chronic illnesses, with less priority given to investment in children's health and life course. Spending for children's health is also considered an investment in their growth and development with long-term outcomes at stake, so research questions should focus on where and how such spending should be targeted. This paper discusses high-priority research topics in the area of health care financing for CYSHCN in the context of what is currently known and important knowledge gaps related to investment for CYSHCN. It proceeds to describe 3 potential research projects that can address these topics, following a framework informed by the priority questions identified in a previous multistakeholder research agenda development process. We focus on 3 areas: benefits, payment models, and quality measures. Specific aims and hypotheses are offered, as well as suggestions for approaches and thoughts on potential implications., (Copyright © 2021 Academic Pediatric Association. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objectives. To assess whether medical crowdfunding use and outcomes are aligned with health financing needs in the United States. Methods. We collected data on 437 596 US medical GoFundMe campaigns between 2016 and 2020. In addition to summarizing trends in campaign initiation and earnings, we used state- and county-level data to assess whether crowdfunding usage and earnings were higher in areas with greater medical debt, uninsured populations, and poverty. Results. Campaigns raised more than $2 billion from 21.7 million donations between 2016 and 2020. Returns were highly unequal, and success was low, especially in 2020: only 12% of campaigns met their goals, and 16% received no donations at all. Campaigns in 2020 raised substantially less money in areas with more medical debt, higher uninsurance rates, and lower incomes. Conclusions. Despite its popularity and portrayals as an ad-hoc safety net, medical crowdfunding is misaligned with key indicators of health financing needs in the United States. It is best positioned to help in populations that need it the least. ( Am J Public Health . 2022;112(3):491-498. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2021.306617).

Context: Governments at all levels work to ensure a healthy public, yet financing, organization, and delivery of public health services differ across the United States. A 2012 Institute of Medicine Finance report provided a series of recommendations to ensure a high-performing and adequately funded public health infrastructure., Objectives: This review examines the influence of the Finance report's 10 recommendations on public health policy and practice., Design: This review utilized peer-reviewed and gray literature published since 2012., Eligibility Criteria: Documents that address at least one of the Finance report's 10 recommendations and contain information on either official actions taken in response to the Finance report or evidence of the report's influence on the practice community., Results: Of 2394 unique documents found, a total of 56 documents met the eligibility criteria. Review of these 56 documents indicated that the most substantial activity related to the recommendations was focused on the "minimum package of public health services" concept and establishment of a uniform chart of accounts., Discussion: Progress has been mixed on the Finance report recommendations. Improved tracking and auditing of public health activity appears to be advancing, yet financial benchmarks remain unmet. Challenges remain in determining actual investment in public health and equitable resource allocation approaches. State and local health department use of cost estimation methodology and a uniform chart of accounts tool has contributed to an increase in understanding and improvement in public health spending., Conclusions: The Finance report has served as a strong impetus for advocating for an increased investment in governmental public health. Efforts are bolstered by informed public health practitioners and stakeholders but often stymied by policy makers who must balance complex competing issues and priorities. Although many successes have occurred, further work is needed toward improving investment in the nation's public health., Competing Interests: The authors declare no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2020 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Durable cell and gene therapies potentially transform patient lives, but payers fear unsustainable costs arising from the more than 1000 therapies in the development pipeline. A novel multi-module Markov chain Monte Carlo-based model projects product-indication approvals, treated patients, and product revenues. We estimate a mean 63.5 (54-74 5th to 95th percentile range) cumulative US product-indication approvals through 2030, with a mean 93000 patients treated in 2030 generating a mean US$24.4 billion (US$17.0B-35.0B, US$73.0B extreme) list price product revenues not including ancillary medical costs or cost offsets. Thus, the likely dozens of durable cell and gene therapies developed through 2030 are unlikely to threaten US health system financial sustainability., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (Copyright © 2021 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Objective: The purpose of this study was to review changes in public health finance since the 2012 Institute of Medicine (IOM) report "For the Public's Health: Investing in a Healthier Future.", Design: Qualitative study involving key informant interviews., Setting and Participants: Purposive sample of US public health practitioners, leaders, and academics expected to be knowledgeable about the report recommendations, public health practice, and changes in public health finance since the report., Main Outcome Measures: Qualitative feedback about changes to public health finance since the report., Results: Thirty-two interviews were conducted between April and May 2019. The greatest momentum toward the report recommendations has occurred predominantly at the state and local levels, with recommendations requiring federal action making less progress. In addition, much of the progress identified is consensus building and preparation for change rather than clear changes. Overall, progress toward the recommendations has been slow., Conclusions: Many of the achievements reported by respondents were characterized as increased dialogue and individual state or local progress rather than widespread, identifiable policy or practice changes. Participants suggested that public health as a field needs to achieve further consensus and a uniform voice in order to advocate for changes at a federal level., Implications for Policy and Practice: Slow progress in achieving 2012 IOM Finance Report recommendations and lack of a cohesive voice pose threats to the public's health, as can be seen in the context of COVID-19 emergency response activities. The pandemic and the nation's inadequate response have highlighted deficiencies in our current system and emphasize the need for coordinated and sustained core public health infrastructure funding at the federal level., Competing Interests: The authors declare no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2021 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Pancreatic cancer is a leading cause of financial insolvency and cancer related deaths in the United States. The risk of catastrophic health expenditure (CHE) was calculated for patients undergoing pancreatic resection at an academic institution., Methods: Patients who underwent pancreatic resection between 2013 and 2017 were identified through an institutional cancer registry. A CHE was an out-of-pocket payment (OOP) > 10% of the estimated median household income., Results: 319 patients met inclusion criteria. Hospital median charge was $76,700. 99% of patients had insurance and hospital bill adjustments. As a result, 61% (n = 193) made no OOP. Only 3 patients risked CHE. For all tumors combined there were no differences in survival outcomes by OOP., Conclusion: This is the first study to use institutional financial data to calculate CHE risk for pancreatic resection patients. Insurance adjustments to hospital charges that accompany health insurance and voluntary hospital adjustments for the uninsured protect patients against CHE., (Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Importance: In 2016, Georgia implemented the Rural Hospital Tax Credit Program, which allows taxpayers to receive a tax credit for contributions to qualifying rural hospitals in the state. Empirical evidence of the program's association with the viability of the state's rural hospitals is needed., Objective: To examine the association of the tax credit program with the financial health of participating rural hospitals., Design, Setting, and Participants: This longitudinal cross-sectional study used hospital financial data from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services for 2015 to 2019. A difference-in-differences analytic approach was used to examine the association of the tax credit program with rural hospital financial health. Study participants included Georgia rural hospitals eligible to participate in the program. Comparison hospitals were selected from the southern states of Alabama, Florida, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Tennessee., Exposures: Hospital participation in the Georgia Rural Hospital Tax Credit Program., Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome of the study was financial health measured with total margin, days cash on hand, debt-asset ratio, and average age of plant as well as a Financial Strength Index (FSI), which combined the previous measures to assess overall financial strength., Results: The analytical sample included a balanced panel of 136 hospitals, with 47 Georgia Rural Hospital Tax Credit Program participants (18 [38%] critical access hospitals; 5 [11%] system affiliated; mean [SD] bed count, 60 [47]; mean [SD] Medicare inpatient mix, 52% [16]) and 89 comparison hospitals (43 [48%] critical access hospitals; 24 [27%] system affiliated; mean [SD] bed count, 52 [41]; mean [SD] Medicare inpatient mix, 67% [18]). Two years after implementation, program participation was associated with a 23% increased probability of good or excellent financial health (b = 0.23; 95% CI, 0.10-0.37; P < .001) and a 6.7-point increase in total margin (b = 6.67; 95% CI, 3.61-9.73; P < .001)., Conclusions and Relevance: These early findings suggest that the Georgia Rural Hospital Tax Credit Program is associated with improvements in hospital financial health; however, additional studies are needed to assess the program's long-term impact on the financial sustainability of Georgia's rural hospitals.

Background: Implementation researchers are increasingly using economic evaluation to explore the benefits produced by implementing evidence-based practices (EBPs) in healthcare settings. However, the findings of typical economic evaluations (e.g., based on clinical trials) are rarely sufficient to inform decisions about how health service organizations and policymakers should finance investments in EBPs. This paper describes how economic evaluations can be translated into policy and practice through complementary research on financing strategies that support EBP implementation and sustainment., Main Body: We provide an overview of EBP implementation financing, which outlines key financing and health service delivery system stakeholders and their points of decision-making. We then illustrate how economic evaluations have informed decisions about EBP implementation and sustainment with three case examples: (1) use of Pay-for-Success financing to implement multisystemic therapy in underserved areas of Colorado, USA, based in part on the strength of evidence from economic evaluations; (2) an alternative payment model to sustain evidence-based oncology care, developed by the US Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services through simulations of economic impact; and (3) use of a recently developed fiscal mapping process to collaboratively match financing strategies and needs during a pragmatic clinical trial for a newly adapted family support intervention for opioid use disorder., Conclusions: EBP financing strategies can help overcome cost-related barriers to implementing and sustaining EBPs by translating economic evaluation results into policy and practice. We present a research agenda to advance understanding of financing strategies in five key areas raised by our case examples: (1) maximize the relevance of economic evaluations for real-world EBP implementation; (2) study ongoing changes in financing systems as part of economic evaluations; (3) identify the conditions under which a given financing strategy is most beneficial; (4) explore the use and impacts of financing strategies across pre-implementation, active implementation, and sustainment phases; and (5) advance research efforts through strong partnerships with stakeholder groups while attending to issues of power imbalance and transparency. Attention to these research areas will develop a robust body of scholarship around EBP financing strategies and, ultimately, enable greater public health impacts of EBPs.

Background: Cancer centers have a responsibility to help patients manage the costs of their cancer treatment. This article describes the availability of financial navigation services within the National Cancer Institute (NCI)-designated cancer centers., Methods: Data were obtained from the NCI Survey of Financial Navigation Services and Research, an online survey administered to NCI-designated cancer centers from July to September 2019. Of the 62 eligible centers, 57 completed all or most of the survey, for a response rate of 90.5%., Results: Nearly all cancer centers reported providing help with applications for pharmaceutical assistance programs and medical discounts (96.5%), health insurance coverage (91.2%), assistance with nonmedical costs (96.5%), and help understanding medical bills and out-of-pocket costs (85.9%). Although other services were common, in some cases they were only available to certain patients. These services included direct financial assistance with medical and nonmedical costs and referrals to outside organizations for financial assistance. The least common services included medical debt management (63.2%), detailed discussions about the cost of treatment (54.4%), and guidance about legal protections (50.1%). Providing treatment cost transparency to patients was reported as a common challenge: 71.9% of centers agreed or strongly agreed that it is difficult to determine how much a cancer patient's treatment will cost, and 70.2% of oncologists are reluctant to discuss financial issues with patients., Conclusions: Cancer centers provide many financial services and resources. However, there remains a need to build additional capacity to deliver comprehensive financial navigation services and to understand the extent to which patients are referred and helped by these services., (Published by Oxford University Press 2021. This work is written by US Government employees and is in the public domain in the US.)

COVID-19 vaccination efforts are underway offering hope for saving lives and eliminating the pandemic. The most promising vaccines require two injections separated 3-4 weeks apart. To achieve heard immunity, 70-90% of the population or perhaps more must be inoculated. Anticipation of adherence challenges has generated commentaries on strategies to enhance adherence including financial incentives. A notable gap in these commentaries is any discussion of the scientific evidence regarding the efficacy of financial incentives for increasing vaccine adherence. This commentary addresses that gap. There is a body of controlled trials on incentivizing vaccine adherence, mostly to the hepatitis B virus (HBV) vaccine among injection drug users (IDUs). Prevalence of HBV infection is increasing as part of the opioid addiction crisis. The HBV vaccine entails a three-dose regimen (typically 0, 1, and 6 months) which has created adherence challenges among IDUs. Systematic literature reviews document significant benefit of financial incentives. For example, a 2019 meta-analysis (Tressler & Bhandari, 2019) examined 11 controlled trials examining HBV-vaccine adherence strategies, including financial incentives, accelerated dosing schedules, and case-management/enhanced services. Financial incentives were most effective resulting in a 7-fold increase in adherence to the vaccination regimen relative to no financial incentives (OR, 7.01; 95% CI, 2.88-17.06). Additional reviews provide further support for the efficacy of financial incentives for promoting adherence with vaccination (HBV & influenza). Overall, this literature suggests that financial incentives could be helpful in promoting the high levels of adherence to COVID-19 vaccines that experts project will be necessary for herd immunity., (Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Importance: Financial toxicity resulting from cancer care poses a substantial public health concern, leading some patients to turn to online crowdfunding. However, the practice may exacerbate existing socioeconomic cancer disparities by privileging those with access to interpersonal wealth and digital media literacy., Objective: To test the hypotheses that higher county-level socioeconomic status and the presence (vs absence) of text indicators of beneficiary worth in campaign descriptions are associated with amount raised from cancer crowdfunding., Design, Setting, and Participants: This cross-sectional analysis examined US cancer crowdfunding campaigns conducted between 2010 and 2019 and data from the American Community Survey (2013-2017). Data analysis was performed from December 2019 to March 2020., Exposures: Neighborhood deprivation index of campaign location and campaign text features indicating the beneficiary's worth., Main Outcomes and Measures: Amount of money raised., Results: This study analyzed 144 061 US cancer crowdfunding campaigns. Campaigns in counties with higher neighborhood deprivation raised less (-26.07%; 95% CI, -27.46% to -24.65%; P < .001) than those in counties with less neighborhood deprivation. Campaigns raised more funds when legitimizing details were provided, including clinical details about the cancer type (9.58%; 95% CI, 8.00% to 11.18%; P < .001) and treatment type (6.58%; 95% CI, 5.44% to 7.79%; P < .001) and financial details, such as insurance status (1.39%; 95% CI, 0.20% to 2.63%; P = .02) and out-of-pocket costs (7.36%; 95% CI, 6.18% to 8.55%; P < .001). Campaigns raised more money when beneficiaries were described as warm (13.80%; 95% CI, 12.30% to 15.26%; P < .001), brave (15.40%; 95% CI, 14.11% to 16.65%; P < .001), or self-reliant (5.23%; 95% CI, 3.77% to 6.72%; P < .001)., Conclusions and Relevance: These findings suggest that cancer crowdfunding success ay disproportionately benefit those in high-socioeconomic status areas and those with the internet literacy necessary to portray beneficiaries as worthy. By rewarding those with existing socioeconomic advantage, cancer crowdfunding may perpetuate socioeconomic disparities in cancer care access. The findings also underscore the widespread nature of financial toxicity resulting from cancer care.

This analysis of the US health system reviews the developments in organization and governance, health financing, healthcare provision, health reforms and health system performance. The US health system has both considerable strengths and notable weaknesses. It has a large and well-trained health workforce and a wide range of high-quality medical specialists, as well as secondary and tertiary institutions, a robust health sector research programme and, for selected services, among the best medical outcomes in the world. But it also suffers from incomplete coverage of its citizenry, health expenditure levels per person far exceeding all other countries, poor measures on many objective and subjective measures of quality and outcomes, and an unequal distribution of resources and outcomes across the country and among different population groups. It is difficult to determine the extent to which deficiencies are health-system related, though it is clear that at least some of the problems are a result of poor access to care. The adoption of the Affordable Care Act in 2010 resulted in greatly improved coverage through subsidies for the uninsured to purchase private insurance, expanded eligibility for Medicaid (in some states), and greater protection for insured persons. Furthermore, primary care and public health received increased funding, and quality and expenditures were addressed through a range of measures such as financial rewards for providing higher-value care. At the same time, a change in political administration resulted in subsequent efforts to scale back the legislation. Many key issues remain, including further reducing the number of uninsured people, alleviating some of the burdensome patient cost-sharing requirements, and considering some new cost-containment methods such as allowing the government to negotiate drug prices with pharmaceutical manufacturers. The direction of future health policy will almost certainly depend on which political party is in power., (World Health Organization 2020 (acting as the host organization for, and secretariat of, the European Observatory on Health Systems and Policies).)

Federalism has complicated the US response to the novel coronavirus. States' actions to address the pandemic have varied widely, and federal and state officials have provided conflicting messages. This fragmented approach has surely cost time and lives. Federalism will shape the long-term health and economic impacts of COVID-19, including plans for the future, for at least two reasons: First, federalism exacerbates inequities, as some states have a history of underinvesting in social programs, especially in certain communities. Second, many of the states with the deepest needs are poorly equipped to respond to emergencies due to low taxes and distrust of government, leading to inadequate infrastructure. These dynamics are not new, but they have been laid bare by this crisis. What can policy makers do to address the inequities in health and economic outcomes that federalism intensifies? The first section of this article offers a case study of the Mississippi Delta to illustrate the role of federalism in perpetuating the connection between place, health, and economics. The second section examines challenges that safety net programs will face when moving beyond the acute phase of COVID-19. The final section explores near-, middle-, and long-term policy options to mitigate federalism's harmful side effects., (Copyright © 2020 by Duke University Press.)

Background: People living with HIV are diagnosed with age-related chronic health conditions, including cardiovascular disease, at higher than expected rates. Medical management of these chronic health conditions frequently occur in HIV specialty clinics by providers trained in general internal medicine, family medicine, or infectious disease. In recent years, changes in the healthcare financing for people living with HIV in the U.S. has been dynamic due to changes in the Affordable Care Act. There is little evidence examining how healthcare financing characteristics shape primary and secondary cardiovascular disease prevention among people living with HIV. Our objective was to examine the perspectives of people living with HIV and their healthcare providers on how healthcare financing influences cardiovascular disease prevention., Methods: As part of the EXTRA-CVD study, we conducted in-depth, semi-structured interviews with 51 people living with HIV and 34 multidisciplinary healthcare providers and at three U.S. HIV clinics in Ohio and North Carolina from October 2018 to March 2019. Thematic analysis using Template Analysis techniques was used to examine healthcare financing barriers and enablers of cardiovascular disease prevention in people living with HIV., Results: Three themes emerged across sites and disciplines (1): healthcare payers substantially shape preventative cardiovascular care in HIV clinics (2); physician compensation tied to relative value units disincentivizes cardiovascular disease prevention efforts by HIV providers; and (3) grant-based services enable tailored cardiovascular disease prevention, but sustainability is limited by sponsor priorities., Conclusions: With HIV now a chronic disease, there is a growing need for HIV-specific cardiovascular disease prevention; however, healthcare financing complicates effective delivery of this preventative care. It is important to understand the effects of evolving payer models on patient and healthcare provider behavior. Additional systematic investigation of these models will help HIV specialty clinics implement cardiovascular disease prevention within a dynamic reimbursement landscape., Trial Registration: Clinical Trial Registration Number: NCT03643705 .

The process by which state Medicaid programs develop their preferred drug lists, and determine which medications require prior authorization, is opaque to many clinicians. This process is a synthesis of cost and clinical information. For cost, the federal Medicaid Drug Rebate Program establishes mandatory rebates that pharmaceutical manufacturers must pay state Medicaid programs. In addition, state Medicaid programs may also negotiate supplemental rebates whereby, in exchange for a preferred position on the preferred drug list, manufacturers pay an additional rebate. These supplemental rebates are most important in therapeutic classes with multiple brand competitors (e.g., medication treatments for opioid use disorder). For clinical information, state Medicaid programs convene pharmaceutical and therapeutics committees, drug utilization review boards, or both, composed of a variety of stakeholders such as practicing clinicians. Cost factors such as federal rebate calculations and supplemental rebate negotiations may lead to counterintuitive preferred drug lists, for example, a state Medicaid program requiring prior authorization for a generic medication but not for its brand equivalent (e.g., buprenorphine/naloxone products). Because of states' reliance on rebates, mandates to remove prior authorization may have the unintended consequence of increasing costs significantly through the loss of rebate negotiating power. In the face of high and rising medication costs, state Medicaid programs are also implementing innovative policy approaches to maintain access and control costs, such as targeted rebate negotiation and value-based pricing. Through participation in state Medicaid program clinical advisory committees, individual clinicians can have a powerful voice. Interested clinicians should consider joining to inform policy and help ensure their patients' needs are met.

With the passage of the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 and the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act in 2010, Medicare's Inpatient Prospective Payment System (IPPS) began a transition to value-based purchasing (VBP) that rewards or penalizes hospitals based on patient satisfaction, clinical processes of care, outcomes, and efficiency metrics. However, hospital-level volatility vs. persistence in value-based payments year-over-year could result in unpredictable cash flows that negatively influence investment behavior, drive underinvestment in community benefit/population health management initiatives, and make management of the factors that drive the VBP adjustment more challenging. To evaluate the volatility and persistence of hospital VBP adjustments, the sample includes VBP adjustments and the associated domain scores for the 2,547 hospitals that participated in the program from 2013 to 2016. The sample includes urban (74%), teaching (29.1%), system affiliated (46.5%), and not-for-profit (63.6%) facilities. Volatility was measured using basic descriptive statistics, relative risk ratios, and a fixed effect, autoregressive, dynamic panel model that robust-clustered the standard errors. There is substantial change in a given facility's total VBP score with an average standard deviation of 10.74 (on a 100-point scale) that is driven by significant volatility in all metrics but particularly by efficiency and outcomes metrics. Relative risk ratios have dropped substantially over the life of the program, and there is low persistence of VBP scores from one period to the next. Findings indicate that if hospitals receive a positive adjustment in 1 year, they are almost as likely to receive a negative adjustment as a positive adjustment the following year. Furthermore, using a fixed-effect dynamic panel model that controls for autocorrelation, we find that only 13.5% of a facility's prior year IPPS adjustment (positive or negative) carries forward to the next year. The low persistence makes investment in population health management and community benefit more challenging., (Copyright © 2020 Turner, Broom, Johnston, Howard, Freeman and Englund.)

Americans are increasingly relying on crowdfunding to pay for the costs of healthcare. In medical crowdfunding (MCF), online platforms allow individuals to appeal to social networks to request donations for health and medical needs. Users are often told that success depends on how they organize and share their campaigns to increase social network engagement. However, experts have cautioned that MCF could exacerbate health and social disparities by amplifying the choices (and biases) of the crowd and leveraging these to determine who has access to financial support for healthcare. To date, research on potential axes of disparity in MCF, and their impacts on fundraising outcomes, has been limited. To answer these questions, this paper presents an exploratory cross-sectional study of a randomized sample of 637 MCF campaigns on the popular platform GoFundMe, for which the race, gender, age, and relationships of campaigners and campaign recipients were categorized alongside campaign characteristics and outcomes. Using both descriptive and inferential statistics, the analysis examines race, gender, and age disparities in MCF use, and tests how these are associated with differential campaign outcomes. The results show systemic disparities in MCF use and outcomes: people of color (and black women in particular) are under-represented; there is significant evidence of an additional digital care labor burden on women organizers of campaigns; and marginalized race and gender groups are associated with poorer fundraising outcomes. Outcomes are only minimally associated with campaign characteristics under users' control, such as photos, videos, and updates. These results corroborate widespread concerns with how technology fuels health inequities, and how crowdfunding may be creating an unequal and biased marketplace for those seeking financial support to access healthcare. Further research and better data access are needed to explore these dynamics more deeply and inform policy for this largely unregulated industry., Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Background: The United States is the only high-income nation without universal, government-funded or -mandated health insurance employing a unified payment system. The US multi-payer system leaves residents uninsured or underinsured, despite overall healthcare costs far above other nations. Single-payer (often referred to as Medicare for All), a proposed policy solution since 1990, is receiving renewed press attention and popular support. Our review seeks to assess the projected cost impact of a single-payer approach., Methods and Findings: We conducted our literature search between June 1 and December 31, 2018, without start date restriction for included studies. We surveyed an expert panel and searched PubMed, Google, Google Scholar, and preexisting lists for formal economic studies of the projected costs of single-payer plans for the US or for individual states. Reviewer pairs extracted data on methods and findings using a template. We quantified changes in total costs standardized to percentage of contemporaneous healthcare spending. Additionally, we quantified cost changes by subtype, such as costs due to increased healthcare utilization and savings due to simplified payment administration, lower drug costs, and other factors. We further examined how modeling assumptions affected results. Our search yielded economic analyses of the cost of 22 single-payer plans over the past 30 years. Exclusions were due to inadequate technical data or assuming a substantial ongoing role for private insurers. We found that 19 (86%) of the analyses predicted net savings (median net result was a savings of 3.46% of total costs) in the first year of program operation and 20 (91%) predicted savings over several years; anticipated growth rates would result in long-term net savings for all plans. The largest source of savings was simplified payment administration (median 8.8%), and the best predictors of net savings were the magnitude of utilization increase, and savings on administration and drug costs (R2 of 0.035, 0.43, and 0.62, respectively). Only drug cost savings remained significant in multivariate analysis. Included studies were heterogeneous in methods, which precluded us from conducting a formal meta-analysis., Conclusions: In this systematic review, we found a high degree of analytic consensus for the fiscal feasibility of a single-payer approach in the US. Actual costs will depend on plan features and implementation. Future research should refine estimates of the effects of coverage expansion on utilization, evaluate provider administrative costs in varied existing single-payer systems, analyze implementation options, and evaluate US-based single-payer programs, as available., Competing Interests: I have read the journal’s policy and the authors of this manuscript have the following competing interests: CC is an executive board member of Students for a National Health Program (SNaHP). SNaHP had no role in study design, data collection, analysis, decision to publish or manuscript preparation.

Rationale: Medical treatment can improve quality of life and avert exacerbations for those with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). High-deductible health plans (HDHPs) can increase exposure to medical costs, and might compromise healthcare access and financial well-being for patients with COPD. Objectives: To examine the association of HDHPs with healthcare access, utilization, and financial strain among individuals with COPD. Methods: We analyzed privately insured adults aged 40-64 years with COPD in the 2011-2017 National Health Interview Survey, which uses Internal Revenue Service-specified thresholds to classify health plans as "high" or "traditional" deductible coverage. We assessed the association between enrollment in an HDHP and indicators of cost-related impediments to care, financial strain, and healthcare utilization, adjusting for potential confounders. Results: Our sample included 803 individuals with an HDHP and 1,334 with a traditional plan. The two groups' demographic and health characteristics were similar. Individuals enrolled in an HDHP more frequently reported delayed or foregone care, cost-related medication nonadherence, medical bill problems, and financial strain. They also more frequently reported out-of-pocket healthcare spending in excess of $5,000 a year. Although the two groups' office visit rates were similar, those enrolled in an HDHP were more likely to report a hospitalization or emergency room visit in the past year. Conclusions: For patients with COPD, enrollment in an HDHP was associated with cost-related barriers to care, financial strain, and more frequent emergency room visits and hospitalizations.

Nutrition support teams (NSTs) in the United States have had to justify their existence since their inception in the 1970s. Concomitant with those efforts, changes in healthcare financing have challenged hospital administrators to adapt their reimbursement strategies and methods. NSTs, if they are to survive and/or thrive, must be aware of the convulsive currents of change faced by those who determine which programs move downstream and which find their demise on the banks of the stream. This review provides a historical perspective of both the US healthcare financing system and the NST experiences of nutrition clinicians over the past 4 decades. Focused discussions of 5 teams are provided from individual members of those varied NSTs. Additional recommendations from the administrative side of the equation are presented by 3 administrators. Whether NSTs will "rise or demise" depends on many factors. Understanding what those who control the purse strings are seeking in terms of salutary cost and quality outcomes in the current value-based system will facilitate the NST's communication with them. The demonstration of the NST's value is more likely to succeed when bolstered by current evidence-based data as applied to the specific institution. These efforts can be carried out by a formal NST in larger or academic institutions or a "virtual" team with a single individual coordinating the services in a transdisciplinary fashion, employing the acronym ACT (accountability, communication, [transdisciplinary] teamwork)., (© 2019 American Society for Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition.)

Background: Not much is currently known about United States (US) physicians' opinions about healthcare financing, specifically subsequent to the creation and implementation of the Affordable Care Act (ACA). Objectives: A four state survey of practicing US based physicians' opinions about healthcare financing following ACA passage and implementation. Methods: Physician leaders practicing in the state of New York, Texas, Colorado and Mississippi were surveyed. Two factor analyses (FA) were conducted to understand the underlying constructs. Results: We determined the final response rate to be 26.7% after adjusting it for a variety of factors. Most physicians favored either a single payer system (43.8%) or individualized insurance coverage using health savings accounts (33.2%). For the single-payer system, FA revealed two underlying constructs: System orientation (how the physicians perceived the impact on the healthcare system or patients) and individual orientation (how the physicians perceived the impact on individual physicians). Subsequently, we found that physicians who were perceived neutral in their attitudes towards physician-patient relationship and patient conflict were also neutral in reference to system orientation and individual orientation. Physicians who were perceived as stronger on the physician-patient relationship were more supportive of a single-payer system. Conclusion: This study brings attention to the paradox of social responsibility (to provide quality healthcare) and professional autonomy (the potential impact of a healthcare financing structure to negatively affect income and workload). Efforts to further reform healthcare financing and delivery in the US may encounter resistance from healthcare providers (physicians, mid-level prescribers, pharmacists, or nurses) if the proposed reform interferes with their professional autonomy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Spending on health care in the United States amounted to 17.9 percent of gross domestic product in 2017. Households paid for this care through out-of-pocket medical spending and a complex mix of out-of-pocket premiums, employer premium contributions, taxes, and subsidies that combined to finance private employer-sponsored insurance, nongroup insurance, and multiple public insurance programs. Our analysis examined the impact of this complex system of health care financing on households in the period 2005-16, tracking how economic and policy changes affected incidence-that is, the amount paid to finance health care, either directly or indirectly, by households as a share of their pretax income. Health care financing was regressive at the start of our study period, with households in the bottom 20 percent of income paying 26.8 percent of their income compared to about half that amount for those with income in the top 1 percent. By 2016 incidence had become approximately proportional (the same percentage across all income levels). In part, these results reflect increases in coverage through Medicaid and the Affordable Care Act Marketplaces, which are progressively financed through the federal tax system.

Objectives: To understand how Medicare Advantage (MA) plan representatives perceive the alternative financing model Pay for Success (PFS) and its potential to address members' social risk factors., Study Design: Semistructured qualitative interviews designed to understand plan representatives' priorities regarding addressing nonmedical needs of their members, awareness of and experiences with PFS, and thoughts about implementing PFS as a method to address members' nonmedical needs., Methods: Interviews with 38 upper-management representatives from 17 MA plans, which represent 65% of MA beneficiaries nationally, were conducted from July to November 2018. Plans varied in geographic coverage, star rating, and enrollment. Transcripts were qualitatively analyzed to understand overarching themes and patterns of responses., Results: MA plan representatives were largely unfamiliar with PFS and were interested in learning more about how it could address members' social needs. When probed about specific requirements of PFS, responses varied: Some reported willingness to share data with project partners and be reviewed by independent evaluators; others expressed their preference to keep data and performance analysis internal to the organization. Although most representatives prioritized innovation, some were more risk averse and preferred to use traditional methods to deliver new services., Conclusions: MA plan representatives were unfamiliar with PFS, but most expressed interest in it as an alternative model for funding initiatives to address members' social needs. Education of MA representatives about PFS as an alternative payment model for innovative programming is warranted. However, further guidance from CMS is needed to assuage the concerns raised by these representatives.

Health Technology Assessment (HTA) has always sought to incorporate the evidence of all patients affected in the decision-making process. While health system budgets could increase to cover costs of new technologies, the relevant patients are those benefitting from access to the technology being appraised. More recently, with health system budgets effectively fixed, costs of new technologies are covered by displacing other, currently funded care. This reallocation means the patients affected by the decision include those whose healthcare is displaced. These patients are typically unidentified, however, and so HTA in this instance involves choosing between identified and unidentified patients. We argue that HTA should take account of identifiability bias in this decision-making, to avoid promoting inequitable and inefficient access to healthcare.

Reflecting on the 2018 U.S. midterm elections, it is clear that health care coverage once again played an important role. This prompted the authors to look back on their 2016 bike listening tour across the country when they asked people about their views on the Affordable Care Act. Through those conversations, the authors observed that a common thread was the rampant misunderstanding of health insurance coverage and the central role that politicians had in the creation of policy. In this Invited Commentary, the authors explore the results of the 2018 election, particularly in the rural northern areas where they toured in 2016, and the contradictions between what people say they want, what the candidates say they support, and what the facts actually show. They offer suggestions for the role physicians might play with patients in correcting misunderstandings about the health care system and the policies that shape it. Patients do not always make decisions as physicians do. As opposed to evidence and data, they might rely on personal experiences and stories. The authors suggest that physicians might be able to help patients use these stories to inform their decisions, and to help them understand the connection between their personal health care experiences and the votes they cast in elections.