Milbank Quarterly最新文献

Policy Points The meaning of health in health care remains poorly defined, defaulting to a narrow, biomedical disease model. A national dialogue could create a consensus regarding a holistic and humanized definition of health that promotes health care transformation and health equity. Key steps for operationalizing a holistic meaning of health in health care include national leadership by federal agencies, intersectoral collaborations that include diverse communities, organizational and cultural change in medical education, and implementation of high-quality primary care. The 2023 report by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine on achieving whole health offers recommendations for action.

Policy Points The erosion of electoral democracy in the United States in recent decades may have contributed to the high and rising working-age mortality rates, which predate the COVID-19 pandemic. Eroding electoral democracy in a US state was associated with higher working-age mortality from homicide, suicide, and especially from drug poisoning and infectious disease. State and federal efforts to strengthen electoral democracy, such as banning partisan gerrymandering, improving voter enfranchisement, and reforming campaign finance laws, could potentially avert thousands of deaths each year among working-age adults.

Context: Working-age mortality rates are high and rising in the United States, an alarming fact that predates the COVID-19 pandemic. Although several reasons for the high and rising rates have been hypothesized, the potential role of democratic erosion has been overlooked. This study examined the association between electoral democracy and working-age mortality and assessed how economic, behavioral, and social factors may have contributed to it.

Methods: We used the State Democracy Index (SDI), an annual summary of each state's electoral democracy from 2000 to 2018. We merged the SDI with annual age-adjusted mortality rates for adults 25-64 years in each state. Models estimated the association between the SDI and working-age mortality (from all causes and six specific causes) within states, adjusting for political party control, safety net generosity, union coverage, immigrant population, and stable characteristics of states. We assessed whether economic (income, unemployment), behavioral (alcohol consumption, sleep), and social (marriage, violent crime, incarceration) factors accounted for the association.

Findings: Increasing electoral democracy in a state from a moderate level (defined as the third quintile of the SDI distribution) to a high level (defined as the fifth quintile) was associated with an estimated 3.2% and 2.7% lower mortality rate among working-age men and women, respectively, over the next year. Increasing electoral democracy in all states from the third to the fifth quintile of the SDI distribution may have resulted in 20,408 fewer working-age deaths in 2019. The democracy-mortality association mainly reflected social factors and, to a lesser extent, health behaviors. Increasing electoral democracy in a state was mostly strongly associated with lower mortality from drug poisoning and infectious diseases, followed by reductions in homicide and suicide.

Conclusions: Erosion of electoral democracy is a threat to population health. This study adds to growing evidence that electoral democracy and population health are inextricably linked.

Policy Points Policymakers should invest in programs to support rural health systems, with a more targeted focus on spatial accessibility and racial and ethnic equity, not only total supply or nearest facility measures. Health plan network adequacy standards should address spatial access to nearest and second nearest hospital care and incorporate equity standards for Black and Latinx rural communities. Black and Latinx rural residents contend with inequities in spatial access to hospital care, which arise from fundamental structural inequities in spatial allocation of economic opportunity in rural communities of color. Long-term policy solutions including reparations are needed to address these underlying processes.

Context: The growing rate of rural hospital closures elicits concerns about declining access to hospital-based care. Our research objectives were as follows: 1) characterize the change in rural hospital supply in the US South between 2007 and 2018, accounting for health system closures, mergers, and conversions; 2) quantify spatial accessibility (in 2018) for populations most at risk for adverse outcomes following hospital closure-Black and Latinx rural communities; and 3) use multilevel modeling to examine relationships between structural factors and disparities in spatial access to care.

Methods: To calculate spatial access, we estimated the network travel distance and time between the census tract-level population-weighted centroids to the nearest and second nearest operating hospital in the years 2007 and 2018. Thereafter, to describe the demographic and health system characteristics of places in relation to spatial accessibility to hospital-based care in 2018, we estimated three-level (tract, county, state-level) generalized linear models.

Findings: We found that 72 (10%) rural counties in the South had ≥1 hospital closure between 2007 and 2018, and nearly half of closure counties (33) lost their last remaining hospital to closure. Net of closures, mergers, and conversions meant hospital supply declined from 783 to 653. Overall, 49.1% of rural tracts experienced worsened spatial access to their nearest hospital, whereas smaller proportions experienced improved (32.4%) or unchanged (18.5%) access between 2007 and 2018. Tracts located within closure counties had longer travel times to the nearest acute care hospital compared with tracts in nonclosure counties. Moreover, rural tracts within Southern states with more concentrated commercial health insurance markets had shorter travel times to access the second nearest hospital.

Conclusions: Rural places affected by rural hospital closures have greater travel burdens for acute care. Across the rural South, racial/ethnic inequities in spatial access to acute care are most pronounced when travel times to the second nearest open acute care hospital are accounted for.

Policy Points There need to be sweeping changes to medical school curricula that addresses structural racism in medicine and how to attend to this in medical practice. The Liaison Committee on Medical Education should develop and promulgate specific learning objectives and curricular offerings that require medical schools to teach about structural racism and antiracist medical practice in ways that are robust and standardized. The federal government, through the Health Resources and Services Administration, should prioritize support for antiracism education in medical schools, residency, and continuing medical education in similar ways and with similar effort in scale and scope to its support for primary care, providing technical assistance and grants for programs across the educational spectrum that provide antiracist training. State governments should mandate, as part of continuing education requirements for physicians, 2 or more hours per recertification cycle of antiracist training.

Context: Since the beginning of COVID-19 and the rise of social justice movements sparked by the murders of George Floyd and Breonna Taylor in the summer of 2020, many medical schools have made public statements committing themselves to become antiracist institutions. The notions that US society generally, and medicine, are rife with structural racism no longer seems as controversial in the academic community. Challenges remain, however, in how this basic understanding gets translated into medical education practice. Understanding where the profession must go should start with understanding where we currently are.

Methods: Prior to the events of 2020, in the spring of 2018, we conducted nine key informant interviews to learn about the challenges and best practices from schools deemed to be positive deviants in teaching about structural racism.

Findings: Our interviews showed that even those schools deemed positive deviants in the amount of teaching done about structural racism faced significant barriers in providing a robust education.

Conclusions: Significant structural change, perhaps far beyond what most schools consider themselves willing and able to engage in, will be necessary if future US physicians are to fully understand and address structural racism as it affects their profession, their practice, and their patients.

Policy Points Trust in primary care clinicians is essential for effective patient care and is associated with better health outcomes, but it is rarely assessed, and existing measures have not been thoroughly evaluated. This scoping review reveals that research assessing patients' trust in primary care clinicians largely stopped more than a decade ago but offers candidate measures for future testing, implementation, and policy applications.

Context: Trust is a fundamental aspect of any human relationship, and medical care is no exception. An ongoing, trusting relationship between clinicians and patients has shown demonstrable value to primary care. However, there is currently no measure of trust in general use, and none endorsed for use by most value-based payment programs. This review searched the literature for any existing measures of patient trust in primary care clinicians and assessed their potential to be implemented as a patient-reported outcome measure.

Methods: A keyword search on PubMed along with scanning references was conducted to find any trust measures in health care. Measures that did not address primary care clinicians were eliminated and the remaining measures were then assessed for their utility to primary care.

Results: This purposeful, scoping review found four tested measures for assessing patients' trust in primary care clinicians that are candidates for general use. Of these four, the revised Trust in Physicians Scale and Wake Forest Physician Trust Scale are the most tested and viable options.

Conclusion: Renewed national interest in trust in health care should focus on the capacity to measure it. This review informs the effort to test trust measures for use in research, practice improvement, and value-based payment. Measuring trust, how it relates to outcomes, and learning how it is produced or lost are key to assisting practices and health systems toward earning it.

Policy Points The concept of value complexity (complexity arising from differences in people's worldviews, interests, and values, leading to mistrust, misunderstanding, and conflict among stakeholders) is introduced and explained. Relevant literature from multiple disciplines is reviewed. Key theoretical themes, including power, conflict, language and framing, meaning-making, and collective deliberation, are identified. Simple rules derived from these theoretical themes are proposed.

Policy Points Hospital executives posit a number of rationales for system mergers which lack any basis in academic evidence. Decades of academic research question whether system combinations confer public benefits. Antitrust authorities need to continue to closely scrutinize these transactions. Recently, mergers of hospital systems that span different geographic markets are on the rise. Economists have alerted policymakers about the potential impacts such cross-market mergers may have on hospital prices. We suggest there are other reasons for concern that scholars have not often confonted. Cross-market mergers may be conducted for purely self-serving reasons of organizational growth that increases executive compensation. Combinations of sellers should have clear advantages to consumers. System executives and their boards should bear the burden of proof. Federal regulators and state attorney generals should be cognizant that rationales for cross-market systems advanced by merging parties are unlikely to be operative or dominant in merger decision making. Policymakers should be careful about passing legislation that encourages hospitals to consolidate.

Context: There is a growing trend of combinations among hospital systems that operate in different geographic markets known as cross-market mergers. Economists have analyzed these broader systems in terms of their anticompetitive behavior and pricing power over insurers. This paper evaluates the benefits advanced by these new hospital systems that speak to a different set of issues not usually studied: increased efficiencies, new capabilities, operating synergies, and addressing health inequities. The paper thus "looks under the hood" of these emerging, cross-market systems to assess what value they might bestow and upon whom.

Methods: The paper examines recently announced cross-market mergers in terms of their supposed benefits, as expressed by the systems' executives as well as by industry consultants. These presumed benefits are then evaluated against existing evidence regarding hospital system outcomes.

Findings: Advocates of cross-market hospital mergers cite a host of benefits. Research suggests these benefits are nonexistent. Additional evidence suggests other motives may be at play in the formation of cross-market mergers that have nothing to do with efficiencies, synergies, or community benefits. Instead these mergers may be self-serving efforts by system chief executive officers (CEOs) to boost their compensation.

Conclusions: Cross-market hospital mergers may yield no benefits to the hospitals involved or the communities in which they operate. The boards of hospital systems that engage in these cross-market mergers need to exercise greater diligence over the actions of their CEOs.