Milbank Quarterly最新文献

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.

Policy Points Public reporting is associated with both mitigating and exacerbating inequities in high-quality home health agency use for marginalized groups. Ensuring equitable access to home health requires taking a closer look at potentially inequitable policies to ensure that these policies are not inadvertently exacerbating disparities as home health public reporting potentially does. Targeted federal, state, and local interventions should focus on raising awareness about the five-star quality ratings among marginalized populations for whom inequities have been exacerbated.

Context: Literature suggests that public reporting of quality may have the unintended consequence of exacerbating disparities in access to high-quality, long-term care for older adults. The objective of this study is to evaluate the impact of the home health five-star ratings on changes in high-quality home health agency use by race, ethnicity, income status, and place-based factors.

Methods: We use data from the Outcome and Assessment Information Set, Medicare Enrollment Files, Care Compare, and American Community Survey to estimate differential access to high-quality home health agencies between July 2014 and June 2017. To estimate the impact of the home health five-star rating introduction on the use of high-quality home health agencies, we use a longitudinal observational pretest-posttest design.

Findings: After the introduction of the home health five-star ratings in 2016, we found that adjusted rates of high-quality home health agency use increased for all home health patients, except for Hispanic/Latine and Asian American/Pacific Islander patients. Additionally, we found that the disparity in high-quality home health agency use between low-income and higher-income home health patients was exacerbated after the introduction of the five-star quality ratings. We also observed that patients within predominantly Hispanic/Latine neighborhoods had a significant decrease in their use of high-quality home health agencies, whereas patients in predominantly White and integrated neighborhoods had a significant increase in high-quality home health agency use. Other neighborhoods experience a nonsignificant change in high-quality home health agency use.

Conclusions: Policymakers should be aware of the potential unintended consequences for implementing home health public reporting, specifically for Hispanic/Latine, Asian American/Pacific Islander, and low-income home health patients, as well as patients residing in predominantly Hispanic/Latine neighborhoods. Targeted interventions should focus on raising awareness around the five-star ratings.

Policy Points Over the past century, the tax-financed share of health care spending has risen from 9% in 1923 to 69% in 2020; a large part of this tax financing is now the subsidization of private health insurance. For-profit ownership of health care facilities has also increased in recent decades and now predominates for many health subsectors. A rising share of physicians are now employees. US health care is, increasingly, publicly financed yet investor owned, a trend that has been accompanied by rising medical costs and, in recent years, stagnating or even worsening population health. A reconsideration of US health care financing and ownership appears warranted.

Context: Who pays for health care-and who owns it-determine what care is delivered, who receives it, and who profits from it. We examined trends in health care ownership and financing over a century.

Methods: We used multiple historical and current data sources (including data from the American Medical Association, the American Hospital Association, government publications and surveys, and analyses of Medicare Provider of Services files) to classify health care provider ownership as: public, private (for-profit), and private (not-for-profit). We used US Census data to classify physicians' employers as public, not-for-profit, or for-profit entities or "self-employed." We combined estimates from the official National Health Expenditures Accounts with other data sources to determine the public vs. private share of health care spending since 1923; we calculated a "comprehensive" public share metric that accounted for public subsidization of private health expenditures, mostly via the tax exemption for employer-sponsored insurance plans or government purchase of such plans for public employees.

Findings: For-profit ownership of most health care subsectors has risen in recent decades and now predominates in several (including nursing facilities, ambulatory surgical facilities, dialysis facilities, hospices, and home health agencies). However, most community hospitals remain not-for-profit. Additionally, over the past century, a growing share of physicians identify as employees. Meanwhile, the comprehensive taxpayer-financed share of health care spending has increased dramatically from 9% in 1923 to 69% in 2020, with taxpayer-financed subsidies to private expenditures accounting for much of the recent growth.

Conclusions: American health care is increasingly publicly financed yet investor owned, a trend accompanied by rising costs and, recently, worsening population health. A reassessment of the US mode of health care financing and ownership appears warranted.

Policy Points Countries have adopted different strategies to support aging populations, which are broadly reflected in social, economic, and contextual environments. Referred to as "societal adaptation to aging," these factors affect countries' capacity to support older adults. Results from our study show that countries with more robust societal adaptation to aging had lower depression prevalence. Reductions in depression prevalence occurred among every investigated sociodemographic group and were most pronounced among the old-old. Findings suggest that societal factors have an underacknowledged role in shaping depression risk. Policies that improve societal approaches to aging may reduce depression prevalence among older adults.

Context: Countries have adopted various formal and informal approaches to support older adults, which are broadly reflected in different policies, programs, and social environments. These contextual environments, broadly referred to as "societal adaptation to aging," may affect population health.

Methods: We used a new theory-based measure that captured societal adaptation to aging, the Aging Society Index (ASI), which we linked with harmonized individual-level data from 89,111 older adults from 20 countries. Using multi-levels models that accounted for differences in the population composition across countries, we estimated the association between country-level ASI scores and depression prevalence. We also tested if associations were stronger among the old-old and among sociodemographic groups that experience more disadvantage (i.e., women, those with lower educational attainment, unmarried adults).

Findings: We found that countries with higher ASI scores, indicating more comprehensive approaches to supporting older adults, had lower depression prevalence. We found especially strong reductions in depression prevalence among the oldest adults in our sample. However, we did not find stronger reductions among sociodemographic groups who may experience more disadvantage.

Conclusions: Country-level strategies to support older adults may affect depression prevalence. Such strategies may become increasingly important as adults grow older. These results offer promising evidence that improvements in societal adaptation to aging-such as through adoption of more comprehensive policies and programs targeting older adults-may be one avenue to improve population mental health. Future research could investigate observed associations using longitudinal and quasi-experimental study designs, offering additional information regarding a potential causal relationship.

Policy Points Suboptimal diet is a leading cause of mortality and morbidity in the United States. Excise taxes on junk food are not widely utilized in the United States. The development of a workable definition of the food to be taxed is a substantial barrier to implementation. Three decades of legislative and regulatory definitions of food for taxes and related purposes provide insight into methods to characterize food to advance new policies. Defining policies through Product Categories combined with Nutrients or Processing may be a method to identify foods for health-related goals.

Context: Suboptimal diet is a substantial contributor to weight gain, cardiometabolic diseases, and certain cancers. Junk food taxes can raise the price of the taxed product to reduce consumption and the revenue can be used to invest in low-resource communities. Taxes on junk food are administratively and legally feasible but no definition of "junk food" has been established.

Methods: To identify legislative and regulatory definitions characterizing food for tax and other related purposes, this research used Lexis+ and the NOURISHING policy database to identify federal, state, territorial, and Washington DC statutes, regulations, and bills (collectively denoted as "policies") defining and characterizing food for tax and related policies, 1991-2021.

Findings: This research identified and evaluated 47 unique laws and bills that defined food through one or more of the following criteria: Product Category (20 definitions), Processing (4 definitions), Product intertwined with Processing (19 definitions), Place (12 definitions), Nutrients (9 definitions), and Serving Size (7 definitions). Of the 47 policies, 26 used more than one criterion to define food categories, especially those with nutrition-related goals. Policy goals included taxing foods (snack, healthy, unhealthy, or processed foods), exempting foods from taxation (snack, healthy, unhealthy, or unprocessed foods), exempting homemade or farm-made foods from state and local retail regulations, and supporting federal nutrition assistance objectives. Policies based on Product Categories alone differentiated between necessity/staple foods on the one hand and nonnecessity/nonstaple foods on the other.

Conclusions: In order to specifically identify unhealthy food, policies commonly included a combination of Product Category, Processing, and/or Nutrient criteria. Explanations for repealed state sales tax laws on snack foods identified retailers' difficulty pinpointing which specific foods were subject to the tax as a barrier to implementation. An excise tax assessed on manufacturers or distributors of junk food is a method to overcome this barrier and may be warranted.