Vital Directions For Health And Health Care: Priorities For 2021.

In 2016, in anticipation of the US presidential election and forthcoming new administration, the National Academy of Medicine launched a strategic initiative to marshal expert guidance on pressing health and health care priorities. Published as Vital Directions for Health and Health Care, the products of the initiative provide trusted, nonpartisan, evidence-based analysis of critical issues in health, health care, and biomedical science. The current collection of articles published in Health Affairs builds on the initial Vital Directions series by addressing a set of issues that have a particularly compelling need for attention from the next administration: health costs and financing, early childhood and maternal health, mental health and addiction, better health and health care for older adults, and infectious disease threats. The articles also reflect the current experience with both the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic and the health inequities that have been drawn out sharply by COVID-19, as well as the implications going forward for action.

Vital Directions for Health & Health Care: The North Carolina Experience.

In 2019, the National Academy of Medicine (NAM) turned to the all-important state level to draw insights on the status of health and health care within the context of the NAM Vital Directions for Health and Health Care initiative. The NAM held a two-day symposium in the Research Triangle to bring together various stakeholders to better understand actions that states and localities are taking to achieve-and the barriers they face in pursuing-more affordable, value-driven quality care and health outcomes. The NAM purposefully chose to pivot to the state level with North Carolina given that it has been at the forefront of health care transformation and illustrates the promise but also the challenges facing US health and health care nationally. A 19-member planning committee, cochaired by NAM President Victor Dzau and Secretary Mandy Cohen of the North Carolina Department of Health and Human Services, selected topics that resonate with the state's activities within the context of the Vital Directions framework, ranging from empowering people and connecting care through the integration of social, physical, and behavioral health to payer alignment though the advancement of new payment models (Figure 1). The priorities discussed during the symposium continue to be central to health reform in North Carolina and are further explored in the commentaries in this issue.

Vital Directions for Health and Health Care: Priorities From a National Academy of Medicine Initiative.

Importance: Recent discussion has focused on questions related to the repeal and replacement of portions of the Affordable Care Act (ACA). However, issues central to the future of health and health care in the United States transcend the ACA provisions receiving the greatest attention. Initiatives directed to certain strategic and infrastructure priorities are vital to achieve better health at lower cost. Objectives: To review the most salient health challenges and opportunities facing the United States, to identify practical and achievable priorities essential to health progress, and to present policy initiatives critical to the nation's health and fiscal integrity. Evidence Review: Qualitative synthesis of 19 National Academy of Medicine-commissioned white papers, with supplemental review and analysis of publicly available data and published research findings. Findings: The US health system faces major challenges. Health care costs remain high at $3.2 trillion spent annually, of which an estimated 30% is related to waste, inefficiencies, and excessive prices; health disparities are persistent and worsening; and the health and financial burdens of chronic illness and disability are straining families and communities. Concurrently, promising opportunities and knowledge to achieve change exist. Across the 19 discussion papers examined, 8 crosscutting policy directions were identified as vital to the nation's health and fiscal future, including 4 action priorities and 4 essential infrastructure needs. The action priorities-pay for value, empower people, activate communities, and connect care-recurred across the articles as direct and strategic opportunities to advance a more efficient, equitable, and patient- and community-focused health system. The essential infrastructure needs-measure what matters most, modernize skills, accelerate real-world evidence, and advance science-were the most commonly cited foundational elements to ensure progress. Conclusions and Relevance: The action priorities and essential infrastructure needs represent major opportunities to improve health outcomes and increase efficiency and value in the health system. As the new US administration and Congress chart the future of health and health care for the United States, and as health leaders across the country contemplate future directions for their programs and initiatives, their leadership and strategic investment in these priorities will be essential for achieving significant progress.

IOM and DHHS meeting on making clinical practice guidelines appropriate for patients with multiple chronic conditions.

BACKGROUND: The increasing prevalence of Americans with multiple (2 or more) chronic conditions raises concerns about the appropriateness and applicability of clinical practice guidelines for patient management. Most guidelines clinicians currently rely on have been designed with a single chronic condition in mind, and many such guidelines are inattentive to issues related to comorbidities. PURPOSE: In response to the need for guideline developers to address comorbidities in guidelines, the Department of Health and Human Services convened a meeting in May 2012 in partnership with the Institute of Medicine to identify principles and action options. RESULTS: Eleven principles to improve guidelines' attentiveness to the population with multiple chronic conditions were identified during the meeting. They are grouped into 3 interrelated categories: (1) principles intended to improve the stakeholder technical process for developing guidelines; (2) principles intended to strengthen content of guidelines in terms of multiple chronic conditions; and (3) principles intended to increase focus on patient-centered care. CONCLUSION: This meeting built upon previously recommended actions by identifying additional principles and options for government, guideline developers, and others to use in strengthening the applicability of clinical practice guidelines to the growing population of people with multiple chronic conditions. The suggested principles are helping professional societies to improve guidelines' attentiveness to persons with multiple chronic conditions.

Evidence-based medicine - engineering the Learning Healthcare System.

Whether for the generation or application of evidence to guide healthcare decisions, the success of evidence-based medicine is grounded in principles common to engineering. In the Learning Healthcare System envisioned by the Institute of Medicine's (IOM) Roundtable on Evidence-Based Medicine, evidence emerges as a natural by-product of care delivery, which is thoroughly documented, pooled for continuous monitoring and analysis, integrated with insights from related studies, and fed back seamlessly to improve the consistency and appropriateness of care decisions by clinicians and their patients. Drawing from lessons shared at the IOM/NAE symposium, Engineering a Learning Healthcare System, this paper provides an overview of the state-of-play in health care today, some of its key challenges, the vision and features of a learning healthcare system, applicable commonalties and principles from engineering, and potential collaborative opportunities moving forward to the benefit of both fields.

Can health promotion programs save Medicare money?

The impact of an aging population on escalating US healthcare costs is influenced largely by the prevalence of chronic disease in this population. Consequently, preventing or postponing disease onset among the elderly has become a crucial public health issue. Fortunately, much of the total burden of disease is attributable to conditions that are preventable. In this paper, we address whether well-designed health promotion programs can prevent illness, reduce disability, and improve the quality of life. Furthermore, we assess evidence that these programs have the potential to reduce healthcare utilization and related expenditures for the Medicare program. We hypothesize that seniors who reduce their modifiable health risks can forestall disability, reduce healthcare utilization, and save Medicare money. We end with a discussion of a new Senior Risk Reduction Demonstration, which will be initiated by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services in 2007, to test whether risk reduction programs developed in the private sector can achieve health improvements among seniors and a positive return on investment for the Medicare program.