Presentation on theme: "Linking Community Development & Health Susan Dentzer Editor-in-Chief."— Presentation transcript:
Linking Community Development & Health Susan Dentzer Editor-in-Chief
Health Affairs thanks For its generous support of the November 2011 issue and briefing
Elaine Bratic Arkin Robert Wood Johnson Foundation Opening Remarks
Forging New Connections Between Community Development and Health How the Health and Community Development Sectors are Combining to Improve Health and Well-Being Sandy Braunstein Federal Reserve Board of Governors
We Are Working Side By Side Source: Los Angeles County Department of Public Health
Overlapping Geographies And Overlapping Goals Leading cause of premature death is not access to health care, it is rooted in social, environmental and behavior risks, which are often influenced by the community in which you live. Community developers focused on improving neighborhoods that struggle with poverty, overcrowded housing, and high unemployment. Public health focused on combating poor health outcomes, including high rates of obesity, asthma, and chronic disease Both sectors are focused on the same communities, often the same people, and the problems they both address are interrelated.
How To Collaborate? Started a series of conferences at Federal Reserve Banks across the country – DC, LA, Boston, New York, Houston – on how community development can work with the health sector to attack negative social determinants of health. Highlight good local examples of collaborations like in Seattle, where public health and housing leaders reduce exposure to allergens in low-income homes that can cause asthma in children. Promote new national initiatives that combine both sectors: Healthy Food Financing Initiative, HHS and HUD’s Choice Neighborhoods program, new Federally Qualified Health Clinics as community anchors not just medical exam rooms.
What’s Next? Build the infrastructure to help foster collaboration Data and measurement, capital, policy Build the “business case” for collaboration: bend the cost curve. Research and share the lessons learned from collaboration underway.
Conclusion If leaders in the community development and public health sectors can grasp this moment in time to capture the imagination of visionaries, and bring expertise and considerable resources to bear in order to align their efforts, both can be rewarded by moving closer to our common goal of an America where every individual has the opportunity to live a long and fulfilling life.
David J. Erickson Center for Community Development Investments, Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco Partnerships Among Community Development, Public Health, And Health Care Could Improve The Well-Being Of Low-Income People
Despite Obstacles, Considerable Potential Exists For More Robust Federal Policy On Community Development And Health Mariana Arcaya, Harvard School of Public Health/Federal Reserve Bank of Boston Xavier de Souza Briggs, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Paper Aims 1.Where is community development best positioned to shape health outcomes? 2.A window of opportunity at the federal level 3.Challenges to reform 4.Strategies and tools for progress
Improving Living Conditions Structural determinants of health Exposure to health risk factors Vulnerability to health risk factors Mitigation or exacerbation of health consequences Policy Targeted funding Knowledge generation and assessment
A Window Of Opportunity New federal “place-based” policy – First ever White House Office of Urban Affairs and Office of Rural Affairs – Developing effective place-based policy: community health and access to opportunity – Beyond need indicators: regionalism and coordinated federal spending Implementation of the Affordable Care Act
Challenges To Reform Fragmented jurisdictions of the congressional committee system Budget scoring rules Deficit-oriented oversight “Wrong pocket problem” Limited incentives for progress unless : Spending and savings accrue to a single agency Initiative under the jurisdiction of a single committee Evidence of probable impact is very strong.
Tools And Strategies Policy advocacy coalitions – Robert Wood Johnson Foundation and the Federal Reserve System Systems of innovation – Test new models, refine approaches, scale what works, terminate what does not – Health impact assessment methodology
Thank you. Mariana Arcaya Harvard School of Public Health Federal Reserve Bank of Boston Metropolitan Area Planning Council email@example.com Xavier de Souza Briggs Massachusetts Institute of Technology Xbriggs@mit.edu
Douglas Jutte University of California, Berkeley, School of Public Health Bringing Researchers And Community Developers Together To Revitalize A Public Housing Project And Improve Health
Community Health Centers And Community Development Finance Institutions: Joining Forces For Healthy Communities Ronda Kotelchuck, CEO Primary Care Development Corporation (PCDC)
CHCs, CDFIs Share Similar Origins, Missions And Evolution Community Health Centers Origins in War on Poverty/OEO Provide affordable, comprehensive primary and preventive care to low income communities $11B industry: 1,200 CHCs operating 8,000 sites, employing 200,000 people, serving 23M low income Americans Governed by consumer- dominated boards Overseen by HRSA/US Dept. of Health and Human Services Community Development Financial Institutions Origins in War on Poverty/OEO Provide affordable financing and TA to sustainable projects in low- income communities Over $23 billion in assets: 1,000 CDFIs spread across all states and territories. Typically invest in housing, community facilities, day care, charter schools, small businesses Accountable to target markets Overseen by CDFI Fund/ US Treasury
CHCs Play Three Important Roles In Community Development 1.Primary care is a crucial support for community revitalization 2.CHCs are businesses generating community jobs and secondary spending 3.CHCs are agents in addressing the social determinants of health
The Health Care Paradigm Is Changing Healthy Communities (Nutrition, prevention, physical fitness, healthy living, environment) Community Resources (Supportive housing, social services, eligibility programs, etc.) Medical Neighborhood (Specialists, ER, Inpatient, LTC + Behavioral Health) Medical Home (Primary Care)
Interest In CHCs Is Growing Among CDFIs Two CDFIs historically involved: NCB Capital Impact, Primary Care Development Corporation (PCDC) with partners including JPMorgan Chase, Citibank, Bank of America and HSBC. New CDFI interest: – CDFIs see a new market emerging: CHCs are sustainable businesses and healthcare models. – CHCs need affordable capital, especially to take advantage of federal CHC expansion initiatives ($1.5B of capital appropriated to double CHC capacity; $60B of capital need estimated) New CDFI initiatives
What Needs To Happen? Awareness and collaboration at all levels: – Community: Individual CHCs, CDFIs – Region: Primary Care Associations, CDFI Coalitions – National: National Association of CHCs, Opportunity Finance Network – Governmental: DHHS and Treasury Cross exposure and training: – CHCs – In the use of credit – CDFIs – In the CHC business model, operations Joint policy interests: – CHC and CDFI program funding, expansion – Health care payment reform Research for policy, strategy, action: What are the… – Most important factors in CHC and CDFI growth, effectiveness, sustainability? – Most powerful social determinants? – Most effective interventions?
New Community Health, Food Service And Environmental Protection Workers Could Boost Health, Jobs and Economic Growth Nicholas Freudenberg, DrPH; Emma Tsui, PhD City University of New York School of Public Health For more: firstname.lastname@example.org
Proposal: Creating Entry-level Jobs That Promote Health Community health workers Environmental remediation and protection workers Food service workers
Jobs That Promote Health And Development Exist in sectors expected to grow in next decade Offer long term potential to save public money Help to reorient health care system towards prevention and the control of chronic diseases Should offer living wages, benefits and career ladders
Barriers Limited evaluation and cost-benefit studies Private sector opposition Austerity mentality Need for upgraded jobs with adequate wages Windows Of Opportunity Dire jobs crisis Existing funding streams Need to reduce cost of health care Need to align food and health policies
Neighborhood Characteristics And Access To Patient-centered Medical Homes For Children Jaya Aysola, MD, MPH E. John Orav, PhD John Z. Ayanian, MD, MPP Harvard Medical School Brigham and Women’s Hospital
Why Do We Care? Policy efforts to expand Patient- Centered Medical Homes – High quality primary care model Significant disparities in access to medical homes exist Factors contributing to these disparities are not well established – Social determinants may play a role
Study Aim Examine the relationship between: – Neighborhood characteristics: cohesion, safety, physical environment AND – Whether children receive care from a patient-centered medical home – Nationally representative survey of parents/guardians of children (n=91,642)
What We Found 93% had access to both a personal provider and usual source of care Only 58% had access to a medical home – Children more likely to have access: Non-Hispanic whites Higher income households Privately Insured
Place Matters For Medical Home Access Medical Home Access* (%) *Rates shown are after adjustment for several socioeconomic and demographic variables. P<0.001
Neighborhood Characteristics Stronger predictors for medical home access than income or race – Reduced income disparity by half Not associated with access to a primary care provider Associated with patient or family centered care
If You Build It, Will They Come? Community engagement key for expansion of medical homes Practice models should: – Expand care teams to include community health workers – Form community partnerships with trusted community entities – Identify ways to build collaborative relationships between providers and patients/families
Acknowledgements Shimon Shaykevich, MS Ichiro Kawachi, MD, PhD
Uwe Reinhardt Princeton University An All-Payer System: Solution For The Alleged Cost-Shift
Variations In Medicare Payments For Surgery Highlight Opportunities And Challenges For Bundled Payment Programs David C. Miller, MD, MPH Assistant Professor Department of Urology Center for Healthcare Outcomes & Policy University of Michigan
Bundled Payments For Inpatient Surgery Surgery represents a large component of national health care spending CMS and other payers are considering bundled payments for inpatient surgery – Lump sum payment to hospitals, physicians, and other providers – Aimed at improving care coordination and reducing duplicative or unnecessary services Implications of bundled payments depend on extent of true variation in current payments (payers) and patterns of variation across procedures and specialties (hospitals)
Effects Of Price- And Case Mix Adjustment On Variations In Medicare Payments For Surgery CABG1 st Quintile5 th QuintileDifference Actual$34,143$57,976$23,833 (69.8%) Price Adjusted$38,083$47,863$9,780 (25.7%) Case mix & Price Adjusted $39,155$46,590$7,435 (19.0%) Hip Replacement1st Quintile5th QuintileDifference Actual$15,997$27,676$11,679 (73.0%) Price Adjusted$17,524$24,963$7,439 (42.5%) Case mix & Price Adjusted $17,784$24,693$6,909 (38.9%) Miller et al, Health Affairs, Nov 2011
Source Of Payment Variation Depends On The Procedure Miller et al, Health Affairs, Nov 2011 % Variation in total Medicare episode payments
Correlations In Medicare Payments For Surgery Vary Across Procedures And Specialties Miller et al, Health Affairs, Nov 2011
Implications For Bundled Payments Wide variation in payments imply opportunities for substantial savings for CMS and other payers – Depends on where payers set the payment rate and on the procedures and services included in the “bundle” Probably important to include post-discharge care in the lump sum payment Bundled payments could prove to be a financial “wash” for many hospitals – Hospitals expensive for multiple procedures (up to 30% in our analyses) will have strong incentives to reduce costs
Peter Hussey RAND Corporation Kicking The Tires: Evaluating The Road Test Of PROMETHEUS Payment
John Sheils The Lewin Group Is The Mandate Really The “Linch Pin” To The ACA?
Without The Individual Mandate, The Affordable Care Act Would Still Cover 23 Million; Premiums Would Rise Less Than Predicted John Sheils Randall Haught
Exhibit 1: Individual Coverage Under The Affordable Care Act With And Without The Individual Mandate Exchange Status Affordable Care Act as Written Affordable Care Act without the Mandate Number of people (millions) Benefits cost per person Number of people (millions) Benefits cost per person Selection factor a In exchange, with subsidy22.1$3,83820.8$4,1357.7% In exchange, no subsidy4.0$4,4942.3$6,06034.9% Out of exchange, no subsidy4.6$2,4783.0$3,12626.2% Total or average30.7$3,72126.2$4,18912.6% SOURCE Lewin Group estimates. NOTE Numbers may not sum to totals because of rounding. a The percentages are equal to average costs for covered people under the Affordable Care Act (ACA) without the mandate over average costs under the Affordable Care Act as with the mandate.
Exhibit 2: Coverage Under The Affordable Care Act, With And Without The Individual Mandate And Penalty Primary Source of Coverage Number of People (millions) Coverage before the act Coverage under the act as written Coverage under the act without the mandate Employer 152.2149.8147.7 Nongroup 12.030.726.2 Medicaid or CHIP a 45.259.858.6 Medicare, TRICARE, or other b 47.1 No insurance 51.620.728.5 Total 308.1 SOURCE Lewin Group estimates. NOTES These estimates assume the act is fully implemented in 2011. CHIP is the Children’s Health Insurance Plan. TRICARE is the health care program serving Uniformed Service members, retirees and their families. a Does not include those eligible for both Medicaid and Medicare. b Other includes the Indian Health Service or any other state or local sources of coverage.
Exhibit 3: Coverage Loss And Premium Increases Under The Affordable Care Act Without The Individual Mandate And Penalty Source of Estimate Loss of coverage (millions of people)Premium increases Congressional Budget Office16.015.0–20.0% Gruber24.027.0% Urban Institute17.73.5% The Lewin Group7.8 (6.0 - 9.3)12.6% (6.6%-18.0%) SOURCES: Congressional Budget Office, Note 4 in text; Gruber, Note 5 in text; The Lewin Group, The Lewin Group estimates. NOTE These estimates are compared to the Affordable Care Act as written.
Projecting Medicaid Enrollment, Costs, And Workforce Needs Under Health Reform: Uncertainty Behind The Numbers Katherine Swartz Harvard University School of Public Health
Health Affairs thanks For its generous support of the November 2011 issue and briefing