What Does the State Innovation Model Experiment Tell Us About States' Capacity to Implement Complex Health Reforms?

Policy Points To make progress implementing payment and delivery system reforms, state governments need to make genuine stakeholder engagement routine business, develop reforms that build on past successes, and ensure health reform is a top priority for bureaucrats and political leaders. To support state-led reform initiatives, the federal government needs to provide financial support directly to state governments; build bureaucratic capability in supporting state officials with policy design and implementation; develop more flexible, outcome-focused funding programs; reform its own programs, particularly Medicare; and commit to a long-term strategy for progressing payment and delivery system reforms.

CONTEXT

For decades, Americans have debated whether the states need federal government support to reform health care. The Affordable Care Act has allowed the federal government to trial innovative ways of accelerating state-led reform initiatives through the State Innovation Model (SIM), which was run by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Innovation Center between 2013 and 2019. This study assesses states' progress implementing health reforms under SIM and examines how well the federal government supported them.

METHODS

Detailed case studies were conducted in six states: Arkansas, Connecticut, Oregon, New York, Tennessee, and Washington. Data was collected from SIM evaluation and annual reports and through semistructured interviews with 39 expert informants, mostly state or federal officials involved in SIM. Preliminary findings were tested and refined through an online forum with health policy experts, facilitated by the Milbank Memorial Fund.

FINDINGS

States that made the most progress implementing reforms had a strong track record and managed to sustain stakeholder, bureaucratic, and political support for their reform agenda. There was a clear correlation between past reform success and success under SIM, which raises questions about the value of federal government support beyond providing funding. State officials said the federal government could better support states, particularly those with less reform experience, by providing tailored advice that helped state officials overcome problems designing and implementing reforms. State officials also said the federal government could better support them by reforming their own programs, particularly Medicare, and committing to a long-term strategy for health system reform.

CONCLUSIONS

States can make some progress reforming health care on their own, but real progress requires long-term cooperation between state and federal governments. Federal initiatives like SIM that foster cooperation between governments should be continued but refined so they provide better support to states.

A purple patch for evidence-based health policy?

The global focus on nation states' responses to the COVID-19 pandemic has rightly highlighted the importance of science and evidence as the basis for policy action. Those with a lifelong passion for evidence-based policy (EBP) have lauded Australia's and other nations' policy responses to COVID-19 as a breakthrough moment for the cause. This article reflects on the complexity of the public policy process, the perspectives of its various actors, and draws on Alford's work on the Blue, Red and Purple zones to propose a more nuanced approach to advocacy for EBP in health. We contend that the pathway for translation of research evidence into routine clinical practice is relatively linear, in contrast to the more complex course for translation of evidence to public policy - much to the frustration of health researchers and EBP advocates. Cairney's description of the characteristics of successful policy entrepreneurs offers useful guidance to advance EBP and we conclude with proposing some practical mechanisms to support it. Finally, we recommend that researchers and policy makers spend more time in the Purple zone to enable a deeper understanding of, and mutual respect for, the unique contributions made by research, policy and political actors to sound public policy.

Reforming Australia's health system, again

In this article, I examine all the attempts to reform Australia's health insurance system since Medibank was introduced in 1975; there have been seven, and the eighth (which goes beyond just health insurance) is now in progress. I argue that the Rudd Labor government should take heed of history's lessons and reduce the pressure for ongoing structural reform. The lessons of history suggest that tipping the balance too far in favour of public or private insurance is not sustainable, and nor is setting the two schemes up in competition with each other. The challenge that faces the Australian Government now is to design a health system that integrates the public and private insurance schemes in a way that is economically sustainable. If it does not, major structural reforms to the health system will be needed again in the near future.

Australian Government health advisory groups and health policy: seeking a horse, finding a camel

Since its election, the Rudd Labor Government has created 10 new advisory bodies in the health portfolio, in addition to the 100 or more that were already established. An expansive and devolved advisory system could improve the health policy-making process, but only if it is integrated into the processes of government. We outline eight simple and practical measures that, if implemented, would make Australia's health advisory system more transparent and effective. Past experience shows that the most important factor governing the impact of health policy advisory bodies is political leadership.

The health system: what should our priorities be?

ISSUE ADDRESSED

The way the health system is organised is a critically important social determinant of health. Australia's current health system funding arrangements contain serious barriers to effective health promotion and chronic disease management. The consequences are most evident among disadvantaged people. Major health system reform is needed in Australia to rectify this problem.

METHODS

This paper describes current mechanisms for funding health care in Australia and examines a recent reform experiment, the Co-ordinated Care Trials. It discusses why the trials were unsuccessful and identifies key criteria for future success. Three existing proposals for health system reform are assessed against these criteria - managed competition, a Commonwealth takeover of health and medical saving accounts.

RESULTS

Successful reform of Australia's health system will need to ensure that more flexible services are delivered, changes are made on a large scale to affect demand and strong incentives to use cost-effective services are put in place. Of the models considered, managed competition best meets these criteria and is most likely to reduce health disparities and improve health promotion and disease prevention. A Commonwealth takeover of health funding is a less ambitious alternative but because of this, it is also likely to have less impact. It is doubtful whether medical savings accounts meet any of the criteria for success and they would also require a fundamental change in the values that underpin the Austrlian health system.

CONCLUSION

Recent reforms of Australia's health system have been too small and have had little impact. Although radical reform of the health system is politically unpalatable and extremely rare, it may be the only way Australia will be able to meet the health challenges of the 21st Century.

Managing chronic obstructive pulmonary disease in the community. A randomized controlled trial of home-based pulmonary rehabilitation for elderly housebound patients

PURPOSE

Pulmonary rehabilitation is essential for managing chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Housebound COPD patients are frequently excluded from this treatment because they are unable to access outpatient pulmonary rehabilitation programs because of the severity of their disease. This randomized controlled trial assesses the effects of a 12-week home-based pulmonary rehabilitation program for 60 housebound COPD patients older than 60 years.

METHODS

Intervention patients received an individually tailored supervised walking and arm exercise program as well as individual multidisciplinary education sessions on COPD and its management. Outcomes were assessed using the 6-minute walk test, St George's respiratory questionnaire, and Borg score of perceived breathlessness. Healthcare utilization was assessed using hospital admission rates with exacerbation of COPD and average length of stay at readmission.

RESULTS

Complete data for 23 patients in each group were available for analysis. There was no significant difference between groups on baseline measures. Compared with the control group, intervention patients demonstrated a significant improvement in 6-minute walk test (P = .023), Borg score of perceived breathlessness (P = .024), St George's respiratory questionnaire total score (P = .020), and impact subscore (P = .024). At 6 months, the intervention group had a significantly shorter average length of stay at readmission to hospital with exacerbation (P = .035).

CONCLUSION

A 12-week home-based pulmonary rehabilitation is effective in improving exercise tolerance, perception of breathlessness, and quality of life for housebound COPD patients. To manage COPD in the community more effectively, health services should focus on expanding home-based pulmonary rehabilitation.