The role of payment and financing in achieving health equity

Objective

The aim was to identify healthcare payment and financing reforms to promote health equity and ways that the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) may promote those reforms.

Data Sources and Study Setting

AHRQ convened a payment and financing workgroup–the authors of this paper–as part of its Health Equity Summit held in July 2022. This workgroup drew from its collective experience with healthcare payment and financing reform, as well as feedback from participants in a session at the Health Equity Summit, to identify the evidence base and promising paths for reforms to promote health equity.

Study Design

The payment and financing workgroup developed an outline of reforms to promote health equity, presented the outline to participants in the payment and financing session of the July 2022 AHRQ Health Equity Summit, and integrated feedback from the participants.

Data Collection/Extraction Methods

This paper did not require novel data collection; the authors collected the data from the existing evidence base.

Principal Findings

The paper outlines root causes of health inequity and corresponding potential reforms in five domains: (1) the differential distribution of resources between healthcare providers serving different communities, (2) scarcity of financing for populations most in need, (3) lack of integration/accountability, (4) patient cost barriers to care, and (5) bias in provider behavior and diagnostic tools.

Conclusions

Additional research is necessary to determine whether the proposed reforms are effective in promoting health equity.     

Meralgia paraesthetica als Lagerungsschaden

Die Anaesthesiologie - Als Meralgia paraesthetica (MP) bezeichnet man eine zu den neurologischen Engpasssyndromen zählende Schädigung des aus dem Plexus lumbalis entspringenden sensiblen...     

Evidence-based strategies to reduce the incidence of postoperative delirium: a narrative review

Delirium is one of the most commonly occurring postoperative complications in older adults. It occurs due to the vulnerability of cerebral functioning to pathophysiological stressors. Identification of those at increased risk of developing delirium early in the surgical pathway provides an opportunity for modification of predisposing and precipitating risk factors and effective shared decision-making. No single delirium prediction tool is used widely in surgical settings. Multi-component interventions to prevent delirium involve structured risk factor modification supported by geriatrician input; these are clinically efficacious and cost effective. Barriers to the widespread implementation of such complex interventions exist, resulting in an ‘implementation gap’. There is a lack of evidence for pharmacological prophylaxis for the prevention of delirium. Current evidence suggests that avoidance of peri-operative benzodiazepines, careful titration of anaesthetic depth guided by processed electroencephalogram monitoring and treatment of pain are the most effective strategies to minimise the risk of delirium. Addressing postoperative delirium requires a collaborative, whole pathway approach, beginning with the early identification of those patients who are at risk. The research agenda should continue to examine the potential for pharmacological prophylaxis to prevent delirium while also addressing how successful models of delirium prevention can be translated from one setting to another, underpinned by implementation science methodology.     

A systematic review of the methodological quality of economic evaluations in genetic screening and testing for monogenic disorders

PurposeUnderstanding the value of genetic screening and testing for monogenic disorders requires high-quality, methodologically robust economic evaluations. This systematic review sought to assess the methodological quality among such studies and examined opportunities for improvement.MethodsWe searched PubMed, Cochrane, Embase, and Web of Science for economic evaluations of genetic screening/testing (2013-2019). Methodological rigor and adherence to best practices were systematically assessed using the British Medical Journal checklist.ResultsAcross the 47 identified studies, there were substantial variations in modeling approaches, reporting detail, and sophistication. Models ranged from simple decision trees to individual-level microsimulations that compared between 2 and >20 alternative interventions. Many studies failed to report sufficient detail to enable replication or did not justify modeling assumptions, especially for costing methods and utility values. Meta-analyses, systematic reviews, or calibration were rarely used to derive parameter estimates. Nearly all studies conducted some sensitivity analysis, and more sophisticated studies implemented probabilistic sensitivity/uncertainty analysis, threshold analysis, and value of information analysis.ConclusionWe describe a heterogeneous body of work and present recommendations and exemplar studies across the methodological domains of (1) perspective, scope, and parameter selection; (2) use of uncertainty/sensitivity analyses; and (3) reporting transparency for improvement in the economic evaluation of genetic screening/testing.