To receive our monthly eNews as well as event notices and other updates, just enter your email address.
Nicholas Stine, MD, and Dave Chokshi, MD, MSc, writing on behalf of the New York Academy of Medicine Primary Care and Population Health Working Group.
The New York Academy of Medicine is the National Program Office for the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation Health & Society Scholars program, which works to reduce population health disparities and improve the health of all Americans. The New York Academy recently conducted a survey of 17 thought leaders* in primary care and population health. In the first of five blog posts, we share a synthesis of what those leaders had to say. All quotes are printed with permission.
Defining Population Health: Many discussants cited the definition of population health developed by David Kindig, MD, PhD, as a reference point: “health outcomes of a group of individuals, including the distribution of such outcomes within the group.” Regardless of specific vantage point, there was a generally shared sentiment that population health should be thought of broadly and in common terms by a range of clinical and non-clinical stakeholders.
More discussants described a baseline framework of a clinical delivery system oriented around patients in a practice, in contrast with a public health system oriented around geographic communities. A more clinical, or “population medicine,” perspective often centered around evidence-based interventions and disease management categories so as to triage and allocate health care resources in a cost-effective manner.
“There is an intentionality to what goes into managing patients,” said Henry Chung, “including stratification, determining out-of-office needs, and organizing into panels of patients that meet certain criteria… We're thinking about them in terms of clusters where we have strong evidence based guideline for managing these chronic illnesses.”
Those more engaged in public health were more likely to start with the geographic population and move inwards to interventions, focused on broad notions of determinants of health and incorporating interventions from clinical care to social services and environmental interventions.
Glen Mays, PhD, stressed the importance of thinking of population health “as more than just the aggregate of individual health status,” incorporating elements that relate to characteristics of the community itself, such as the healthiness of the food environment and the physical environment.
Karen DeSalvo, MD, pointed to the importance of measurement in fulfilling this aim. For example, one could ensure that participants in social programs like WIC (Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children) are integrated with more traditional health care programs—via health information exchange—thereby broadening the population of “ever-touched” patients.
Jim Hester, PhD, from his position at the Innovation Center, a part of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, sought to bridge the clinical and public health divide by describing the Health 1.0-2.0-3.0 framework, developed by Neal Halfon, MD, MPH, with 1.0 representing acute clinical care, 2.0 representing coordinated care for chronic illnesses, and 3.0 representing interventions addressing the root causes of disease.
Visit the RWJF Human Capital Blog next week for Part Two in this series, which will look at challenges in the urban context. Subsequent blog posts will report on local and state health department collaboration; the role of primary care and clinical incentives in improving population health; and institutions that are positioned to address social determinants of health.
*The 17 leaders interviewed for this survey were:
John Auerbach, Institute on Urban Health Research, Northeastern University
Tom Bodenheimer, Department of Family and Community Medicine, University of California-San Francisco Henry Chung, Montefiore Medical Center
Karen DeSalvo, Health Commissioner, City of New Orleans
Allen Dobson, Community Care of North Carolina
David Fleming, Director and Health Officer for Public Health, Seattle
Gary Gunderson, Methodist Healthcare (Memphis) and Congregational Health Network
Jim Hester, Innovation Center, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services
David Kindig, University of Wisconsin Department of Population Health
Bob Lawrence, Center for a Livable Future, Johns Hopkins University
John Lumpkin, Robert Wood Johnson Foundation
Glen Mays, University of Kentucky College of Public Health
Lloyd Michener, Duke University Medical Center
Arnold Milstein, Pacific Business Group on Health
Ram Raju, Cook County Health and Hospitals System
David Stevens, National Association of Community Health Centers
Steven Teutsch, Los Angeles County Department of Health
Director of Marketing & Communications
The New York Academy of Medicine
1216 Fifth Avenue
New York, NY 10029
Reporters: to arrange interviews with NYAM medical and urban health experts, contact
Gina Ravosa, Director of Marketing & Communications
(212) 822-7285 / firstname.lastname@example.org
Drawing on the lessons of Superstorm Sandy, a new report from The New York Academy of Medicine (NYAM), “Resilient Communities: Empowering Older Adults in Disasters and Daily Life,” presents an innovative set of recommendations to strengthen and connect formal and informal support systems to keep older adults safe during future disasters.
A new issue brief from NYAM, “Achieving the Triple Aim in New York State: the Potential Role of Hospital Community Benefit,” is the first in a series related to promoting a better understanding of Community Benefit in New York State and how it can advance population health.
NYAM commissioned an analysis of hospital community benefit investments by New York State hospitals. The new issue brief analyzes the reported expenditures of NYS hospitals in the categories of the IRS Schedule H report.
Read press release