Abstract

Implementation science is a quickly growing discipline. Lessons learned from business and medical settings are being applied but it is unclear how well they translate to settings with different historical origins and customs (e.g., public mental health, social service, alcohol/drug sectors). The purpose of this paper is to propose a multi-level, four phase model of the implementation process (i.e., Exploration, Adoption/Preparation, Implementation, Sustainment), derived from extant literature, and apply it to public sector services. We highlight features of the model likely to be particularly important in each phase, while considering the outer and inner contexts (i.e., levels) of public sector service systems.

Background: The potential to save money within a short time frame provides a more compelling "business case" for quality improvement than merely demonstrating cost-effectiveness. Our objective was to demonstrate the potential for cost savings from improved control in patients anticoagulated for atrial fibrillation.

Methods and Results: Our population consisted of 67 077 Veterans Health Administration patients anticoagulated for atrial fibrillation between October 1, 2006, and September 30, 2008. We simulated the number of adverse events and their associated costs and utilities, both before and after various degrees of improvement in percent time in therapeutic range (TTR). The simulation had a 2-year time horizon, and costs were calculated from the perspective of the payer. In the base-case analysis, improving TTR by 5% prevented 1114 adverse events, including 662 deaths; it gained 863 quality-adjusted life-years and saved $15.9 million compared with the status quo, not accounting for the cost of the quality improvement program. Improving TTR by 10% prevented 2087 events, gained 1606 quality-adjusted life-years, and saved $29.7 million. In sensitivity analyses, costs were most sensitive to the estimated risk of stroke and the expected stroke reduction from improved TTR. Utilities were most sensitive to the estimated risk of death and the expected mortality benefit from improved TTR.

Conclusions: A quality improvement program to improve anticoagulation control probably would be cost-saving for the payer, even if it were only modestly effective in improving control and even without considering the value of improved health. This study demonstrates how to make a business case for a quality improvement initiative

Taiwan's Koo Foundation Sun Yat-Sen Cancer Center has developed an integrated, team-based care delivery model for breast cancer care that is being expanded to other cancer types in 2009. A decade earlier, President and CEO Dr. Andrew Huang and the Center had worked with the Taiwan National Health Insurance system to create a pay-for-performance reimbursement program for breast cancer care that has since been adopted by five other providers. The program issues capitated, per patient base payments for breast cancer care, with bonus payments based upon provider reporting and performance on a set of quality measures. This case allows readers to examine health care provider strategy, development and implementation of bundled reimbursement, integrated care delivery, quality measurement, and Taiwan's universal health care system.

The coverage, cost, and quality problems of the U.S. health care system are evident. Sustainable health care reform must go beyond financing expanded access to care to substantially changing the organization and delivery of care. The FRESH-Thinking Project held a series of workshops during which physicians, health policy experts, health insurance executives, business leaders, hospital administrators, economists, and others who represent diverse perspectives came together. This group agreed that the following 8 recommendations are fundamental to successful reform:

1. Replace the current fee-for-service payment system with a payment system that encourages and rewards innovation in the efficient delivery of quality care. The new payment system should invest in the development of outcome measures to guide payment.
2. Establish a securely funded, independent agency to sponsor and evaluate research on the comparative effectiveness of drugs, devices, and other medical interventions.
3. Simplify and rationalize federal and state laws and regulations to facilitate organizational innovation, support care coordination, and streamline financial and administrative functions.
4. Develop a health information technology infrastructure with national standards of interoperability to promote data exchange.
5. Create a national health database with the participation of all payers, delivery systems, and others who own health care data. Agree on methods to make deidentified information from this database on clinical interventions, patient outcomes, and costs available to researchers.
6. Identify revenue sources, including a cap on the tax exclusion of employer-based health insurance, to subsidize health care coverage with the goal of insuring all Americans.
7. Create state or regional insurance exchanges to pool risk, so that Americans without access to employer-based or other group insurance could obtain a standard benefits package through these exchanges. Employers should also be allowed to participate in these exchanges for their employees' coverage.
8. Create a health coverage board with broad stakeholder representation to determine and periodically update the affordable standard benefit package available through state or regional insurance exchanges.