Strategic Alliances In Healthcare

Witnessing the profound impact of social and economic factors on health has reshaped my perspective on healthcare. Our well-being isn't just determined by what happens in clinics but by our access to food, housing, utilities, transportation, and safety. These factors can profoundly influence our lives, especially for those who are marginalized or economically disadvantaged. In the U.S., nearly two-thirds of primary care physicians screen patients for social needs, yet only about a third screen for financial security, a critical concern for many low-income Americans. This gap reveals a significant mismatch between what physicians are looking for and what patients are most worried about. Our current healthcare system is slowly recognizing the importance of addressing these drivers. Providers, payers, and policymakers are taking steps to integrate social and economic needs into clinical care. This includes screening patients for these needs and coordinating with community-based organizations to address them. However, this effort often requires resources that many practices lack, and some argue that addressing non-medical needs falls outside the traditional scope of healthcare. From my perspective, the evidence suggests that meeting these needs can reduce costly healthcare demands and improve outcomes. For example, food insecurity is linked to chronic conditions like diabetes and hypertension, which require ongoing management. By addressing such needs, we can potentially alleviate the burden on emergency and chronic care services. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) have facilitated these efforts by creating pathways to address social needs. Yet, many states, particularly in the Midwest and South, have yet to fully leverage these opportunities. Encouraging more states to participate through simplified application processes and clearer guidance could expand these beneficial programs nationwide., investingIn my work, I've seen the critical need for a healthcare system that addresses more than just clinical symptoms. By focusing on the social determinants of health, we can create a more holistic approach to patient care. This means not only screening for and addressing these needs, investing in community resources, and forming strong partnerships with local organizations. As we move forward, we must continue to advocate for policies and practices that integrate social and medical care. This approach will not only improve individual health outcomes and create a more equitable and efficient healthcare system for all. It's time to rethink how we deliver care in America, ensuring every patient has the support they need to live healthy, fulfilling lives. Read more at: https://buff.ly/4buJ798 #healthcare #hospitals #health #doctors

https://lnkd.in/eHgcP3VV A new paper just added to the WHO BMJ Global Supplement on governing the private sector This paper synthesizes insights from 19 country case studies across the Eastern Mediterranean Region (EMR), examining government-led purchasing of private healthcare and the associated stewardship challenges and opportunities. It reveals a significant rise in private sector engagement, especially in middle-income countries, driven by political will, adaptive policies, and domestic financing. However, challenges abound, including fragmented roles, weak regulation, lack of trust, and insufficient integration with Universal Health Coverage (UHC) strategies. The study highlights widespread aspirations for improved stewardship—such as national private sector engagement (PSE) planning, stronger legal and institutional frameworks, quality assurance mechanisms, and platforms for public-private dialogue. It argues that moving from ad hoc purchasing to strategic purchasing requires investment not only in structural and technical capacities but also in directional and relational approaches. Future research on private sector motivations and behavior under public purchasing arrangements is recommended to inform more effective stewardship in diverse and complex local contexts. Shehla Zaidi Awad Mataria Aya Thabet Hassan Salah, MD, MPH

Your AI strategy will fail if clinicians are not involved from day one. There will be no use for AI if they are not involved. Most organizations tend to miss this key part,  involving key players early on, and it's hurting your adoption rates. From healthcare professionals to patients, administrative staff to tech providers, each stakeholder plays a crucial role in successful implementation. Here's how to engage them effectively: Healthcare Professionals (Doctors, Nurses, Specialists) 1. Engage early in the decision-making process 2. Gather input on practical requirements and potential challenges 3. Involve in pilot programs to assess usability and integration challenges 4. Provide comprehensive training on new technologies Patients 1. Educate about new technologies and their benefits 2. Screen for digital literacy to identify those who may need extra support 3. Choose user-friendly technologies that don't require logins or downloads 4. Explain how new tools will save time or improve health outcomes Administrative Staff 1. Include in needs assessment to identify inefficiencies in workflows 2. Provide training on new systems and processes 3. Gather feedback on technology effectiveness and areas for improvement Technology Providers 1. Involve in stakeholder discussions to understand healthcare-specific needs 2. Collaborate on pilot programs and validation of technologies 3. Ensure technology is effective for healthcare professionals and interoperable with existing healthcare infrastructure 4. Ensure intuitive navigation in healthcare technology systems to facilitate adoption Organizational Leadership 1. Conduct thorough needs assessments to align technology with organizational goals 2. Develop a strategic plan with SMART goals for digital transformation 3. Establish key success metrics to evaluate technology effectiveness 4. Create a common forum for stakeholder discussions Including the different stakeholders can lead to: 1) Shared vision 2) Trust building 3) Addressing (and avoiding) conflicting interest 4) Improved compatibility 5) Ethical considerations What learnings do you have from implementing new technical tools in your organization?

After 12 years and 300+ Digital Health programs, I've found that a Stakeholder Gap is the No. 1 reason Digital Health implementations fail. Let me explain… When Digital Health initiatives fail, it’s often not because the Tech didn’t actually work as intended. Almost always it’s because something failed at the People and Process level, which ultimately means something failed at the People level - because People drive the Process. Now when all your key stakeholders are present and aligned - because purpose and incentives are on the same page - magic happens. Things get done. However, if buy-in from even one key stakeholder ingredient is missing, you get a Stakeholder Gap… and you get failure. I’ve found it helpful to boil Stakeholder Gaps down to three common scenarios, revolving around three key types of Stakeholders: → Clinical champions who bring everyone together and drive the initiative forward → Executive sponsors who secure the funding and resources to support the initiative → Frontline stakeholders who execute day-to-day on the initiative If you miss one of these key Stakeholders… your Digital Health implementation is on the road to failure. Let me show you why… 1️⃣ Clinical champion buy-in + frontline staff buy-in BUT executive sponsor disengaged = Great pilot results, BUT no funding/resources to sustain and scale This happens when a single department implements a Digital Health tool without first getting true leadership buy-in. So they often achieve success on KPIs they picked… but never got alignment with the executives that these would be success metrics that would justify on-going resources. Or even if it turns out they hit the right KPIs, the executive sponsors were unhappy that they were excluded from the initial decision to pilot. 2️⃣ Executive sponsor buy-in + Clinical champion buy-in BUT frontline staff disengaged = Great press release, BUT no actual adoption or results This happens when there is a top-down push to implement Tech, but frontline buy-in beyond a clinical champion was never actually secured. For particularly exuberant leaders, they go ahead and announce the new Tech partnership… but you may never hear about it again. Because they picked a piece of Tech that frontline staff were never bought into either. Often it’s because the Tech looked great on paper, but the vendor lacked real clinical subject matter expertise. 3️⃣ Executive sponsor buy-in + frontline staff buy-in + Clinical champion disengaged = Great start BUT… slowly grinds to a halt The most common reason this happens is when clinical champions leave the organization. So yes the initiative had buy-in from all three groups initially, but lost it when the original Clinical champion was gone - and not enough effort was made to ensure there were other Clinical champions in place. And with no champion to keep driving the bus for the Tech, eventually people may move onto other things. What would you add?

Rethinking Health Service Payment in Emerging Markets Innovative thinking is crucial to determining who foots the bill for healthcare services in emerging markets. Recently, I've examined private sector service delivery models in various South American countries. While there is room for improvement, a common theme in these markets is the higher social health or private health insurance coverage compared to other emerging markets. The models in LAC have helped reduce (not remove) the burden of out-of-pocket expense in some countries. I am not suggesting everything is fine in South America, but countries there are better positioned with core insurance coverage than others. In addition, in some like Brazil there is a move towards a value-centric approach. Fee-for-service thinking is giving way to exploration of better-aligned strategies that deliver value through coordinated access, price-efficiency, and improved service quality. Notably, an increasing number of healthcare providers and payors are seeking collaboration to manage risk more effectively and proactively addressing population health needs. These examples offer invaluable insights for markets grappling with enhancing their social or private insurance penetration. The rise in NCDs demands a comprehensive insurance approach spanning prevention, diagnosis, management, and, ideally, cure. Is there a role for the expanded use of Health Maintenance Organization (HMO) models or closer alliances between insurers and preferred provider networks? These approaches could foster better care coordination and incentivize long-term population risk management for social and private health insurance programs. Promotion and collaboration should be the cornerstones of future efforts to improve insurance coverage (social and private). Those who provide and those who pay for healthcare services must work in tandem. The outdated, siloed models of traditional insurance and healthcare providers need a revamp. Fresh models, supported by the smart use of digitization, are urgently needed. As we confront the reality of NCDs, leveraging data to better assess needs, design cost-effective benefits, and ultimately coordinate care efficiently is the imperative. Social and or private health insurance entities must take the lead in driving this paradigm shift. Simultaneously, public and private healthcare providers must embrace a shift in their legacy thinking to foster better coordination and support a system rooted in innovation. In conclusion, transforming healthcare payment systems in emerging markets calls for visionary approaches that prioritize value, long-term commitment, and collaborative efforts. By evolving beyond traditional models and harnessing the power of digitization, we can navigate the changing disease challenges and build a more efficient and effective healthcare system that truly serves the needs of the population.

#GlobalHealthSaturdays: #PrimaryHealthcare for #UniversalHealthCoverage - ( #PHC for #UHC ) WHO's recent publication "Political economy analysis of primary health care-oriented reforms in Uruguay", provides insights that resonate deeply with Egypt's ongoing journey towards implementing #UniversalHealthInsurance (#UHI). The report highlights how #Uruguay successfully reoriented its #healthsystem to prioritize primary health care, a model that aligns closely with Egypt's approach in our new #UHI system Uruguay's health reforms, initiated in 2005, were driven by a commitment to #UHC, aiming to integrate previously #fragmented public & private health systems. This shift improved healthcare access and equity. The report highlights the importance of embedding PHC principles into the entire health system, focusing on making it more #equitable, #efficient, and #sustainable Egypt's UHI system is designed to ensure that all citizens have access to comprehensive health services, with a strong emphasis on #familyhealthmodels which is similar to Uruguay's commitment to strengthening #PHC as the backbone of its health system Key Insights from Uruguay’s Experience: 1. #PoliticalCommitment & #Leadership: Uruguay's reform success was influenced by strong political will & leadership facilitating necessary #legislative_changes & #resource_allocation required for effective #implementation. In Egypt, similar political commitment is leading UHI implementation 2. #StakeholderEngagement: Engaging various stakeholders (like health providers, patients, and community organizations) in the reform process is essential for #building_consensus & ensuring that the system meets the needs of all citizens. Egypt's UHI also prioritizes stakeholder involvement to address diverse perspectives & enhance #service_delivery 3. #IntegrationofServices: Uruguay's reforms emphasized integrating services across different levels of care improving coordination & continuity of care. In Egypt, similar efforts are exerted to ensure that everyone receives comprehensive care tailored to their specific needs 4. #DataDrivenDecisionMaking: Effective #monitoring_and_evaluation mechanisms were critical in Uruguay's reform journey. Data collection on #health_outcomes & #service_utilization informed #policy_adjustments & resource allocation. Egypt is also establishing robust data systems to track progress within its UHI framework, allowing for #evidencebaseddecisionmaking 5. #SustainableFinancing: Uruguay's financing reforms supported the transition to a PHC-oriented system. Egypt also developed sustainable financing mechanisms to ensure long-term viability of UHI while maintaining high-quality services The insights from this WHO publication provide valuable guidance as we navigate our path towards #UHC. We can enhance our efforts in delivering equitable & comprehensive healthcare by learning from each other & comparing different experiences to our own local efforts. #HealthReform #HealthForAll

New Zealand’s healthcare system faces significant pressure, marked by long wait times, overburdened hospitals, and disparities in access to care. With 39% of New Zealanders waiting more than four months to see specialists, the strain on the system is palpable. Amidst these challenges, community health hubs (CHHs) have emerged as a promising solution, offering the potential to enhance national health outcomes by addressing local needs. CHHs are multi-service centres offering a range of integrated healthcare services, often in collaboration with social and community initiatives. These hubs foster partnerships between healthcare providers, iwi, non-profits, and the government, creating a cohesive ecosystem that reduces fragmentation in healthcare delivery. Additionally, CHHs offer both physical and virtual care, allowing patients to access specialist consultations without the need to travel long distances. The benefits of CHHs are already well-documented internationally, with models in Ireland, Australia, and the UK demonstrating their effectiveness in reducing hospital demand and improving patient outcomes. With overworked hospitals and GP clinics facing significant backlogs, CHHs can help alleviate pressure by providing faster, localised care. By shifting minor procedures, diagnostic services, and routine care from hospitals to hubs, valuable hospital resources can be freed up for more complex cases. The model recognises the broader social determinants of health, such as housing, education, and employment, which can profoundly affect health outcomes. They also present an opportunity to lower healthcare costs. Studies estimate that moving 21,000 minor procedures from hospitals to CHHs could save enough funds to perform 2,400 additional hip replacements. Despite their promise, CHHs will not form organically at scale. Systemic barriers, such as fragmented funding models and limited private sector engagement, have historically slowed the development of health hubs. Government intervention is crucial to providing the seed funding, workforce support, and strategic coordination needed to enable hubs to thrive. Financial sustainability remains a critical hurdle. Many hubs rely on a mix of government funding, grants, and diversified revenue streams to remain viable. Another challenge is workforce capacity. CHHs have the potential to revolutionise healthcare delivery in New Zealand by shifting the focus from overburdened hospitals to locally-driven, holistic care. By responding to the unique needs of local communities, CHHs can address health inequities, improve access to care, and reduce healthcare costs. With the right governmental support and community buy-in, CHHs could be a cornerstone in solving New Zealand’s national healthcare challenges. They are not just a local solution; they are a national imperative. Aceso Health Digital Health Association (DHA) Samantha Ford

Building a Resilient Cancer Care Ecosystem: Andhra Pradesh Roadmap & the 3A Framework Cancer remains a critical public health challenge in India, with early detection and timely treatment being key to improving outcomes. As a contributor to the Andhra Pradesh Comprehensive Cancer Care Roadmap, I have seen how a structured, multi-stakeholder approach can transform cancer care. Our focus has been on prevention, early diagnosis, and equitable treatment access. The ICMR Report on Cancer Care in India highlights key gaps and opportunities: Over 2.1 lakh new cancer cases are reported annually in Uttar Pradesh alone. Limited diagnostic infrastructure in district hospitals and PHCs. Need for trained healthcare workers to improve early detection. ICMR’s initiative to accelerate district-level cancer screening, using ASHAs for home-based screenings. Integration of AI and telemedicine for early diagnosis. Applying the 3A Framework to Strengthen Cancer Care Accessibility: Bringing Care Closer to the People - Establishing district-level cancer centers to reduce patient burden. - Expanding telemedicine and AI-driven diagnostics for rural access. - Training PHC staff and ASHAs for early screening and referrals. Affordability: Ensuring Financial Protection - Leveraging Ayushman Bharat & Aarogyasri for cost coverage. - Strengthening PPPs for affordable treatment & drug subsidies. - Expanding free screening programs for early detection. Accountability: Strengthening Governance & Data-Driven Decision-Making - Implementing real-time cancer registries for better planning. - Conducting periodic impact assessments of care initiatives. - Running public awareness campaigns (anti-tobacco drives, HPV vaccination). The Way Forward The Andhra Pradesh model is creating a frugal yet robust healthcare system, ensuring every citizen has access to quality cancer care. Scaling this approach across India, backed by ICMR’s insights, can significantly improve early intervention, affordability, and accountability.  What are your thoughts on strengthening cancer care infrastructure across India? Let’s collaborate for a stronger, more accessible healthcare system. #CancerCare #PublicHealth #ICMR #HealthcareInnovation #3AFramework #AndhraPradesh #DigitalHealth #iimlucknow #healthcare #ayushmanbharat #healthcareleadership

Finally it is out! Please have a look at this article stemming from an interdisciplinary collaboration between physicians, public health experts and health economists - Sandy Tubeuf valéry ridde Joachim Sturmberg David Bell Lieven Annemans and Garrett W. Brown. We recall that global Health aspires to improve health outcomes and reduce inequities through two main approaches: one focused on health promotion and universal access to primary healthcare, and the other focused on disease control through a selection of cost-effective interventions. The 2024 Lancet Commission on Investing in Health (LCIH) report aims to halve premature deaths by 2050 by addressing 15 priority diseases with modular interventions. We argue that this modular approach is less likely to yield sustainable and equitable outcomes. This paper employs a reflexive, multidisciplinary, and complex adaptive systems approach to examine key concerns and methodological limitations of the “disease control lens” adopted by the 2024 LCIH report. We identify important methodological flaws in the LCIH’s approach – the overlooking of contextual causes and social determinants of health, narrow and biased use of economic evaluation, and inadequate understanding of the functioning of health systems – and propose alternatives. By prioritising discrete interventions and cost-effectiveness metrics, the LCIH risks reinforcing a fragmented, disease-specific perspective, yielding short-term gains while failing to address the underlying vulnerabilities, comorbidities, and social determinants that shape health outcomes. This approach persists not because it is more effective, but because it is more politically tractable in a system that values countable outputs over transformative change. As a conclusions, we advocate for reaching global health goals through a systemic and holistic approach, integrating intersectoral policies and health promotion to improve overall health and strengthen health systems based on community needs and local prioritisation exercises. As for official development assistance, it should focus on provision of direct financial and technical support to countries with the least resources to support domestic needs analysis, priority setting exercises and strengthening of social and primary health systems. https://lnkd.in/eGc-_54R