By David A. Kindig, MD, PhD
I spent some time last week musing about potential blog topics for 2011, which brought me back to the population health model that underpins this blog.
Last year I touched on many parts of this model. I wrote about and offered opinions on the social determinants of health, how savings in healthcare could enhance the population health agenda, and the extent to which health-related behaviors are beyond individual control. I also addressed policy-related topics such as the IRS consideration of Community Benefit policy and whether a cross-sectoral integrator is necessary or possible. I’ll revisit these topics in 2011 but will also cover other important population health issues, such as:
- Which outcome measures are most useful in guiding population health policy?
- How do improvement metrics differ from achievement metrics?
- Will raising average health reduce disparities?
- Are racial health disparities the most important ones?
- Are genetics a modifiable determinant of population health?
- Will climate change increase the importance of the physical determinants of health?
- What is prevention?
- Top down vs. bottom up approaches to population health policy
- Why can’t historical patterns of investment in healthy and unhealthy communities show the optimal path for others?
- What are population health incentives?
- Is there a business model for population health improvement?
- What is the health impact of non-healthcare programs and policies?
I’d love to know what you think of this list and I welcome suggestions for additional topics anytime. This week, I’m hoping for 10 new ideas from readers on questions or issues this blog should address as we head into 2011. Thanks in advance for your contributions!
David A. Kindig, MD, PhD, is Emeritus Professor of Population Health Sciences and Emeritus Vice-Chancellor for Health Sciences at the University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health.
Here's one: How in your view does population health tie in with the other two elements (quality of care, cost-effectiveness) of Berwick's Triple Aim?
Posted by: Jay Gold | 01/05/2011 at 11:06 AM
The Wisconsin state and local government system to deliver public health services has been essentially the same structure for the past 100 years or so. Is this the best model we have or are there improvements that should be made to improve the liklihood of achieving the Healthist Wisconsin 2020 plan? With the change in administration and legislatures now might be a rethink the current governmental system structure.
Posted by: Henry | 01/05/2011 at 12:35 PM
Good topics all - but can't but wonder given the past 22 years whether any policy topic can rise beyond bipartisan politics and the national economics of the haves keeping theirs at the expense of the have-nots. However on a happier note I am in accord with Jay’s comment that continued focus on quality & cost, which is of course the 'value’ question, is likely the only viable way forward. Whether any government body can address value in a evidence-based meaningful way remains the question.
Posted by: Robert Stone Newsom, PhD | 01/05/2011 at 02:15 PM
What are the pros and cons of Accountable Care Organizations and Medical homes relative to population health?
Posted by: Jon Wempner | 01/10/2011 at 06:09 PM