« Is There Synergy in Community Development Financing and Population Health? | Main | Berwick is Gone: The Collision of Candor and Politics »



Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Thank you for the brief history and evolution of the Triple Aim with regards to population health - clarifies and offers great promise. It offers a good model for broader and more collaborative interpretation of how hospital community benefits activities could evolve under the new regulations.

Interesting approach and glad to see they have the critical element of “funders” in the list. The question as always remains: who are these funders? Whose pocketbook (profits, wages, income) must ultimately be reduced for such population health improvement to occur? All available evidence strongly supports the supposition that neither providers nor private sector insurers have any incentive to reducing their own income and profits for such ‘public good’ funding. Consequently increased taxation is likely the only sustainable approach. However, recent history has demonstrated both the 1% and 99%’s inability and / or unwillingness to meaningfully address the moral hazard inherent in our current healthcare ‘market’ models. In healthcare markets rational self-interest may guarantee that population health continues to be the victim of the tragedy of the commons.

At the end of the Clinton administration wuch a program was funded to provide $1M /year for 5 years to support the development of a small group of communities to develop such systems linking all important sectors. Lessons were learned and a continuing organization called Communites Joined in Acgtion continue that mission struggliing without the necessary support to achieve the spreading of the best results. That passion existsa right now in this country. Tap into it!

The comments to this entry are closed.

Recent Posts