Are Population Health Initiatives Doomed to Fail?

In the world of medicine, population health is a hot topic. This is especially true in primary care. Our longitudinal relationships with people over years (at least in theory) and interest in prevention make us a logical starting point.

However, as I have said before, our healthcare system encourages increasing specialization, fragmenting of care, prioritizing acute problems over root causes, and increasingly using customer satisfaction as a metric.

As a result, it is particularly poorly constructed to address population health.

Medicine

Definition: The science and art dealing with the maintenance of health and the prevention, alleviation, or cure of disease.

The science and art of medicine does not trace its roots back to basic scientific inquiry, but rather to the universal role in human societies of the Healer. We have always been Healers first, scientists second.

Medicine incorporated science to improve our healing abilities. We did not come out of the lab and decide to start healing because our science gave us that ability.

Healing has always been an individualized art.

The first step in the treating a patient is to ask personalized, individual questions. This is quickly followed by the laying of hands. It is a deeply individual and personal ritual.

Physicians are not public health workers (though some do get involved). No one trained us to treat whole communities or groups of patients with a certain diagnosis or condition. We treat individuals.

This is an inherently different task than improving the health of communities.

Population Health

Definition: The health outcomes of a group of individuals, including the distribution of such outcomes within the group.

Intensive, individualized therapies are unlikely to be effective at addressing population-wide problems. These problems require population-wide treatments. Even large physician/hospital conglomerates do not possess such a level of power and influence.

For instance, the evidence the USPSTF uses to recommend for obesity screening is that intensive (12-26 sessions per year) behavioral interventions resulted in a 6% average weight loss in studies.

This is a hugely expensive intervention on a single individual. Does it work, yes. It is an efficient use of funds? Probably not.

On the other hand, emerging data shows us soda taxes do result in statistically significant BMI reductions across a population. Not a clinically impressive amount, but still significant on a population level. This is most noticeable in poorer subgroups – people most likely to suffer serious complications of obesity related diseases.

This was done without the expenditure of public or insurance funds, or the involvement of physicians and expensive healthcare infrastructure.

Nobody’s Business

 The truth is, no one in the public or private sectors currently has responsibility for overall health improvement.

-David A, Kindig MD, Phd

Policy makers are looking at our healthcare system, seeing its huge expense with relatively poor outcomes, and want us to do better. In steps the idea of population health. In theory, a worthy goal.

However, no institution or sector currently has responsibility for this goal. Since we spend so much money on healthcare, that industry seemed like a good place to start.

Sadly, it seems policy wonks are trying to avoid the politically difficult conversation of funding of our public health infrastructure.

Instead of using public health – a developed field with solid data and methodologies – they seem to being trying to use a highly specialized and individualized tool to do a brute force job.

It is like using a coping saw to clear cut a forest. I guess you could do it, but it isn’t going to work well.

Responsibility without Power

I see this as a larger and larger shift in healthcare where the Corporatists are trying to burden clinicians with as much responsibility as possible while controlling levers of power.

The inherent task of designing the assembly line is to divorce the cognitive aspects of a task from its execution. (i.e. Clinical algorithms designed to help clinicians now being used as metrics) Thus, the managers maintain the power, prestige, and wealth of the task without the responsibility.

For instance, clinical care accounts for only 10% of a patient’s total health. Thus, we have little to no influence over the vast majority of what determines a person’s health.

Yet, population health initiatives want to hold clinicians accountable for it.

Moreover, populations are not static within even the largest health systems in this country. People change insurers, they move, they doctor shop. To influence the rest of the pie, the population must have a long term relationship with the institution/clinician.

That is not American healthcare.

Good Money After Bad

But perhaps most importantly, why would we give the same organizations which have spent astronomically large sums of money creating an ineffective system more responsibility to improve our health?

They have more than proven they are not up to the task.

I am in favor of improving population health. The attempt to redesign an already bloated and dysfunctional system to do a task for which it is not prepared simply seems like a waste of time and resources to me.

We need a robust healthcare infrastructure to address the needs of the ill in our society. We also need a robust population health infrastructure focused on efficiently improving the our health so we require less of the expensive healthcare infrastructure.

These are two totally different tasks.

An attempt to blend these goals into one endeavor is classic “straddling strategy.” Rather than choose one goal and pursue it, we are trying to to do two inherently conflicting tasks at once.

The end result will be failing at both.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *