Health Policy

In fiscal year 2010, the VA requested $62 million for suicide prevention outreach; in FY 2020, that leapt to $222 million. Yet despite the dramatic hike in funding, the rate of veteran suicides has remained basically unchanged: An estimated 20 veterans die by suicide every day.

Of those, roughly 14 were not receiving health care from the VA before their death. But a bipartisan bill introduced by US senators Mark Warner (D-VA) and John Boozman (R-AR) brings us “one step closer to making sure veterans get the services and resources they need.”

The senators say the alarming rate of veteran suicides points to “a significant need to empower the VA to work through community partners to expand outreach.” They cite national data indicating that there are > 50,000 organizations that provide suicide prevention services for veterans, yet “they are hard for veterans to find, access, apply for, and use.”

The IMPROVE (Incorporating Measurements and Providing Resources for Outreach to Veterans Everywhere) Well-Being for Veterans Act, introduced in 2019, creates a new grant program to enable the VA to conduct outreach through veteran-serving nonprofits in addition to state and local organizations. The funding would go to organizations with a proven track record of strong mental health and suicide prevention efforts among veterans, Warner says.

The bill supports coordination and planning of veteran mental health and suicide prevention services. Another goal is to provide tools to measure the effectiveness of the programs so the resources can be concentrated where they can do the most good. For example, Warner says, there are no shared tools to measure whether programs help improve mental resiliency and outlook, which can indicate reduced suicide risk.

On January 29, the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee included language from the bill as a provision in a comprehensive bill that expands veterans’ access to mental health services. The legislation unanimously passed the committee and now awaits consideration by the full Senate.

In fiscal year 2010, the VA requested $62 million for suicide prevention outreach; in FY 2020, that leapt to $222 million. Yet despite the dramatic hike in funding, the rate of veteran suicides has remained basically unchanged: An estimated 20 veterans die by suicide every day.

Of those, roughly 14 were not receiving health care from the VA before their death. But a bipartisan bill introduced by US senators Mark Warner (D-VA) and John Boozman (R-AR) brings us “one step closer to making sure veterans get the services and resources they need.”

The senators say the alarming rate of veteran suicides points to “a significant need to empower the VA to work through community partners to expand outreach.” They cite national data indicating that there are > 50,000 organizations that provide suicide prevention services for veterans, yet “they are hard for veterans to find, access, apply for, and use.”

The IMPROVE (Incorporating Measurements and Providing Resources for Outreach to Veterans Everywhere) Well-Being for Veterans Act, introduced in 2019, creates a new grant program to enable the VA to conduct outreach through veteran-serving nonprofits in addition to state and local organizations. The funding would go to organizations with a proven track record of strong mental health and suicide prevention efforts among veterans, Warner says.

The bill supports coordination and planning of veteran mental health and suicide prevention services. Another goal is to provide tools to measure the effectiveness of the programs so the resources can be concentrated where they can do the most good. For example, Warner says, there are no shared tools to measure whether programs help improve mental resiliency and outlook, which can indicate reduced suicide risk.

On January 29, the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee included language from the bill as a provision in a comprehensive bill that expands veterans’ access to mental health services. The legislation unanimously passed the committee and now awaits consideration by the full Senate.

In fiscal year 2010, the VA requested $62 million for suicide prevention outreach; in FY 2020, that leapt to $222 million. Yet despite the dramatic hike in funding, the rate of veteran suicides has remained basically unchanged: An estimated 20 veterans die by suicide every day.

Of those, roughly 14 were not receiving health care from the VA before their death. But a bipartisan bill introduced by US senators Mark Warner (D-VA) and John Boozman (R-AR) brings us “one step closer to making sure veterans get the services and resources they need.”

The senators say the alarming rate of veteran suicides points to “a significant need to empower the VA to work through community partners to expand outreach.” They cite national data indicating that there are > 50,000 organizations that provide suicide prevention services for veterans, yet “they are hard for veterans to find, access, apply for, and use.”

The IMPROVE (Incorporating Measurements and Providing Resources for Outreach to Veterans Everywhere) Well-Being for Veterans Act, introduced in 2019, creates a new grant program to enable the VA to conduct outreach through veteran-serving nonprofits in addition to state and local organizations. The funding would go to organizations with a proven track record of strong mental health and suicide prevention efforts among veterans, Warner says.

The bill supports coordination and planning of veteran mental health and suicide prevention services. Another goal is to provide tools to measure the effectiveness of the programs so the resources can be concentrated where they can do the most good. For example, Warner says, there are no shared tools to measure whether programs help improve mental resiliency and outlook, which can indicate reduced suicide risk.

On January 29, the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee included language from the bill as a provision in a comprehensive bill that expands veterans’ access to mental health services. The legislation unanimously passed the committee and now awaits consideration by the full Senate.

From the Institute for Patient- and Family-Centered Care, Bethesda, MD (Ms. Dokken and Ms. Johnson), and Northwell Health, New Hyde Park, NY (Dr. Barden, Ms. Tuomey, and Ms. Giammarinaro).

Abstract

Objective: To describe the growth of Better Together: Partnering with Families, a campaign launched in 2014 to eliminate restrictive hospital visiting policies and to put in place policies that recognize families as partners in care, and to discuss the processes involved in implementing the initiative in a large, integrated health system.

Methods: Descriptive report.

Results: In June 2014, the Institute for Patient- and Family-Centered Care (IPFCC) launched the Better Together campaign to emphasize the importance of family presence and participation to the quality, experience, safety, and outcomes of care. Since then, this initiative has expanded in both the United States and Canada. With support from 2 funders in the United States, special attention was focused on acute care hospitals across New York State. Nearly 50 hospitals participated in 2 separate but related projects. Fifteen of the hospitals are part of Northwell Health, New York State’s largest health system. Over a 10-month period, these hospitals made significant progress in changing policy, practice, and communication to support family presence.

Conclusion: The Better Together initiative was implemented across a health system with strong support from leadership and the involvement of patient and family advisors. An intervention offering structured training, coaching, and resources, like IPFCC’s Better Together initiative, can facilitate the change process.

Keywords: family presence; visiting policies; patient-centered care; family-centered care; patient experience.

The presence of families at the bedside of patients is often restricted by hospital visiting hours. Hospitals that maintain these restrictive policies cite concerns about negative impacts on security, infection control, privacy, and staff workload. But there are no data to support these concerns, and the experience of hospitals that have successfully changed policy and practice to welcome families demonstrates the potential positive impacts of less restrictive policies on patient care and outcomes.¹ For example, hospitalization can lead to reduced cognitive function in elderly patients. Family members would recognize the changes and could provide valuable information to hospital staff, potentially improving outcomes.²

In June 2014, the Institute for Patient- and Family-Centered Care (IPFCC) launched the campaign Better Together: Partnering with Families.³ The campaign is is grounded in patient- and family- centered care, an approach to care that supports partnerships among health care providers, patients, and families, and, among other core principles, advocates that patients define their “families” and how they will participate in care and decision-making.

Emphasizing the importance of family presence and participation to quality and safety, the Better Together campaign seeks to eliminate restrictive visiting policies and calls upon hospitals to include families as members of the care team and to welcome them 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, according to patient preference. As part of the campaign, IPFCC developed an extensive toolkit of resources that is available to hospitals and other organizations at no cost. The resources include sample policies; profiles of hospitals that have implemented family presence policies; educational materials for staff, patients, and families; and a template for hospital websites. This article, a follow-up to an article published in the January 2015 issue of JCOM,¹ discusses the growth of the Better Together initiative as well as the processes involved in implementing the initiative across a large health system.

Growth of the Initiative

Since its launch in 2014, the Better Together initiative has continued to expand in the United States and Canada. In Canada, under the leadership of the Canadian Foundation for Healthcare Improvement (CFHI), more than 50 organizations have made a commitment to the Better Together program and family presence.⁴ Utilizing and adapting IPFCC’s Toolkit, CFHI developed a change package of free resources for Canadian organizations.⁵ Some of the materials, including the Pocket Guide for Families (Manuel des Familles), were translated into French.⁶

With support from 2 funders in the United States, the United Hospital Fund and the New York State Health (NYSHealth) Foundation, through a subcontract with the New York Public Interest Research Group (NYPIRG), IPFCC has been able to focus on hospitals in New York City, including public hospitals, and, more broadly, acute care hospitals across New York State. Nearly 50 hospitals participated in these 2 separate but related projects.

Education and Support for New York City Hospitals

Supported by the United Hospital Fund, an 18-month project that focused specifically on New York City hospitals was completed in June 2017. The project began with a 1-day intensive training event with representatives of 21 hospitals. Eighteen of those hospitals were eligible to participate in follow-up consultation provided by IPFCC, and 14 participated in some kind of follow-up. NYC Health + Hospitals (H+H), the system of public hospitals in NYC, participated most fully in these activities.

The outcomes of the Better Together initiative in New York City are summarized in the report Sick, Scared, & Separated From Loved Ones,² which is based on a pre/post review of hospital visitation/family presence policies and website communications. According to the report, hospitals that participated in the IPFCC training and consultation program performed better, as a group, with respect to improved policy and website scores on post review than those that did not. Of the 10 hospitals whose scores improved during the review period, 8 had participated in the IPFCC training and 1 hospital was part of a hospital network that did so. (Six of these hospitals are part of the H+H public hospital system.) Those 9 hospitals saw an average increase in scores of 4.9 points (out of a possible 11). All of the website communication improvements were related to the designation or role of the family member/care partner, or the patient’s right to choose visitors and family members/care partners, fundamental elements of the Better Together initiative.²

A Learning Community for Hospitals in New York State

With support from the NYSHealth Foundation, IPFCC again collaborated with NYPIRG and New Yorkers for Patient & Family Empowerment on a 2-year initiative, completed in November 2019, that involved 26 hospitals: 15 from Northwell Health, New York State’s largest health system, and 11 hospitals from health systems throughout the state (Greater Hudson Valley Health System, now Garnet Health; Mohawk Valley Health System; Rochester Regional Health; and University of Vermont Health Network). An update of the report Sick, Scared, & Separated From Loved Onescompared pre/post reviews of policies and website communications regarding hospital visitation/family presence.⁷ Its findings confirm that hospitals that participated in the Better Together Learning Community improved both their policy and website scores to a greater degree than hospitals that did not participate and that a planned intervention can help facilitate change.

During the survey period, 28 out of 40 hospitals’ website navigability scores improved. Of those, hospitals that did not participate in the Better Together Learning Community saw an average increase in scores of 1.2 points, out of a possible 11, while the participating hospitals saw an average increase of 2.7 points, with the top 5 largest increases in scores belonging to hospitals that participated in the Better Together Learning Community.⁷

Northwell Health is a large integrated health care organization comprising more than 69,000 employees, 23 hospitals, and more than 750 medical practices, located geographically across New York State. Embracing patient- and family-centered care, Northwell is dedicated to improving the quality, experience, and safety of care for patients and their families. Welcoming and including patients, families, and care partners as members of the health care team has always been a core element of Northwell’s organizational goal of providing world-class patient care and experience.

Four years ago, the organization reorganized and formalized a system-wide Patient & Family Partnership Council (PFPC).⁸ Representatives on the PFPC include a Northwell patient experience leader and patient/family co-chair from local councils that have been established in nearly all 23 hospitals as well as service lines. Modeling partnership, the PFPC is grounded in listening to the “voice” of patients and families and promoting collaboration, with the goal of driving change across varied aspects and experiences of health care delivery.

Through the Office of Patient and Customer Experience (OPCE), a partnership with IPFCC and the Better Together Learning Community for Hospitals in New York State was initiated as a fundamental next step in Northwell’s journey to enhance system-wide family presence and participation. Results from Better Together’s Organizational Self-Assessment Tool and process identified opportunities to influence 3 distinct areas: policy/staff education, position descriptions/performance management, and website/signage. Over a 10-month period (September 2018 through June 2019), 15 Northwell hospitals implemened significant patient- and family-centered improvements through multifaceted shared work teams (SWT) that partnered around the common goal of supporting the patient and family experience (Figure). Northwell’s SWT structure allowed teams to meet individually on specific tasks, led by a dedicated staff member of the OPCE to ensure progress, support, and accountability. Six monthly coaching calls or report-out meetings were attended by participating teams, where feedback and recommendations shared by IPFCC were discussed in order to maintain momentum and results.

Policy/Staff Education

The policy/staff education SWT focused on appraising and updating existing policies to ensure alignment with key patient- and family-centered concepts and Better Together principles (Table 1). By establishing representation on the System Policy and Procedure Committee, OPCE enabled patients and families to have a voice at the decision-making table. OPCE leaders presented the ideology and scope of the transformation to this committee. After reviewing all system-wide policies, 4 were identified as key opportunities for revision. One overarching policy titled “Visitation Guidelines” was reviewed and updated to reflect Northwell’s mission of patient- and family-centered care, retiring the reference to “families” as “visitors” in definitions, incorporating language of inclusion and partnership, and citing other related policies. The policy was vetted through a multilayer process of review and stakeholder feedback and was ultimately approved at a system Performance Improvement Coordinating Group meeting under a new title, “Visitation: Presence and Participation of Families, Support System Designees and Visitor(s) in Care.”

Three additional related policies were also updated to reflect core principles of inclusion and partnership. These included system policies focused on discharge planning; identification of health care proxy, agent, support person and caregiver; and standards of behavior not conducive in a health care setting. As a result of this work, OPCE was invited to remain an active member of the System Policy and Procedure Committee, adding meaningful new perspectives to the clinical and administrative policy management process. Once policies were updated and approved, the SWT focused on educating leaders and teams. Using a diversified strategy, education was provided through various modes, including weekly system-wide internal communication channels, patient experience huddle messages, yearly mandatory topics training, and the incorporation of essential concepts in existing educational courses (classroom and e-learning modalities).

Position Descriptions/Performance Management

The position descriptions/performance management SWT focused its efforts on incorporating patient- and family-centered concepts and language into position descriptions and the performance appraisal process (Table 2). Due to the complex nature of this work, the process required collaboration from key subject matter experts in human resources, talent management, corporate compensation, and labor management. In 2019, Northwell began an initiative focused on streamlining and standardizing job titles, roles, and developmental pathways across the system. The overarching goal was to create system-wide consistency and standardization. The SWT was successful in advising the leaders overseeing this job architecture initiative on the importance of including language of patient- and family-centered care, like partnership and collaboration, and of highlighting the critical role of family members as part of the care team in subsequent documents.

Northwell has 6 behavioral expectations, standards to which all team members are held accountable: Patient/Customer Focus, Teamwork, Execution, Organizational Awareness, Enable Change, and Develop Self. As a result of the SWT’s work, Patient/Customer Focus was revised to include “families” as essential care partners, demonstrating Northwell’s ongoing commitment to honoring the role of families as members of the care team. It also ensures that all employees are aligned around this priority, as these expectations are utilized to support areas such as recognition and performance. Collaborating with talent management and organizational development, the SWT reviewed yearly performance management and new-hire evaluations. In doing so, they identified an opportunity to refresh the anchored qualitative rating scales to include behavioral demonstrations of patient- and family-centered care, collaboration, respect, and partnership with family members.

Website/Signage

Websites make an important first impression on patients and families looking for information to best prepare for a hospital experience. Therefore, the website/signage SWT worked to redesign hospital websites, enhance digital signage, and perform a baseline assessment of physical signage across facilities. Initial feedback on Northwell’s websites identified opportunities to include more patient- and family-centered, care-partner-infused language; improve navigation; and streamline click levels for easier access. Content for the websites was carefully crafted in collaboration with Northwell’s internal web team, utilizing IPFCC’s best practice standards as a framework and guide.

Next, a multidisciplinary website shared-governance team was established by the OPCE to ensure that key stakeholders were represented and had the opportunity to review and make recommendations for appropriate language and messaging about family presence and participation. This 13-person team was comprised of patient/family partners, patient-experience culture leaders, quality, compliance, human resources, policy, a chief nursing officer, a medical director, and representation from the Institute for Nursing. After careful review and consideration from Northwell’s family partners and teams, all participating hospital websites were enhanced as of June 2019 to include prominent 1-click access from homepages to information for “patients, families and visitors,” as well as “your care partners” information on the important role of families and care partners.

Along with refreshing websites, another step in Northwell’s work to strengthen messaging about family presence and participation was to partner and collaborate with the system’s digital web team as well as local facility councils to understand the capacity to adjust digital signage across facilities. Opportunities were found to make simple yet effective enhancements to the language and imagery of digital signage upon entry, creating a warmer and more welcoming first impression for patients and families. With patient and family partner feedback, the team designed digital signage with inclusive messaging and images that would circulate appropriately based on the facility. Signage specifically welcomes families and refers to them as members of patients’ care teams.

Northwell’s website/signage SWT also directed a 2-phase physical signage assessment to determine ongoing opportunities to alter signs in areas that particularly impact patients and families, such as emergency departments, main lobbies, cafeterias, surgical waiting areas, and intensive care units. Each hospital’s local PFPC did a “walk-about”⁹ to make enhancements to physical signage, such as removing paper and overcrowded signs, adjusting negative language, ensuring alignment with brand guidelines, and including language that welcomed families. As a result of the team’s efforts around signage, collaboration began with the health system’s signage committee to help standardize signage terminology to reflect family inclusiveness, and to implement the recommendation for a standardized signage shared-governance team to ensure accountability and a patient- and family-centered structure.

Sustainment

Since implementing Better Together, Northwell has been able to infuse a more patient- and family-centered emphasis into its overall patient experience message of “Every role, every person, every moment matters.” As a strategic tool aimed at encouraging leaders, clinicians, and staff to pause and reflect about the “heart” of their work, patient and family stories are now included at the beginning of meetings, forums, and team huddles. Elements of the initiative have been integrated in current Patient and Family Partnership sustainment plans at participating hospitals. Some highlights include continued integration of patient/family partners on committees and councils that impact areas such as way finding, signage, recruitment, new-hire orientation, and community outreach; focus on enhancing partner retention and development programs; and inclusion of patient- and family-centered care and Better Together principles in ongoing leadership meetings.

Factors Contributing to Success

Health care is a complex, regulated, and often bureaucratic world that can be very difficult for patients and families to navigate. The system’s partnership with the Better Together Learning Community for Hospitals in New York State enhanced its efforts to improve family presence and participation and created powerful synergy. The success of this partnership was based on a number of important factors:

A solid foundation of support, structure, and accountability. The OPCE initiated the IPFCC Better Together partnership and established a synergistic collaboration inclusive of leadership, frontline teams, multiple departments, and patient and family partners. As a major strategic component of Northwell’s mission to deliver high-quality, patient- and family-centered care, OPCE was instrumental in connecting key areas and stakeholders and mobilizing the recommendations coming from patients and families.

A visible commitment of leadership at all levels. Partnering with leadership across Northwell’s system required a delineated vision, clear purpose and ownership, and comprehensive implementation and sustainment strategies. The existing format of Northwell’s PFPC provided the structure and framework needed for engaged patient and family input; the OPCE motivated and organized key areas of involvement and led communication efforts across the organization. The IPFCC coaching calls provided the underlying guidance and accountability needed to sustain momentum. As leadership and frontline teams became aware of the vision, they understood the larger connection to the system’s purpose, which ultimately created a clear path for positive change.

Meaningful involvement and input of patient and family partners. Throughout this project, Northwell’s patient/family partners were involved through the PFPC and local councils. For example, patient/family partners attended every IPFCC coaching call; members had a central voice in every decision made within each SWT; and local PFPCs actively participated in physical signage “walk-abouts” across facilities, making key recommendations for improvement. This multifaceted, supportive collaboration created a rejuvenated and purposeful focus for all council members involved. Some of their reactions include, “…I am so happy to be able to help other families in crisis, so that they don’t have to be alone, like I was,” and “I feel how important the patient and family’s voice is … it’s truly a partnership between patients, families, and staff.”

Regular access to IPFCC as a best practice coach and expert resource. Throughout the 10-month process, IPFCC’s Better Together Learning Community for Hospitals in New York State provided ongoing learning interventions for members of the SWT; multiple and varied resources from the Better Together toolkit for adaptation; and opportunities to share and reinforce new, learned expertise with colleagues within the Northwell Health system and beyond through IPFCC’s free online learning community, PFCC.Connect.

Conclusion

Family presence and participation are important to the quality, experience, safety, and outcomes of care. IPFCC’s campaign, Better Together: Partnering with Families, encourages hospitals to change restrictive visiting policies and, instead, to welcome families and caregivers 24 hours a day.

Two projects within Better Together involving almost 50 acute care hospitals in New York State confirm that change in policy, practice, and communication is particularly effective when implemented with strong support from leadership. An intervention like the Better Together Learning Community, offering structured training, coaching, and resources, can facilitate the change process.

Corresponding author: IPFCC, Deborah L. Dokken, 6917 Arlington Rd., Ste. 309, Bethesda, MD 20814; ddokken@ipfcc.org.

Funding disclosures: None.

From the Institute for Patient- and Family-Centered Care, Bethesda, MD (Ms. Dokken and Ms. Johnson), and Northwell Health, New Hyde Park, NY (Dr. Barden, Ms. Tuomey, and Ms. Giammarinaro).

Abstract

Objective: To describe the growth of Better Together: Partnering with Families, a campaign launched in 2014 to eliminate restrictive hospital visiting policies and to put in place policies that recognize families as partners in care, and to discuss the processes involved in implementing the initiative in a large, integrated health system.

Methods: Descriptive report.

Results: In June 2014, the Institute for Patient- and Family-Centered Care (IPFCC) launched the Better Together campaign to emphasize the importance of family presence and participation to the quality, experience, safety, and outcomes of care. Since then, this initiative has expanded in both the United States and Canada. With support from 2 funders in the United States, special attention was focused on acute care hospitals across New York State. Nearly 50 hospitals participated in 2 separate but related projects. Fifteen of the hospitals are part of Northwell Health, New York State’s largest health system. Over a 10-month period, these hospitals made significant progress in changing policy, practice, and communication to support family presence.

Conclusion: The Better Together initiative was implemented across a health system with strong support from leadership and the involvement of patient and family advisors. An intervention offering structured training, coaching, and resources, like IPFCC’s Better Together initiative, can facilitate the change process.

Keywords: family presence; visiting policies; patient-centered care; family-centered care; patient experience.

The presence of families at the bedside of patients is often restricted by hospital visiting hours. Hospitals that maintain these restrictive policies cite concerns about negative impacts on security, infection control, privacy, and staff workload. But there are no data to support these concerns, and the experience of hospitals that have successfully changed policy and practice to welcome families demonstrates the potential positive impacts of less restrictive policies on patient care and outcomes.¹ For example, hospitalization can lead to reduced cognitive function in elderly patients. Family members would recognize the changes and could provide valuable information to hospital staff, potentially improving outcomes.²

In June 2014, the Institute for Patient- and Family-Centered Care (IPFCC) launched the campaign Better Together: Partnering with Families.³ The campaign is is grounded in patient- and family- centered care, an approach to care that supports partnerships among health care providers, patients, and families, and, among other core principles, advocates that patients define their “families” and how they will participate in care and decision-making.

Emphasizing the importance of family presence and participation to quality and safety, the Better Together campaign seeks to eliminate restrictive visiting policies and calls upon hospitals to include families as members of the care team and to welcome them 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, according to patient preference. As part of the campaign, IPFCC developed an extensive toolkit of resources that is available to hospitals and other organizations at no cost. The resources include sample policies; profiles of hospitals that have implemented family presence policies; educational materials for staff, patients, and families; and a template for hospital websites. This article, a follow-up to an article published in the January 2015 issue of JCOM,¹ discusses the growth of the Better Together initiative as well as the processes involved in implementing the initiative across a large health system.

Growth of the Initiative

Since its launch in 2014, the Better Together initiative has continued to expand in the United States and Canada. In Canada, under the leadership of the Canadian Foundation for Healthcare Improvement (CFHI), more than 50 organizations have made a commitment to the Better Together program and family presence.⁴ Utilizing and adapting IPFCC’s Toolkit, CFHI developed a change package of free resources for Canadian organizations.⁵ Some of the materials, including the Pocket Guide for Families (Manuel des Familles), were translated into French.⁶

With support from 2 funders in the United States, the United Hospital Fund and the New York State Health (NYSHealth) Foundation, through a subcontract with the New York Public Interest Research Group (NYPIRG), IPFCC has been able to focus on hospitals in New York City, including public hospitals, and, more broadly, acute care hospitals across New York State. Nearly 50 hospitals participated in these 2 separate but related projects.

Education and Support for New York City Hospitals

Supported by the United Hospital Fund, an 18-month project that focused specifically on New York City hospitals was completed in June 2017. The project began with a 1-day intensive training event with representatives of 21 hospitals. Eighteen of those hospitals were eligible to participate in follow-up consultation provided by IPFCC, and 14 participated in some kind of follow-up. NYC Health + Hospitals (H+H), the system of public hospitals in NYC, participated most fully in these activities.

The outcomes of the Better Together initiative in New York City are summarized in the report Sick, Scared, & Separated From Loved Ones,² which is based on a pre/post review of hospital visitation/family presence policies and website communications. According to the report, hospitals that participated in the IPFCC training and consultation program performed better, as a group, with respect to improved policy and website scores on post review than those that did not. Of the 10 hospitals whose scores improved during the review period, 8 had participated in the IPFCC training and 1 hospital was part of a hospital network that did so. (Six of these hospitals are part of the H+H public hospital system.) Those 9 hospitals saw an average increase in scores of 4.9 points (out of a possible 11). All of the website communication improvements were related to the designation or role of the family member/care partner, or the patient’s right to choose visitors and family members/care partners, fundamental elements of the Better Together initiative.²

A Learning Community for Hospitals in New York State

With support from the NYSHealth Foundation, IPFCC again collaborated with NYPIRG and New Yorkers for Patient & Family Empowerment on a 2-year initiative, completed in November 2019, that involved 26 hospitals: 15 from Northwell Health, New York State’s largest health system, and 11 hospitals from health systems throughout the state (Greater Hudson Valley Health System, now Garnet Health; Mohawk Valley Health System; Rochester Regional Health; and University of Vermont Health Network). An update of the report Sick, Scared, & Separated From Loved Onescompared pre/post reviews of policies and website communications regarding hospital visitation/family presence.⁷ Its findings confirm that hospitals that participated in the Better Together Learning Community improved both their policy and website scores to a greater degree than hospitals that did not participate and that a planned intervention can help facilitate change.

During the survey period, 28 out of 40 hospitals’ website navigability scores improved. Of those, hospitals that did not participate in the Better Together Learning Community saw an average increase in scores of 1.2 points, out of a possible 11, while the participating hospitals saw an average increase of 2.7 points, with the top 5 largest increases in scores belonging to hospitals that participated in the Better Together Learning Community.⁷

Northwell Health is a large integrated health care organization comprising more than 69,000 employees, 23 hospitals, and more than 750 medical practices, located geographically across New York State. Embracing patient- and family-centered care, Northwell is dedicated to improving the quality, experience, and safety of care for patients and their families. Welcoming and including patients, families, and care partners as members of the health care team has always been a core element of Northwell’s organizational goal of providing world-class patient care and experience.

Four years ago, the organization reorganized and formalized a system-wide Patient & Family Partnership Council (PFPC).⁸ Representatives on the PFPC include a Northwell patient experience leader and patient/family co-chair from local councils that have been established in nearly all 23 hospitals as well as service lines. Modeling partnership, the PFPC is grounded in listening to the “voice” of patients and families and promoting collaboration, with the goal of driving change across varied aspects and experiences of health care delivery.

Through the Office of Patient and Customer Experience (OPCE), a partnership with IPFCC and the Better Together Learning Community for Hospitals in New York State was initiated as a fundamental next step in Northwell’s journey to enhance system-wide family presence and participation. Results from Better Together’s Organizational Self-Assessment Tool and process identified opportunities to influence 3 distinct areas: policy/staff education, position descriptions/performance management, and website/signage. Over a 10-month period (September 2018 through June 2019), 15 Northwell hospitals implemened significant patient- and family-centered improvements through multifaceted shared work teams (SWT) that partnered around the common goal of supporting the patient and family experience (Figure). Northwell’s SWT structure allowed teams to meet individually on specific tasks, led by a dedicated staff member of the OPCE to ensure progress, support, and accountability. Six monthly coaching calls or report-out meetings were attended by participating teams, where feedback and recommendations shared by IPFCC were discussed in order to maintain momentum and results.

Policy/Staff Education

The policy/staff education SWT focused on appraising and updating existing policies to ensure alignment with key patient- and family-centered concepts and Better Together principles (Table 1). By establishing representation on the System Policy and Procedure Committee, OPCE enabled patients and families to have a voice at the decision-making table. OPCE leaders presented the ideology and scope of the transformation to this committee. After reviewing all system-wide policies, 4 were identified as key opportunities for revision. One overarching policy titled “Visitation Guidelines” was reviewed and updated to reflect Northwell’s mission of patient- and family-centered care, retiring the reference to “families” as “visitors” in definitions, incorporating language of inclusion and partnership, and citing other related policies. The policy was vetted through a multilayer process of review and stakeholder feedback and was ultimately approved at a system Performance Improvement Coordinating Group meeting under a new title, “Visitation: Presence and Participation of Families, Support System Designees and Visitor(s) in Care.”

Three additional related policies were also updated to reflect core principles of inclusion and partnership. These included system policies focused on discharge planning; identification of health care proxy, agent, support person and caregiver; and standards of behavior not conducive in a health care setting. As a result of this work, OPCE was invited to remain an active member of the System Policy and Procedure Committee, adding meaningful new perspectives to the clinical and administrative policy management process. Once policies were updated and approved, the SWT focused on educating leaders and teams. Using a diversified strategy, education was provided through various modes, including weekly system-wide internal communication channels, patient experience huddle messages, yearly mandatory topics training, and the incorporation of essential concepts in existing educational courses (classroom and e-learning modalities).

Position Descriptions/Performance Management

The position descriptions/performance management SWT focused its efforts on incorporating patient- and family-centered concepts and language into position descriptions and the performance appraisal process (Table 2). Due to the complex nature of this work, the process required collaboration from key subject matter experts in human resources, talent management, corporate compensation, and labor management. In 2019, Northwell began an initiative focused on streamlining and standardizing job titles, roles, and developmental pathways across the system. The overarching goal was to create system-wide consistency and standardization. The SWT was successful in advising the leaders overseeing this job architecture initiative on the importance of including language of patient- and family-centered care, like partnership and collaboration, and of highlighting the critical role of family members as part of the care team in subsequent documents.

Northwell has 6 behavioral expectations, standards to which all team members are held accountable: Patient/Customer Focus, Teamwork, Execution, Organizational Awareness, Enable Change, and Develop Self. As a result of the SWT’s work, Patient/Customer Focus was revised to include “families” as essential care partners, demonstrating Northwell’s ongoing commitment to honoring the role of families as members of the care team. It also ensures that all employees are aligned around this priority, as these expectations are utilized to support areas such as recognition and performance. Collaborating with talent management and organizational development, the SWT reviewed yearly performance management and new-hire evaluations. In doing so, they identified an opportunity to refresh the anchored qualitative rating scales to include behavioral demonstrations of patient- and family-centered care, collaboration, respect, and partnership with family members.

Website/Signage

Websites make an important first impression on patients and families looking for information to best prepare for a hospital experience. Therefore, the website/signage SWT worked to redesign hospital websites, enhance digital signage, and perform a baseline assessment of physical signage across facilities. Initial feedback on Northwell’s websites identified opportunities to include more patient- and family-centered, care-partner-infused language; improve navigation; and streamline click levels for easier access. Content for the websites was carefully crafted in collaboration with Northwell’s internal web team, utilizing IPFCC’s best practice standards as a framework and guide.

Next, a multidisciplinary website shared-governance team was established by the OPCE to ensure that key stakeholders were represented and had the opportunity to review and make recommendations for appropriate language and messaging about family presence and participation. This 13-person team was comprised of patient/family partners, patient-experience culture leaders, quality, compliance, human resources, policy, a chief nursing officer, a medical director, and representation from the Institute for Nursing. After careful review and consideration from Northwell’s family partners and teams, all participating hospital websites were enhanced as of June 2019 to include prominent 1-click access from homepages to information for “patients, families and visitors,” as well as “your care partners” information on the important role of families and care partners.

Along with refreshing websites, another step in Northwell’s work to strengthen messaging about family presence and participation was to partner and collaborate with the system’s digital web team as well as local facility councils to understand the capacity to adjust digital signage across facilities. Opportunities were found to make simple yet effective enhancements to the language and imagery of digital signage upon entry, creating a warmer and more welcoming first impression for patients and families. With patient and family partner feedback, the team designed digital signage with inclusive messaging and images that would circulate appropriately based on the facility. Signage specifically welcomes families and refers to them as members of patients’ care teams.

Northwell’s website/signage SWT also directed a 2-phase physical signage assessment to determine ongoing opportunities to alter signs in areas that particularly impact patients and families, such as emergency departments, main lobbies, cafeterias, surgical waiting areas, and intensive care units. Each hospital’s local PFPC did a “walk-about”⁹ to make enhancements to physical signage, such as removing paper and overcrowded signs, adjusting negative language, ensuring alignment with brand guidelines, and including language that welcomed families. As a result of the team’s efforts around signage, collaboration began with the health system’s signage committee to help standardize signage terminology to reflect family inclusiveness, and to implement the recommendation for a standardized signage shared-governance team to ensure accountability and a patient- and family-centered structure.

Sustainment

Since implementing Better Together, Northwell has been able to infuse a more patient- and family-centered emphasis into its overall patient experience message of “Every role, every person, every moment matters.” As a strategic tool aimed at encouraging leaders, clinicians, and staff to pause and reflect about the “heart” of their work, patient and family stories are now included at the beginning of meetings, forums, and team huddles. Elements of the initiative have been integrated in current Patient and Family Partnership sustainment plans at participating hospitals. Some highlights include continued integration of patient/family partners on committees and councils that impact areas such as way finding, signage, recruitment, new-hire orientation, and community outreach; focus on enhancing partner retention and development programs; and inclusion of patient- and family-centered care and Better Together principles in ongoing leadership meetings.

Factors Contributing to Success

Health care is a complex, regulated, and often bureaucratic world that can be very difficult for patients and families to navigate. The system’s partnership with the Better Together Learning Community for Hospitals in New York State enhanced its efforts to improve family presence and participation and created powerful synergy. The success of this partnership was based on a number of important factors:

A solid foundation of support, structure, and accountability. The OPCE initiated the IPFCC Better Together partnership and established a synergistic collaboration inclusive of leadership, frontline teams, multiple departments, and patient and family partners. As a major strategic component of Northwell’s mission to deliver high-quality, patient- and family-centered care, OPCE was instrumental in connecting key areas and stakeholders and mobilizing the recommendations coming from patients and families.

A visible commitment of leadership at all levels. Partnering with leadership across Northwell’s system required a delineated vision, clear purpose and ownership, and comprehensive implementation and sustainment strategies. The existing format of Northwell’s PFPC provided the structure and framework needed for engaged patient and family input; the OPCE motivated and organized key areas of involvement and led communication efforts across the organization. The IPFCC coaching calls provided the underlying guidance and accountability needed to sustain momentum. As leadership and frontline teams became aware of the vision, they understood the larger connection to the system’s purpose, which ultimately created a clear path for positive change.

Meaningful involvement and input of patient and family partners. Throughout this project, Northwell’s patient/family partners were involved through the PFPC and local councils. For example, patient/family partners attended every IPFCC coaching call; members had a central voice in every decision made within each SWT; and local PFPCs actively participated in physical signage “walk-abouts” across facilities, making key recommendations for improvement. This multifaceted, supportive collaboration created a rejuvenated and purposeful focus for all council members involved. Some of their reactions include, “…I am so happy to be able to help other families in crisis, so that they don’t have to be alone, like I was,” and “I feel how important the patient and family’s voice is … it’s truly a partnership between patients, families, and staff.”

Regular access to IPFCC as a best practice coach and expert resource. Throughout the 10-month process, IPFCC’s Better Together Learning Community for Hospitals in New York State provided ongoing learning interventions for members of the SWT; multiple and varied resources from the Better Together toolkit for adaptation; and opportunities to share and reinforce new, learned expertise with colleagues within the Northwell Health system and beyond through IPFCC’s free online learning community, PFCC.Connect.

Conclusion

Family presence and participation are important to the quality, experience, safety, and outcomes of care. IPFCC’s campaign, Better Together: Partnering with Families, encourages hospitals to change restrictive visiting policies and, instead, to welcome families and caregivers 24 hours a day.

Two projects within Better Together involving almost 50 acute care hospitals in New York State confirm that change in policy, practice, and communication is particularly effective when implemented with strong support from leadership. An intervention like the Better Together Learning Community, offering structured training, coaching, and resources, can facilitate the change process.

Corresponding author: IPFCC, Deborah L. Dokken, 6917 Arlington Rd., Ste. 309, Bethesda, MD 20814; ddokken@ipfcc.org.

Funding disclosures: None.

From the Institute for Patient- and Family-Centered Care, Bethesda, MD (Ms. Dokken and Ms. Johnson), and Northwell Health, New Hyde Park, NY (Dr. Barden, Ms. Tuomey, and Ms. Giammarinaro).

Abstract

Objective: To describe the growth of Better Together: Partnering with Families, a campaign launched in 2014 to eliminate restrictive hospital visiting policies and to put in place policies that recognize families as partners in care, and to discuss the processes involved in implementing the initiative in a large, integrated health system.

Methods: Descriptive report.

Results: In June 2014, the Institute for Patient- and Family-Centered Care (IPFCC) launched the Better Together campaign to emphasize the importance of family presence and participation to the quality, experience, safety, and outcomes of care. Since then, this initiative has expanded in both the United States and Canada. With support from 2 funders in the United States, special attention was focused on acute care hospitals across New York State. Nearly 50 hospitals participated in 2 separate but related projects. Fifteen of the hospitals are part of Northwell Health, New York State’s largest health system. Over a 10-month period, these hospitals made significant progress in changing policy, practice, and communication to support family presence.

Conclusion: The Better Together initiative was implemented across a health system with strong support from leadership and the involvement of patient and family advisors. An intervention offering structured training, coaching, and resources, like IPFCC’s Better Together initiative, can facilitate the change process.

Keywords: family presence; visiting policies; patient-centered care; family-centered care; patient experience.

The presence of families at the bedside of patients is often restricted by hospital visiting hours. Hospitals that maintain these restrictive policies cite concerns about negative impacts on security, infection control, privacy, and staff workload. But there are no data to support these concerns, and the experience of hospitals that have successfully changed policy and practice to welcome families demonstrates the potential positive impacts of less restrictive policies on patient care and outcomes.¹ For example, hospitalization can lead to reduced cognitive function in elderly patients. Family members would recognize the changes and could provide valuable information to hospital staff, potentially improving outcomes.²

In June 2014, the Institute for Patient- and Family-Centered Care (IPFCC) launched the campaign Better Together: Partnering with Families.³ The campaign is is grounded in patient- and family- centered care, an approach to care that supports partnerships among health care providers, patients, and families, and, among other core principles, advocates that patients define their “families” and how they will participate in care and decision-making.

Emphasizing the importance of family presence and participation to quality and safety, the Better Together campaign seeks to eliminate restrictive visiting policies and calls upon hospitals to include families as members of the care team and to welcome them 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, according to patient preference. As part of the campaign, IPFCC developed an extensive toolkit of resources that is available to hospitals and other organizations at no cost. The resources include sample policies; profiles of hospitals that have implemented family presence policies; educational materials for staff, patients, and families; and a template for hospital websites. This article, a follow-up to an article published in the January 2015 issue of JCOM,¹ discusses the growth of the Better Together initiative as well as the processes involved in implementing the initiative across a large health system.

Growth of the Initiative

Since its launch in 2014, the Better Together initiative has continued to expand in the United States and Canada. In Canada, under the leadership of the Canadian Foundation for Healthcare Improvement (CFHI), more than 50 organizations have made a commitment to the Better Together program and family presence.⁴ Utilizing and adapting IPFCC’s Toolkit, CFHI developed a change package of free resources for Canadian organizations.⁵ Some of the materials, including the Pocket Guide for Families (Manuel des Familles), were translated into French.⁶

With support from 2 funders in the United States, the United Hospital Fund and the New York State Health (NYSHealth) Foundation, through a subcontract with the New York Public Interest Research Group (NYPIRG), IPFCC has been able to focus on hospitals in New York City, including public hospitals, and, more broadly, acute care hospitals across New York State. Nearly 50 hospitals participated in these 2 separate but related projects.

Education and Support for New York City Hospitals

Supported by the United Hospital Fund, an 18-month project that focused specifically on New York City hospitals was completed in June 2017. The project began with a 1-day intensive training event with representatives of 21 hospitals. Eighteen of those hospitals were eligible to participate in follow-up consultation provided by IPFCC, and 14 participated in some kind of follow-up. NYC Health + Hospitals (H+H), the system of public hospitals in NYC, participated most fully in these activities.

The outcomes of the Better Together initiative in New York City are summarized in the report Sick, Scared, & Separated From Loved Ones,² which is based on a pre/post review of hospital visitation/family presence policies and website communications. According to the report, hospitals that participated in the IPFCC training and consultation program performed better, as a group, with respect to improved policy and website scores on post review than those that did not. Of the 10 hospitals whose scores improved during the review period, 8 had participated in the IPFCC training and 1 hospital was part of a hospital network that did so. (Six of these hospitals are part of the H+H public hospital system.) Those 9 hospitals saw an average increase in scores of 4.9 points (out of a possible 11). All of the website communication improvements were related to the designation or role of the family member/care partner, or the patient’s right to choose visitors and family members/care partners, fundamental elements of the Better Together initiative.²

A Learning Community for Hospitals in New York State

With support from the NYSHealth Foundation, IPFCC again collaborated with NYPIRG and New Yorkers for Patient & Family Empowerment on a 2-year initiative, completed in November 2019, that involved 26 hospitals: 15 from Northwell Health, New York State’s largest health system, and 11 hospitals from health systems throughout the state (Greater Hudson Valley Health System, now Garnet Health; Mohawk Valley Health System; Rochester Regional Health; and University of Vermont Health Network). An update of the report Sick, Scared, & Separated From Loved Onescompared pre/post reviews of policies and website communications regarding hospital visitation/family presence.⁷ Its findings confirm that hospitals that participated in the Better Together Learning Community improved both their policy and website scores to a greater degree than hospitals that did not participate and that a planned intervention can help facilitate change.

During the survey period, 28 out of 40 hospitals’ website navigability scores improved. Of those, hospitals that did not participate in the Better Together Learning Community saw an average increase in scores of 1.2 points, out of a possible 11, while the participating hospitals saw an average increase of 2.7 points, with the top 5 largest increases in scores belonging to hospitals that participated in the Better Together Learning Community.⁷

Northwell Health is a large integrated health care organization comprising more than 69,000 employees, 23 hospitals, and more than 750 medical practices, located geographically across New York State. Embracing patient- and family-centered care, Northwell is dedicated to improving the quality, experience, and safety of care for patients and their families. Welcoming and including patients, families, and care partners as members of the health care team has always been a core element of Northwell’s organizational goal of providing world-class patient care and experience.

Four years ago, the organization reorganized and formalized a system-wide Patient & Family Partnership Council (PFPC).⁸ Representatives on the PFPC include a Northwell patient experience leader and patient/family co-chair from local councils that have been established in nearly all 23 hospitals as well as service lines. Modeling partnership, the PFPC is grounded in listening to the “voice” of patients and families and promoting collaboration, with the goal of driving change across varied aspects and experiences of health care delivery.

Through the Office of Patient and Customer Experience (OPCE), a partnership with IPFCC and the Better Together Learning Community for Hospitals in New York State was initiated as a fundamental next step in Northwell’s journey to enhance system-wide family presence and participation. Results from Better Together’s Organizational Self-Assessment Tool and process identified opportunities to influence 3 distinct areas: policy/staff education, position descriptions/performance management, and website/signage. Over a 10-month period (September 2018 through June 2019), 15 Northwell hospitals implemened significant patient- and family-centered improvements through multifaceted shared work teams (SWT) that partnered around the common goal of supporting the patient and family experience (Figure). Northwell’s SWT structure allowed teams to meet individually on specific tasks, led by a dedicated staff member of the OPCE to ensure progress, support, and accountability. Six monthly coaching calls or report-out meetings were attended by participating teams, where feedback and recommendations shared by IPFCC were discussed in order to maintain momentum and results.

Policy/Staff Education

The policy/staff education SWT focused on appraising and updating existing policies to ensure alignment with key patient- and family-centered concepts and Better Together principles (Table 1). By establishing representation on the System Policy and Procedure Committee, OPCE enabled patients and families to have a voice at the decision-making table. OPCE leaders presented the ideology and scope of the transformation to this committee. After reviewing all system-wide policies, 4 were identified as key opportunities for revision. One overarching policy titled “Visitation Guidelines” was reviewed and updated to reflect Northwell’s mission of patient- and family-centered care, retiring the reference to “families” as “visitors” in definitions, incorporating language of inclusion and partnership, and citing other related policies. The policy was vetted through a multilayer process of review and stakeholder feedback and was ultimately approved at a system Performance Improvement Coordinating Group meeting under a new title, “Visitation: Presence and Participation of Families, Support System Designees and Visitor(s) in Care.”

Three additional related policies were also updated to reflect core principles of inclusion and partnership. These included system policies focused on discharge planning; identification of health care proxy, agent, support person and caregiver; and standards of behavior not conducive in a health care setting. As a result of this work, OPCE was invited to remain an active member of the System Policy and Procedure Committee, adding meaningful new perspectives to the clinical and administrative policy management process. Once policies were updated and approved, the SWT focused on educating leaders and teams. Using a diversified strategy, education was provided through various modes, including weekly system-wide internal communication channels, patient experience huddle messages, yearly mandatory topics training, and the incorporation of essential concepts in existing educational courses (classroom and e-learning modalities).

Position Descriptions/Performance Management

The position descriptions/performance management SWT focused its efforts on incorporating patient- and family-centered concepts and language into position descriptions and the performance appraisal process (Table 2). Due to the complex nature of this work, the process required collaboration from key subject matter experts in human resources, talent management, corporate compensation, and labor management. In 2019, Northwell began an initiative focused on streamlining and standardizing job titles, roles, and developmental pathways across the system. The overarching goal was to create system-wide consistency and standardization. The SWT was successful in advising the leaders overseeing this job architecture initiative on the importance of including language of patient- and family-centered care, like partnership and collaboration, and of highlighting the critical role of family members as part of the care team in subsequent documents.

Northwell has 6 behavioral expectations, standards to which all team members are held accountable: Patient/Customer Focus, Teamwork, Execution, Organizational Awareness, Enable Change, and Develop Self. As a result of the SWT’s work, Patient/Customer Focus was revised to include “families” as essential care partners, demonstrating Northwell’s ongoing commitment to honoring the role of families as members of the care team. It also ensures that all employees are aligned around this priority, as these expectations are utilized to support areas such as recognition and performance. Collaborating with talent management and organizational development, the SWT reviewed yearly performance management and new-hire evaluations. In doing so, they identified an opportunity to refresh the anchored qualitative rating scales to include behavioral demonstrations of patient- and family-centered care, collaboration, respect, and partnership with family members.

Website/Signage

Websites make an important first impression on patients and families looking for information to best prepare for a hospital experience. Therefore, the website/signage SWT worked to redesign hospital websites, enhance digital signage, and perform a baseline assessment of physical signage across facilities. Initial feedback on Northwell’s websites identified opportunities to include more patient- and family-centered, care-partner-infused language; improve navigation; and streamline click levels for easier access. Content for the websites was carefully crafted in collaboration with Northwell’s internal web team, utilizing IPFCC’s best practice standards as a framework and guide.

Next, a multidisciplinary website shared-governance team was established by the OPCE to ensure that key stakeholders were represented and had the opportunity to review and make recommendations for appropriate language and messaging about family presence and participation. This 13-person team was comprised of patient/family partners, patient-experience culture leaders, quality, compliance, human resources, policy, a chief nursing officer, a medical director, and representation from the Institute for Nursing. After careful review and consideration from Northwell’s family partners and teams, all participating hospital websites were enhanced as of June 2019 to include prominent 1-click access from homepages to information for “patients, families and visitors,” as well as “your care partners” information on the important role of families and care partners.

Along with refreshing websites, another step in Northwell’s work to strengthen messaging about family presence and participation was to partner and collaborate with the system’s digital web team as well as local facility councils to understand the capacity to adjust digital signage across facilities. Opportunities were found to make simple yet effective enhancements to the language and imagery of digital signage upon entry, creating a warmer and more welcoming first impression for patients and families. With patient and family partner feedback, the team designed digital signage with inclusive messaging and images that would circulate appropriately based on the facility. Signage specifically welcomes families and refers to them as members of patients’ care teams.

Northwell’s website/signage SWT also directed a 2-phase physical signage assessment to determine ongoing opportunities to alter signs in areas that particularly impact patients and families, such as emergency departments, main lobbies, cafeterias, surgical waiting areas, and intensive care units. Each hospital’s local PFPC did a “walk-about”⁹ to make enhancements to physical signage, such as removing paper and overcrowded signs, adjusting negative language, ensuring alignment with brand guidelines, and including language that welcomed families. As a result of the team’s efforts around signage, collaboration began with the health system’s signage committee to help standardize signage terminology to reflect family inclusiveness, and to implement the recommendation for a standardized signage shared-governance team to ensure accountability and a patient- and family-centered structure.

Sustainment

Since implementing Better Together, Northwell has been able to infuse a more patient- and family-centered emphasis into its overall patient experience message of “Every role, every person, every moment matters.” As a strategic tool aimed at encouraging leaders, clinicians, and staff to pause and reflect about the “heart” of their work, patient and family stories are now included at the beginning of meetings, forums, and team huddles. Elements of the initiative have been integrated in current Patient and Family Partnership sustainment plans at participating hospitals. Some highlights include continued integration of patient/family partners on committees and councils that impact areas such as way finding, signage, recruitment, new-hire orientation, and community outreach; focus on enhancing partner retention and development programs; and inclusion of patient- and family-centered care and Better Together principles in ongoing leadership meetings.

Factors Contributing to Success

Health care is a complex, regulated, and often bureaucratic world that can be very difficult for patients and families to navigate. The system’s partnership with the Better Together Learning Community for Hospitals in New York State enhanced its efforts to improve family presence and participation and created powerful synergy. The success of this partnership was based on a number of important factors:

A solid foundation of support, structure, and accountability. The OPCE initiated the IPFCC Better Together partnership and established a synergistic collaboration inclusive of leadership, frontline teams, multiple departments, and patient and family partners. As a major strategic component of Northwell’s mission to deliver high-quality, patient- and family-centered care, OPCE was instrumental in connecting key areas and stakeholders and mobilizing the recommendations coming from patients and families.

A visible commitment of leadership at all levels. Partnering with leadership across Northwell’s system required a delineated vision, clear purpose and ownership, and comprehensive implementation and sustainment strategies. The existing format of Northwell’s PFPC provided the structure and framework needed for engaged patient and family input; the OPCE motivated and organized key areas of involvement and led communication efforts across the organization. The IPFCC coaching calls provided the underlying guidance and accountability needed to sustain momentum. As leadership and frontline teams became aware of the vision, they understood the larger connection to the system’s purpose, which ultimately created a clear path for positive change.

Meaningful involvement and input of patient and family partners. Throughout this project, Northwell’s patient/family partners were involved through the PFPC and local councils. For example, patient/family partners attended every IPFCC coaching call; members had a central voice in every decision made within each SWT; and local PFPCs actively participated in physical signage “walk-abouts” across facilities, making key recommendations for improvement. This multifaceted, supportive collaboration created a rejuvenated and purposeful focus for all council members involved. Some of their reactions include, “…I am so happy to be able to help other families in crisis, so that they don’t have to be alone, like I was,” and “I feel how important the patient and family’s voice is … it’s truly a partnership between patients, families, and staff.”

Regular access to IPFCC as a best practice coach and expert resource. Throughout the 10-month process, IPFCC’s Better Together Learning Community for Hospitals in New York State provided ongoing learning interventions for members of the SWT; multiple and varied resources from the Better Together toolkit for adaptation; and opportunities to share and reinforce new, learned expertise with colleagues within the Northwell Health system and beyond through IPFCC’s free online learning community, PFCC.Connect.

Conclusion

Family presence and participation are important to the quality, experience, safety, and outcomes of care. IPFCC’s campaign, Better Together: Partnering with Families, encourages hospitals to change restrictive visiting policies and, instead, to welcome families and caregivers 24 hours a day.

Two projects within Better Together involving almost 50 acute care hospitals in New York State confirm that change in policy, practice, and communication is particularly effective when implemented with strong support from leadership. An intervention like the Better Together Learning Community, offering structured training, coaching, and resources, can facilitate the change process.

Corresponding author: IPFCC, Deborah L. Dokken, 6917 Arlington Rd., Ste. 309, Bethesda, MD 20814; ddokken@ipfcc.org.

Funding disclosures: None.

Groceries, maybe a new shirt, and now some veterans can fit in some shopping at their next health care visit. In a pilot project, the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) is partnering with Walmart to offer veterans easy access to health care at 5 sites.

The VA-led ATLAS (Accessing telehealth through local area stations) program is part of the VA Anywhere to Anywhere telehealth initiative, which aims to provide care to veterans no matter where they live. Other telehealth pilot sites are in Wisconsin, Michigan, and Iowa. In addition to Walmart, ATLAS sites are located at American Legion posts and Veterans of Foreign Wars (VFW) posts.

The local VA facility associated with the ATLAS site determines which clinical services the site offers. The health care services do not require hands-on exams. Clinical services may include, for instance, primary care, mental health counseling, clinical pharmacy, nutrition services, and social work. On-site attendants provide information, help the veterans get started, troubleshoot technical issues, and clean the space between appointments. Walmart donated equipment and space, where veterans can meet with a VA provider in a private room via video technology.

Last year, nearly 500,000 veterans logged > 1.3 million VA video telehealth encounters. It is the “way of the future,” says VA Secretary Robert Wilkie. “Veterans need the expansion of choice, and this partnership is vital to affording them convenient access to VA health care services where they live.”

Daryl Risinger, Chief Growth Officer for Walmart US Health and Wellness, is a veteran of the Air Force, and has a son and son-in-law serving. He says, “I know firsthand how important support and access is for our military, especially when it comes to health care. …This is another way we are helping our communities live better.”

For a veteran to attend an appointment at an ATLAS site, the site must be associated with the VA Medical Center where the veteran is enrolled. Family members who receive care through the VA can also visit ATLAS sites for select appointments.

Groceries, maybe a new shirt, and now some veterans can fit in some shopping at their next health care visit. In a pilot project, the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) is partnering with Walmart to offer veterans easy access to health care at 5 sites.

The VA-led ATLAS (Accessing telehealth through local area stations) program is part of the VA Anywhere to Anywhere telehealth initiative, which aims to provide care to veterans no matter where they live. Other telehealth pilot sites are in Wisconsin, Michigan, and Iowa. In addition to Walmart, ATLAS sites are located at American Legion posts and Veterans of Foreign Wars (VFW) posts.

The local VA facility associated with the ATLAS site determines which clinical services the site offers. The health care services do not require hands-on exams. Clinical services may include, for instance, primary care, mental health counseling, clinical pharmacy, nutrition services, and social work. On-site attendants provide information, help the veterans get started, troubleshoot technical issues, and clean the space between appointments. Walmart donated equipment and space, where veterans can meet with a VA provider in a private room via video technology.

Last year, nearly 500,000 veterans logged > 1.3 million VA video telehealth encounters. It is the “way of the future,” says VA Secretary Robert Wilkie. “Veterans need the expansion of choice, and this partnership is vital to affording them convenient access to VA health care services where they live.”

Daryl Risinger, Chief Growth Officer for Walmart US Health and Wellness, is a veteran of the Air Force, and has a son and son-in-law serving. He says, “I know firsthand how important support and access is for our military, especially when it comes to health care. …This is another way we are helping our communities live better.”

For a veteran to attend an appointment at an ATLAS site, the site must be associated with the VA Medical Center where the veteran is enrolled. Family members who receive care through the VA can also visit ATLAS sites for select appointments.

Groceries, maybe a new shirt, and now some veterans can fit in some shopping at their next health care visit. In a pilot project, the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) is partnering with Walmart to offer veterans easy access to health care at 5 sites.

The VA-led ATLAS (Accessing telehealth through local area stations) program is part of the VA Anywhere to Anywhere telehealth initiative, which aims to provide care to veterans no matter where they live. Other telehealth pilot sites are in Wisconsin, Michigan, and Iowa. In addition to Walmart, ATLAS sites are located at American Legion posts and Veterans of Foreign Wars (VFW) posts.

The local VA facility associated with the ATLAS site determines which clinical services the site offers. The health care services do not require hands-on exams. Clinical services may include, for instance, primary care, mental health counseling, clinical pharmacy, nutrition services, and social work. On-site attendants provide information, help the veterans get started, troubleshoot technical issues, and clean the space between appointments. Walmart donated equipment and space, where veterans can meet with a VA provider in a private room via video technology.

Last year, nearly 500,000 veterans logged > 1.3 million VA video telehealth encounters. It is the “way of the future,” says VA Secretary Robert Wilkie. “Veterans need the expansion of choice, and this partnership is vital to affording them convenient access to VA health care services where they live.”

Daryl Risinger, Chief Growth Officer for Walmart US Health and Wellness, is a veteran of the Air Force, and has a son and son-in-law serving. He says, “I know firsthand how important support and access is for our military, especially when it comes to health care. …This is another way we are helping our communities live better.”

For a veteran to attend an appointment at an ATLAS site, the site must be associated with the VA Medical Center where the veteran is enrolled. Family members who receive care through the VA can also visit ATLAS sites for select appointments.

Major changes in continuing board certification are occurring across medical specialties. On January 6, 2020, the American Board of Dermatology (ABD) launches its new web-based longitudinal assessment program called CertLink (https://abderm.mycertlink.org/).¹ This new platform is designed to eventually replace the sit-down, high-stakes, once-every-10-year medical knowledge examination that dermatologists take to remain board certified. With this alternative, every participating dermatologist will receive a batch of 13 web-based questions every quarter that he/she may answer at a convenient time and place. Questions are answered one at a time or in batches, depending on the test taker’s preference, and can be completed on home or office computers (and eventually on smartphones). Participating in this type of testing does not require shutting down practice, traveling to a test center, or paying for expensive board review courses. CertLink is designed to be convenient, affordable, and relevant to an individual’s practice.

How did the ABD arrive at CertLink?

The ABD launched its original Maintenance of Certification (MOC) program in 2006. Since then, newly board-certified dermatologists, recertifying dermatologists with time-limited certificates, and time-unlimited dermatologists who volunteered to participate in MOC have experienced the dermatology MOC program. In its first 10 years, the program was met with very mixed reviews. The program was designed to assess and promote competence in a 4-part framework, including professionalism; commitment to lifelong learning and self-assessment; demonstration of knowledge, judgment, and skills; and improvement in medical practice. All 4 are areas of rational pursuit for medical professionals seeking to perform and maintain the highest quality patient care possible. But there were problems. First iterations are rarely perfect, and dermatology MOC was no exception.

At the onset, the ABD chose to oversee the MOC requirements and remained hands off in the delivery of education, relying instead on other organizations to fulfill the ABD’s requirements. Unfortunately, with limited educational offerings available, many diplomates paid notable registration fees for each qualifying MOC activity. Quality improvement activities were a relatively new experience for dermatologists and were time consuming. Required medical record reviews were onerous, often requiring more than 35 data points to be collected per medical record reviewed. The limited number and limited diversity of educational offerings also created circumstances in which the material covered was not maximally relevant to many participants. When paying to answer questions about patient populations or procedure types never encountered by the dermatologist who purchased the particular MOC activity, many asked the question “How does this make me a better doctor?” They were right to ask.

Cost, time commitment to participate in MOC, and relevance to practice were 3 key areas of concern for many dermatologists. In response to internal and external MOC feedback, in 2015 the ABD took a hard look at its 10-year experience with MOC. While contemplating its next strategies, the ABD temporarily put its component 4—practice improvement—requirements on hold. After much review, the ABD decided to take over a notable portion of the education delivery. Its goal was to provide education that would fulfill MOC requirements in a more affordable, relevant, quicker, and easier manner.

First, the ABD made the decision to assume a more notable role as educator, in part to offer qualifying activities at no additional cost to diplomates. By taking on the role as educator, 3 major changes resulted: the way ABD approached quality improvement activities, partnership to initiate a question-of-the-week self-assessment program, and initiation of a longitudinal assessment strategy that resulted in this month’s launch of CertLink.

The ABD revolutionized its quality improvement requirements with the launch of its practice improvement modules made available through its website.² These modules utilize recently published clinical practice gaps in 5 dermatology subspecialty domains to fulfill the practice improvement requirements. Participants read a brief synopsis of the supporting literature explaining practice improvement recommendations found in the module. Next, they find 5 patients in their practice with the condition, medication, or process in question and review whether they provided the care supported by the best available evidence. No module requires more than 5 medical records to review, and no more than 3 questions are answered per medical record review. If review confirms that the care was appropriate, no further action is needed. If a care gap is identified, then participants implement changes and later remeasure practice to detect any change. This certification activity was incredibly popular with the thousands of diplomates who have participated thus far; more than 97% stated the modules were relevant to practice, 98% stated they would recommend the modules to fellow dermatologists, and nearly 25% reported the module helped to change their practice for the better (unpublished data, July 2019). Relevance had been restored.

The ABD worked closely with the American Academy of Dermatology (AAD) to develop new education for weekly self-assessment. The ABD created the content and delivered to the AAD the first year of material for what would become the most successful and popular dermatology CME activity in history: the AAD Question of the Week (QOW). Thousands of dermatologists are registered to receive the QOW, with very active weekly participation. Participants receive 1 self-assessment point and 0.25 CME credits for each attempted question, right or wrong. This quizzing tool also was educational, with explanation of right answers and wrong choices included. The average amount of time spent answering each question was approximately 40 seconds. American Academy of Dermatology members can participate in its QOW as a member benefit. Self-assessment is no longer a time- consuming or costly process.

What will be part of CertLink?

In addition to standard multiple-choice questions, there are many interesting elements to the CertLink program, such as article-based questions. At the beginning of each year, dermatologists select 8 articles from a list of those hosted by CertLink. These are recently published articles, chosen for their meaningfulness to practicing dermatologists. Each subsequent quarter, 2 of these articles are issued to the diplomate to read at his/her leisure. Once ready, participants launch and answer 2 questions about the key points of each article. The article-based questions were designed to help the practicing dermatologist stay up-to-date and relevant in personally chosen areas.

Diplomates are offered a chance to learn from any question that was missed, with explanations or resources provided to help them understand why the correct answer is correct. In this new learn-to-competence model, diplomates are not penalized the first time they answer a particular question incorrectly. Each is provided an opportunity to learn through the explanations given, and then in a future quarter, the dermatologist is given a second chance to answer a similarly themed question, with only that second chance counting toward his/her overall score.

Another unique aspect of CertLink is the allowance of time off from assessment. The ABD recognizes that life happens, and that intermittent time off from career-long assessment will be necessary to accommodate life events, including but not limited to maternity leave, other medical leave, or mental health breaks. Diplomates may take off up to 1 quarter of testing each year to accommodate such life events. Those who need extra time (beyond 1 quarter per year) would need to communicate directly with ABD to request. Those who continue to answer questions throughout the year will have their lowest-performing quarter dropped, to maximize fairness to all. Only the top 3 quarters of CertLink test performance will be counted each year when making certification status decisions. Those who take 1 quarter off will have their other 3 quarters counted toward their scoring.

How will CertLink measure performance?

At the onset of CertLink, there is no predetermined passing score. It will take a few years for the ABD psychometricians to determine an acceptable performance. Questions are written not to be tricky but rather to assess patient issues the dermatologist is likely to encounter in practice. Article-based questions are designed to assess the key points of important recent articles to advance the dermatologist’s practice.

Final Thoughts

In the end, the ABD approach to the new area of continuing certification centers on strategies to be relevant, inexpensive, and minimally disruptive to practice, and to teach to competence and advance practice by bringing forward articles that address key recent literature. We think it is a much better approach to dermatology continuing certification.

Major changes in continuing board certification are occurring across medical specialties. On January 6, 2020, the American Board of Dermatology (ABD) launches its new web-based longitudinal assessment program called CertLink (https://abderm.mycertlink.org/).¹ This new platform is designed to eventually replace the sit-down, high-stakes, once-every-10-year medical knowledge examination that dermatologists take to remain board certified. With this alternative, every participating dermatologist will receive a batch of 13 web-based questions every quarter that he/she may answer at a convenient time and place. Questions are answered one at a time or in batches, depending on the test taker’s preference, and can be completed on home or office computers (and eventually on smartphones). Participating in this type of testing does not require shutting down practice, traveling to a test center, or paying for expensive board review courses. CertLink is designed to be convenient, affordable, and relevant to an individual’s practice.

How did the ABD arrive at CertLink?

The ABD launched its original Maintenance of Certification (MOC) program in 2006. Since then, newly board-certified dermatologists, recertifying dermatologists with time-limited certificates, and time-unlimited dermatologists who volunteered to participate in MOC have experienced the dermatology MOC program. In its first 10 years, the program was met with very mixed reviews. The program was designed to assess and promote competence in a 4-part framework, including professionalism; commitment to lifelong learning and self-assessment; demonstration of knowledge, judgment, and skills; and improvement in medical practice. All 4 are areas of rational pursuit for medical professionals seeking to perform and maintain the highest quality patient care possible. But there were problems. First iterations are rarely perfect, and dermatology MOC was no exception.

At the onset, the ABD chose to oversee the MOC requirements and remained hands off in the delivery of education, relying instead on other organizations to fulfill the ABD’s requirements. Unfortunately, with limited educational offerings available, many diplomates paid notable registration fees for each qualifying MOC activity. Quality improvement activities were a relatively new experience for dermatologists and were time consuming. Required medical record reviews were onerous, often requiring more than 35 data points to be collected per medical record reviewed. The limited number and limited diversity of educational offerings also created circumstances in which the material covered was not maximally relevant to many participants. When paying to answer questions about patient populations or procedure types never encountered by the dermatologist who purchased the particular MOC activity, many asked the question “How does this make me a better doctor?” They were right to ask.

Cost, time commitment to participate in MOC, and relevance to practice were 3 key areas of concern for many dermatologists. In response to internal and external MOC feedback, in 2015 the ABD took a hard look at its 10-year experience with MOC. While contemplating its next strategies, the ABD temporarily put its component 4—practice improvement—requirements on hold. After much review, the ABD decided to take over a notable portion of the education delivery. Its goal was to provide education that would fulfill MOC requirements in a more affordable, relevant, quicker, and easier manner.

First, the ABD made the decision to assume a more notable role as educator, in part to offer qualifying activities at no additional cost to diplomates. By taking on the role as educator, 3 major changes resulted: the way ABD approached quality improvement activities, partnership to initiate a question-of-the-week self-assessment program, and initiation of a longitudinal assessment strategy that resulted in this month’s launch of CertLink.

The ABD revolutionized its quality improvement requirements with the launch of its practice improvement modules made available through its website.² These modules utilize recently published clinical practice gaps in 5 dermatology subspecialty domains to fulfill the practice improvement requirements. Participants read a brief synopsis of the supporting literature explaining practice improvement recommendations found in the module. Next, they find 5 patients in their practice with the condition, medication, or process in question and review whether they provided the care supported by the best available evidence. No module requires more than 5 medical records to review, and no more than 3 questions are answered per medical record review. If review confirms that the care was appropriate, no further action is needed. If a care gap is identified, then participants implement changes and later remeasure practice to detect any change. This certification activity was incredibly popular with the thousands of diplomates who have participated thus far; more than 97% stated the modules were relevant to practice, 98% stated they would recommend the modules to fellow dermatologists, and nearly 25% reported the module helped to change their practice for the better (unpublished data, July 2019). Relevance had been restored.

The ABD worked closely with the American Academy of Dermatology (AAD) to develop new education for weekly self-assessment. The ABD created the content and delivered to the AAD the first year of material for what would become the most successful and popular dermatology CME activity in history: the AAD Question of the Week (QOW). Thousands of dermatologists are registered to receive the QOW, with very active weekly participation. Participants receive 1 self-assessment point and 0.25 CME credits for each attempted question, right or wrong. This quizzing tool also was educational, with explanation of right answers and wrong choices included. The average amount of time spent answering each question was approximately 40 seconds. American Academy of Dermatology members can participate in its QOW as a member benefit. Self-assessment is no longer a time- consuming or costly process.

What will be part of CertLink?

In addition to standard multiple-choice questions, there are many interesting elements to the CertLink program, such as article-based questions. At the beginning of each year, dermatologists select 8 articles from a list of those hosted by CertLink. These are recently published articles, chosen for their meaningfulness to practicing dermatologists. Each subsequent quarter, 2 of these articles are issued to the diplomate to read at his/her leisure. Once ready, participants launch and answer 2 questions about the key points of each article. The article-based questions were designed to help the practicing dermatologist stay up-to-date and relevant in personally chosen areas.

Diplomates are offered a chance to learn from any question that was missed, with explanations or resources provided to help them understand why the correct answer is correct. In this new learn-to-competence model, diplomates are not penalized the first time they answer a particular question incorrectly. Each is provided an opportunity to learn through the explanations given, and then in a future quarter, the dermatologist is given a second chance to answer a similarly themed question, with only that second chance counting toward his/her overall score.

Another unique aspect of CertLink is the allowance of time off from assessment. The ABD recognizes that life happens, and that intermittent time off from career-long assessment will be necessary to accommodate life events, including but not limited to maternity leave, other medical leave, or mental health breaks. Diplomates may take off up to 1 quarter of testing each year to accommodate such life events. Those who need extra time (beyond 1 quarter per year) would need to communicate directly with ABD to request. Those who continue to answer questions throughout the year will have their lowest-performing quarter dropped, to maximize fairness to all. Only the top 3 quarters of CertLink test performance will be counted each year when making certification status decisions. Those who take 1 quarter off will have their other 3 quarters counted toward their scoring.

How will CertLink measure performance?

At the onset of CertLink, there is no predetermined passing score. It will take a few years for the ABD psychometricians to determine an acceptable performance. Questions are written not to be tricky but rather to assess patient issues the dermatologist is likely to encounter in practice. Article-based questions are designed to assess the key points of important recent articles to advance the dermatologist’s practice.

Final Thoughts

In the end, the ABD approach to the new area of continuing certification centers on strategies to be relevant, inexpensive, and minimally disruptive to practice, and to teach to competence and advance practice by bringing forward articles that address key recent literature. We think it is a much better approach to dermatology continuing certification.

Major changes in continuing board certification are occurring across medical specialties. On January 6, 2020, the American Board of Dermatology (ABD) launches its new web-based longitudinal assessment program called CertLink (https://abderm.mycertlink.org/).¹ This new platform is designed to eventually replace the sit-down, high-stakes, once-every-10-year medical knowledge examination that dermatologists take to remain board certified. With this alternative, every participating dermatologist will receive a batch of 13 web-based questions every quarter that he/she may answer at a convenient time and place. Questions are answered one at a time or in batches, depending on the test taker’s preference, and can be completed on home or office computers (and eventually on smartphones). Participating in this type of testing does not require shutting down practice, traveling to a test center, or paying for expensive board review courses. CertLink is designed to be convenient, affordable, and relevant to an individual’s practice.

How did the ABD arrive at CertLink?

The ABD launched its original Maintenance of Certification (MOC) program in 2006. Since then, newly board-certified dermatologists, recertifying dermatologists with time-limited certificates, and time-unlimited dermatologists who volunteered to participate in MOC have experienced the dermatology MOC program. In its first 10 years, the program was met with very mixed reviews. The program was designed to assess and promote competence in a 4-part framework, including professionalism; commitment to lifelong learning and self-assessment; demonstration of knowledge, judgment, and skills; and improvement in medical practice. All 4 are areas of rational pursuit for medical professionals seeking to perform and maintain the highest quality patient care possible. But there were problems. First iterations are rarely perfect, and dermatology MOC was no exception.

At the onset, the ABD chose to oversee the MOC requirements and remained hands off in the delivery of education, relying instead on other organizations to fulfill the ABD’s requirements. Unfortunately, with limited educational offerings available, many diplomates paid notable registration fees for each qualifying MOC activity. Quality improvement activities were a relatively new experience for dermatologists and were time consuming. Required medical record reviews were onerous, often requiring more than 35 data points to be collected per medical record reviewed. The limited number and limited diversity of educational offerings also created circumstances in which the material covered was not maximally relevant to many participants. When paying to answer questions about patient populations or procedure types never encountered by the dermatologist who purchased the particular MOC activity, many asked the question “How does this make me a better doctor?” They were right to ask.

Cost, time commitment to participate in MOC, and relevance to practice were 3 key areas of concern for many dermatologists. In response to internal and external MOC feedback, in 2015 the ABD took a hard look at its 10-year experience with MOC. While contemplating its next strategies, the ABD temporarily put its component 4—practice improvement—requirements on hold. After much review, the ABD decided to take over a notable portion of the education delivery. Its goal was to provide education that would fulfill MOC requirements in a more affordable, relevant, quicker, and easier manner.

First, the ABD made the decision to assume a more notable role as educator, in part to offer qualifying activities at no additional cost to diplomates. By taking on the role as educator, 3 major changes resulted: the way ABD approached quality improvement activities, partnership to initiate a question-of-the-week self-assessment program, and initiation of a longitudinal assessment strategy that resulted in this month’s launch of CertLink.

The ABD revolutionized its quality improvement requirements with the launch of its practice improvement modules made available through its website.² These modules utilize recently published clinical practice gaps in 5 dermatology subspecialty domains to fulfill the practice improvement requirements. Participants read a brief synopsis of the supporting literature explaining practice improvement recommendations found in the module. Next, they find 5 patients in their practice with the condition, medication, or process in question and review whether they provided the care supported by the best available evidence. No module requires more than 5 medical records to review, and no more than 3 questions are answered per medical record review. If review confirms that the care was appropriate, no further action is needed. If a care gap is identified, then participants implement changes and later remeasure practice to detect any change. This certification activity was incredibly popular with the thousands of diplomates who have participated thus far; more than 97% stated the modules were relevant to practice, 98% stated they would recommend the modules to fellow dermatologists, and nearly 25% reported the module helped to change their practice for the better (unpublished data, July 2019). Relevance had been restored.

The ABD worked closely with the American Academy of Dermatology (AAD) to develop new education for weekly self-assessment. The ABD created the content and delivered to the AAD the first year of material for what would become the most successful and popular dermatology CME activity in history: the AAD Question of the Week (QOW). Thousands of dermatologists are registered to receive the QOW, with very active weekly participation. Participants receive 1 self-assessment point and 0.25 CME credits for each attempted question, right or wrong. This quizzing tool also was educational, with explanation of right answers and wrong choices included. The average amount of time spent answering each question was approximately 40 seconds. American Academy of Dermatology members can participate in its QOW as a member benefit. Self-assessment is no longer a time- consuming or costly process.

What will be part of CertLink?

In addition to standard multiple-choice questions, there are many interesting elements to the CertLink program, such as article-based questions. At the beginning of each year, dermatologists select 8 articles from a list of those hosted by CertLink. These are recently published articles, chosen for their meaningfulness to practicing dermatologists. Each subsequent quarter, 2 of these articles are issued to the diplomate to read at his/her leisure. Once ready, participants launch and answer 2 questions about the key points of each article. The article-based questions were designed to help the practicing dermatologist stay up-to-date and relevant in personally chosen areas.

Diplomates are offered a chance to learn from any question that was missed, with explanations or resources provided to help them understand why the correct answer is correct. In this new learn-to-competence model, diplomates are not penalized the first time they answer a particular question incorrectly. Each is provided an opportunity to learn through the explanations given, and then in a future quarter, the dermatologist is given a second chance to answer a similarly themed question, with only that second chance counting toward his/her overall score.

Another unique aspect of CertLink is the allowance of time off from assessment. The ABD recognizes that life happens, and that intermittent time off from career-long assessment will be necessary to accommodate life events, including but not limited to maternity leave, other medical leave, or mental health breaks. Diplomates may take off up to 1 quarter of testing each year to accommodate such life events. Those who need extra time (beyond 1 quarter per year) would need to communicate directly with ABD to request. Those who continue to answer questions throughout the year will have their lowest-performing quarter dropped, to maximize fairness to all. Only the top 3 quarters of CertLink test performance will be counted each year when making certification status decisions. Those who take 1 quarter off will have their other 3 quarters counted toward their scoring.

How will CertLink measure performance?

At the onset of CertLink, there is no predetermined passing score. It will take a few years for the ABD psychometricians to determine an acceptable performance. Questions are written not to be tricky but rather to assess patient issues the dermatologist is likely to encounter in practice. Article-based questions are designed to assess the key points of important recent articles to advance the dermatologist’s practice.

Final Thoughts

In the end, the ABD approach to the new area of continuing certification centers on strategies to be relevant, inexpensive, and minimally disruptive to practice, and to teach to competence and advance practice by bringing forward articles that address key recent literature. We think it is a much better approach to dermatology continuing certification.

Providing high-quality, patient-centered health care is a top priority for the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Veteran Health Administration (VHA), whose core mission is to improve the health and well-being of US veterans. Thus, news of long wait times for medical appointments in the VHA sparked intense national attention and debate and led to changes in senior management and legislative action. ¹ On August 8, 2014, President Bara c k Obama signed the Veterans Access, Choice, and Accountability Act of 2014, also known as the Choice Act, which provided an additional $16 billion in emergency spending over 3 years to improve veterans’ access to timely health care. ² The Choice Act sought to develop an integrated health care network that allowed qualified VHA patients to receive specific health care services in their communities delivered by non-VHA health care providers (HCPs) but paid for by the VHA. The Choice Act also laid out explicit criteria for how to prioritize who would be eligible for VHA-purchased civilian care: (1) veterans who could not get timely appointments at a VHA medical facility within 30 days of referral; or (2) veterans who lived > 40 miles from the closest VHA medical facility.

VHA decision makers seeking to improve care delivery also need to weigh trade-offs between alternative approaches to providing rapid access. For instance, increasing access to non-VHA HCPs may not always decrease wait times and could result in loss of continuity, limited care coordination, limited ability to ensure and enforce high-quality standards at the VHA, and other challenges.^3-6 Although the concerns and views of elected representatives, advocacy groups, and health system leaders are important, it is unknown whether these views and preferences align with those of veterans. Arguably, the range of views and concerns of informed veterans whose health is at stake should be particularly prominent in such policy decision making.

To identify the considerations that were most important to veterans regarding VHA policy around decreasing wait times, a study was designed to engage a group of veterans who were eligible for civilian care under the Choice Act. The study took place 1 year after the Choice Act was passed. Veterans were asked to focus on 2 related questions: First, how should funding be used for building VHA capacity (build) vs purchasing civilian care (buy)? Second, under what circumstances should civilian care be prioritized?

The aim of this paper is to describe democratic deliberation (DD), a specific method that engaged veteran patients in complex policy decisions around access to care. DD methods have been used increasingly in health care for developing policy guidance, setting priorities, providing advice on ethical dilemmas, weighing risk-benefit trade-offs, and determining decision-making authority.^7-12 For example, DD helped guide national policy for mammography screening for breast cancer in New Zealand.¹³ The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality has completed a systematic review and a large, randomized experiment on best practices for carrying out public deliberation.^8,13,14 However, despite the potential value of this approach, there has been little use of deliberative methods within the VHA for the explicit purpose of informing veteran health care delivery.

This paper describes the experience engaging veterans by using DD methodology and informing VHA leadership about the results of those deliberations. The specific aims were to understand whether DD is an acceptable approach to use to engage patients in the medical services policy-making process within VHA and whether veterans are able to come to an informed consensus.

Methods

Engaging patients and incorporating their needs and concerns within the policy-making process may improve health system policies and make those policies more patient centered. Such engagement also could be a way to generate creative solutions. However, because health-system decisions often involve making difficult trade-offs, effectively obtaining patient population input on complex care delivery issues can be challenging.

Although surveys can provide intuitive, top-of-mind input from respondents, these opinions are generally not sufficient for resolving complex problems.¹⁵ Focus groups and interviews may produce results that are more in-depth than surveys, but these methods tend to elicit settled private preferences rather than opinions about what the community should do.¹⁶ DD, on the other hand, is designed to elicit deeply informed public opinions on complex, value-laden topics to develop recommendations and policies for a larger community.¹⁷ The goal is to find collective solutions to challenging social problems. DD achieves this by giving participants an opportunity to explore a topic in-depth, question experts, and engage peers in reason-based discussions.^18,19 This method has its roots in political science and has been used over several decades to successfully inform policy making on a broad array of topics nationally and internationally—from health research ethics in the US to nuclear and energy policy in Japan.^7,16,20,21 DD has been found to promote ownership of public programs and lend legitimacy to policy decisions, political institutions, and democracy itself.¹⁸

A single day (8 hours) DD session was convened, following a Citizens Jury model of deliberation, which brings veteran patients together to learn about a topic, ask questions of experts, deliberate with peers, and generate a “citizen’s report” that contains a set of recommendations (Table 1). An overview of the different models of DD and rationale for each can be found elsewhere.^8,15

Recruitment Considerations

A purposively selected sample of civilian care-eligible veterans from a midwestern VHA health care system (1 medical center and 3 community-based outpatient clinics [CBOCs]) were invited to the DD session. The targeted number of participants was 30. Female veterans, who comprise only 7% of the local veteran population, were oversampled to account for their potentially different health care needs and to create balance between males and females in the session. Oversampling for other characteristics was not possible due to the relatively small sample size. Based on prior experience,⁷ it was assumed that 70% of willing participants would attend the session; therefore 34 veterans were invited and 24 attended. Each participant received a $200 incentive in appreciation for their substantial time commitment and to offset transportation costs.

Background Materials

A packet with educational materials (Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level of 10.5) was mailed to participants about 2 weeks before the DD session. Participants were asked to review prior to attending the session. These materials described the session (eg, purpose, organizers, importance) and provided factual information about the Choice Act (eg, eligibility, out-of-pocket costs, travel pay, prescription drug policies).

Session Overview

The session was structured to accomplish the following goals: (1) Elicit participants’ opinions about access to health care and reasons for those opinions; (2) Provide in-depth education about the Choice Act through presentations and discussions with topical experts; and (3) Elicit reasoning and recommendations on both the criteria by which participants prioritize candidates for civilian care and how participants would allocate additional funding to improve access (ie, by building VHA capacity to deliver more timely health care vs purchasing health care from civilian HCPs).

Participants were asked to fill out a survey on arrival in the morning and were assigned to 1 of 3 tables or small groups. Each table had a facilitator who had extensive experience in qualitative data collection methods and guided the dialogue using a scripted protocol that they helped develop and refine. The facilitation materials drew from and used previously published studies.^22,23 Each facilitator audio recorded the sessions and took notes. Three experts presented during plenary education sessions. Presentations were designed to provide balanced factual information and included a veteran’s perspective. One presenter was a clinician on the project team, another was a local clinical leader responsible for making decisions about what services to provide via civilian care (buy) vs enhancing the local VHA health system’s ability to provide those services (build), and the third presenter was a veteran who was on the project team.

Education Session 1

The first plenary education session with expert presentations was conducted after each table completed an icebreaker exercise. The project team physician provided a brief history and description of the Choice Act to reinforce educational materials sent to participants prior to the session. The health system clinical leader described his decision process and principles and highlighted constraints placed on him by the Choice Act that were in place at the time of the DD session. He also described existing local and national programs to provide civilian care (eg, local fee-basis non-VHA care programs) and how these programs sought to achieve goals similar to the Choice Act. The veteran presenter focused on the importance of session participants providing candid insight and observations and emphasized that this session was a significant opportunity to “have their voices heard.”

Deliberation 1: What criteria should be used to prioritize patients for receiving civilian care paid for by the VHA? To elicit preferences on the central question of this deliberation, participants were presented with 8 real-world cases that were based on interviews conducted with Choice Act-eligible veterans (Table 2 and eAppendices A

Education Session 2

In the second plenary session, the project team physician provided information about health care access issues, both inside and outside of the VHA, particularly between urban and rural areas. He also discussed factors related to the insufficient capacity to meet growing demand that contributed to the VHA wait-time crisis. The veteran presenter shared reflections on health care access from a veteran’s perspective.

Deliberation 2: How should additional funding be divided between increasing the ability of the VHA to (1) provide care by VHA HCPs; and (2) pay for care from non-VHA civilian HCPs? Participants were presented the patient examples and Choice Act funding scenarios (the buy policy option) and contrasted that with a build policy option. Participants were explicitly encouraged to shift their perspectives from thinking about individual cases to considering policy-level decisions and the broader social good (Table 2).

Ensuring Robust Deliberations

If participants do not adequately grasp the complexities of the topic, a deliberation can fail. To facilitate nuanced reasoning, real-world concrete examples were developed as the starting point of each deliberation based on interviews with actual patients (deliberation 1) and actual policy proposals relevant to the funding allocation decisions within the Choice Act (deliberation 2).

A deliberation also can fail with self-silencing, where participants withhold opinions that differ from those articulated first or by more vocal members of the group.²⁴ To combat self-silencing, highly experienced facilitators were used to ensure sharing from all participants and to support an open-minded, courteous, and reason-based environment for discourse. It was specified that the best solutions are achieved through reason-based and cordial disagreement and that success can be undermined when participants simply agree because it is easier or more comfortable.

A third way a deliberation can fail is if individuals do not adopt a group or system-level perspective. To counter this, facilitators reinforced at multiple points the importance of taking a broader social perspective rather than sharing only one’s personal preferences.

Finally, it is important to assess the quality of the deliberative process itself, to ensure that results are trustworthy.²⁵ To assess the quality of the deliberative process, participants knowledge about key issues pre- and postdeliberation were assessed. Participants also were asked to rate the quality of the facilitators and how well they felt their voice was heard and respected, and facilitators made qualitative assessments about the extent to which participants were engaged in reason-based and collaborative discussion.

Data

Quantitative data were collected via pre- and postsession surveys. The surveys contained items related to knowledge about the Choice Act, expectations for the DD session, beliefs and opinions about the provision of health care for veterans, recommended funding allocations between build vs buy policy options, and general demographics. Qualitative data were collected through detailed notes taken by the 3 facilitators. Each table’s deliberations were audio recorded so that gaps in the notes could be filled.

The 3 facilitators, who were all experienced qualitative researchers, typed their written notes into a template immediately after the session. Two of the 3 facilitators led the analysis of the session notes. Findings within and across the 3 deliberation tables were developed using content and matrix analysis methods.²⁶ Descriptive statistics were generated from survey responses and compared survey items pre- and postsession using paired t tests or χ² tests for categorical responses.

Results

Thirty-three percent of individuals invited (n = 127) agreed to participate. Those who declined cited conflicts related to distance, transportation, work/school, medical appointments, family commitments, or were not interested. In all, 24 (69%) of the 35 veterans who accepted the invitation attended the deliberation session. Of the 11 who accepted but did not attend, 5 cancelled ahead of time because of conflicts (Figure). Most participants were male (70%), 48% were aged 61 to 75 years, 65% were white, 43% had some college education, 43% reported an annual income of between $25,000 and $40,000, and only 35% reported very good health (eAppendix D).

Deliberation 1

During the deliberation on the prioritization criteria, the concept of “condition severity” emerged as an important criterion for veterans. This criterion captured simultaneous consideration of both clinical necessity and burden on the veteran to obtain care. For example, participants felt that patients with a life-threatening illness should be prioritized for civilian care over patients who need preventative or primary care (clinical necessity) and that elderly patients with substantial difficulty traveling to VHA appointments should be prioritized over patients who can travel more easily (burden). The Choice Act regulations at the time of the DD session did not reflect this nuanced perspective, stipulating only that veterans must live > 40 miles from the nearest VHA medical facility.

One of the 3 groups did not prioritize the patient cases because some members felt that no veteran should be constrained from receiving civilian care if they desired it. Nonetheless, this group did agree with prioritizing the first 2 cases in Table 3. The other groups prioritized all 8 cases in generally similar ways.

Deliberation 2

No clear consensus emerged on the buy vs build question. A representative from each table presented their group’s positions, rationale, and recommendations after deliberations were completed. After hearing the range of positions, the groups then had another opportunity to deliberate based on what they heard from the other tables; no new recommendations or consensus emerged.

Participants who were in favor of allocating more funds toward the build policy offered a range of rationales, saying that it would (1) increase access for rural veterans by building CBOCs and deploying more mobile units that could bring outlets for health care closer to their home communities; (2) provide critical and unique medical expertise to address veteran-specific issues such as prosthetics, traumatic brain injury, posttraumatic stress disorder, spinal cord injury, and shrapnel wounds that are typically not available through civilian providers; (3) give VHA more oversight over the quality and cost of care, which is more challenging to do with civilian providers; and (4) Improve VHA infrastructure by, for example, upgrading technology and attracting the best clinicians and staff to support “our VHA.”

Participants who were in favor of allocating more funds toward the buy policy also offered a range of rationales, saying that it would (1) decrease patient burden by increasing access through community providers, decreasing wait time, and lessening personal cost and travel time; (2) allow more patients to receive civilian care, which was generally seen as beneficial by a few participants because of perceptions that the VHA provides lower quality care due to a shortage of VHA providers, run-down/older facilities, lack of technology, and poorer-quality VHA providers; and (3) provide an opportunity to divest of costly facilities and invest in other innovative approaches. Regarding this last reason, a few participants felt that the VHA is “gouged” when building medical centers that overrun budgets. They also were concerned that investing in facilities tied VHA to specific locations when current locations of veterans may change “25 years from now.”

Survey Results

Twenty-three of the 24 participants completed both pre- and postsession surveys. The majority of participants in the session felt people in the group respected their opinion (96%); felt that the facilitator did not try to influence the group with her own opinions (96%); indicated they understood the information enough to participate as much as they wanted (100%); and were hopeful that their reasoning and recommendations would help inform VHA policy makers (82%).

The surveys also provided an opportunity to examine the extent to which knowledge, attitudes, and opinions changed from before to after the deliberation. Even with the small sample, responses revealed a trend toward improved knowledge about key elements of the Choice Act and its goals. Further, there was a shift in some participants’ opinions about how patients should be prioritized to receive civilian care. For example, before the deliberation participants generally felt that all veterans should be able to receive civilian care, whereas postdeliberation this was not the case. Postdeliberation, most participants felt that primary care should not be a high priority for civilian care but continued to endorse prioritizing civilian care for specialty services like orthopedic or cardiology-related care. Finally, participants moved from more diverse recommendations regarding additional funds allocations, toward consensus after the deliberation around allocating funds to the build policy. Eight participants supported a build policy beforehand, whereas 16 supported this policy afterward.

Discussion

This study explored DD as a method for deeply engaging veterans in complex policy making to guide funding allocation and prioritization decisions related to the Choice Act, decisions that are still very relevant today within the context of the Mission Act and have substantial implications for how health care is delivered in the VHA. The Mission Act passed on June 6, 2018, with the goal of improving access to and the reliability of civilian or community care for eligible veterans.²⁷ Decisions related to appropriating scarce funding to improve access to care is an emotional and value-laden topic that elicited strong and divergent opinions among the participants. Veterans were eager to have their voices heard and had strong expectations that VHA leadership would be briefed about their recommendations. The majority of participants were satisfied with the deliberation process, felt they understood the issues, and felt their opinions were respected. They expressed feelings of comradery and community throughout the process.

In this single deliberation session, the groups did not achieve a single, final consensus regarding how VHA funding should ultimately be allocated between buy and build policy options. Nonetheless, participants provided a rich array of recommendations and rationale for them. Session moderators observed rich, sophisticated, fair, and reason-based discussions on this complex topic. Participants left with a deeper knowledge and appreciation for the complex trade-offs and expressed strong rationales for both sides of the policy debate on build vs buy. In addition, the project yielded results of high interest to VHA policy makers.

This work was presented in multiple venues between 2015 to 2016, and to both local and national VHA leadership, including the local Executive Quality Leadership Boards, the VHA Central Office Committee on the Future State of VA Community Care, the VA Office of Patient Centered Care, and the National Veteran Experience Committee. Through these discussions and others, we saw great interest within the VHA system and high-level leaders to explore ways to include veterans’ voices in the policy-making process. This work was invaluable to our research team (eAppendix E 

Many health system decisions regarding what care should be delivered (and how) involve making difficult, value-laden choices in the context of limited resources. DD methods can be used to target and obtain specific viewpoints from diverse populations, such as the informed perspectives of minority and underrepresented populations within the VHA.¹⁹ For example, female veterans were oversampled to ensure that the informed preferences of this population was obtained. Thus, DD methods could provide a valuable tool for health systems to elicit in-depth diverse patient input on high-profile policies that will have a substantial impact on the system’s patient population.

Limitations

One potential downside of DD is that, because of the resource-intensive nature of deliberation sessions, they are often conducted with relatively small groups.⁹ Viewpoints of those within these small samples who are willing to spend an entire day discussing a complex topic may not be representative of the larger patient community. However, the core goal of DD is diversity of opinions rather than representativeness.

A stratified random sampling strategy that oversampled for underrepresented and minority populations was used to help select a diverse group that represents the population on key characteristics and partially addresses concern about representativeness. Efforts to optimize participation rates, including providing monetary incentives, also are helpful and have led to high participation rates in past deliberations.⁷

Health system communication strategies that promote the importance of becoming involved in DD sessions also may be helpful in improving rates of recruitment. On particularly important topics where health system leaders feel a larger resource investment is justified, conducting larger scale deliberations with many small groups may obtain more generalizable evidence about what individual patients and groups of patients recommend.⁷ However, due to the inherent limitations of surveys and focus group approaches for obtaining informed views on complex topics, there are no clear systematic alternatives to the DD approach.

Conclusion

DD is an effective method to meaningfully engage patients in deep deliberations to guide complex policy making. Although design of deliberative sessions is resource-intensive, patient engagement efforts, such as those described in this paper, could be an important aspect of a well-functioning learning health system. Further research into alternative, streamlined methods that can also engage veterans more deeply is needed. DD also can be combined with other approaches to broaden and confirm findings, including focus groups, town hall meetings, or surveys.

Although this study did not provide consensus on how the VHA should allocate funds with respect to the Choice Act, it did provide insight into the importance and feasibility of engaging veterans in the policy-making process. As more policies aimed at improving veterans’ access to civilian care are created, such as the most recent Mission Act, policy makers should strongly consider using the DD method of obtaining informed veteran input into future policy decisions.

Acknowledgments
Funding was provided by the US Department of Veterans Affairs Office of Analytics and Business Intelligence (OABI) and the VA Quality Enhancement Research Initiative (QUERI). Dr. Caverly was supported in part by a VA Career Development Award (CDA 16-151). Dr. Krein is supported by a VA Health Services Research and Development Research Career Scientist Award (RCS 11-222). The authors thank the veterans who participated in this work. They also thank Caitlin Reardon and Natalya Wawrin for their assistance in organizing the deliberation session.

Providing high-quality, patient-centered health care is a top priority for the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Veteran Health Administration (VHA), whose core mission is to improve the health and well-being of US veterans. Thus, news of long wait times for medical appointments in the VHA sparked intense national attention and debate and led to changes in senior management and legislative action. ¹ On August 8, 2014, President Bara c k Obama signed the Veterans Access, Choice, and Accountability Act of 2014, also known as the Choice Act, which provided an additional $16 billion in emergency spending over 3 years to improve veterans’ access to timely health care. ² The Choice Act sought to develop an integrated health care network that allowed qualified VHA patients to receive specific health care services in their communities delivered by non-VHA health care providers (HCPs) but paid for by the VHA. The Choice Act also laid out explicit criteria for how to prioritize who would be eligible for VHA-purchased civilian care: (1) veterans who could not get timely appointments at a VHA medical facility within 30 days of referral; or (2) veterans who lived > 40 miles from the closest VHA medical facility.

VHA decision makers seeking to improve care delivery also need to weigh trade-offs between alternative approaches to providing rapid access. For instance, increasing access to non-VHA HCPs may not always decrease wait times and could result in loss of continuity, limited care coordination, limited ability to ensure and enforce high-quality standards at the VHA, and other challenges.^3-6 Although the concerns and views of elected representatives, advocacy groups, and health system leaders are important, it is unknown whether these views and preferences align with those of veterans. Arguably, the range of views and concerns of informed veterans whose health is at stake should be particularly prominent in such policy decision making.

To identify the considerations that were most important to veterans regarding VHA policy around decreasing wait times, a study was designed to engage a group of veterans who were eligible for civilian care under the Choice Act. The study took place 1 year after the Choice Act was passed. Veterans were asked to focus on 2 related questions: First, how should funding be used for building VHA capacity (build) vs purchasing civilian care (buy)? Second, under what circumstances should civilian care be prioritized?

The aim of this paper is to describe democratic deliberation (DD), a specific method that engaged veteran patients in complex policy decisions around access to care. DD methods have been used increasingly in health care for developing policy guidance, setting priorities, providing advice on ethical dilemmas, weighing risk-benefit trade-offs, and determining decision-making authority.^7-12 For example, DD helped guide national policy for mammography screening for breast cancer in New Zealand.¹³ The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality has completed a systematic review and a large, randomized experiment on best practices for carrying out public deliberation.^8,13,14 However, despite the potential value of this approach, there has been little use of deliberative methods within the VHA for the explicit purpose of informing veteran health care delivery.

This paper describes the experience engaging veterans by using DD methodology and informing VHA leadership about the results of those deliberations. The specific aims were to understand whether DD is an acceptable approach to use to engage patients in the medical services policy-making process within VHA and whether veterans are able to come to an informed consensus.

Methods

Engaging patients and incorporating their needs and concerns within the policy-making process may improve health system policies and make those policies more patient centered. Such engagement also could be a way to generate creative solutions. However, because health-system decisions often involve making difficult trade-offs, effectively obtaining patient population input on complex care delivery issues can be challenging.

Although surveys can provide intuitive, top-of-mind input from respondents, these opinions are generally not sufficient for resolving complex problems.¹⁵ Focus groups and interviews may produce results that are more in-depth than surveys, but these methods tend to elicit settled private preferences rather than opinions about what the community should do.¹⁶ DD, on the other hand, is designed to elicit deeply informed public opinions on complex, value-laden topics to develop recommendations and policies for a larger community.¹⁷ The goal is to find collective solutions to challenging social problems. DD achieves this by giving participants an opportunity to explore a topic in-depth, question experts, and engage peers in reason-based discussions.^18,19 This method has its roots in political science and has been used over several decades to successfully inform policy making on a broad array of topics nationally and internationally—from health research ethics in the US to nuclear and energy policy in Japan.^7,16,20,21 DD has been found to promote ownership of public programs and lend legitimacy to policy decisions, political institutions, and democracy itself.¹⁸

A single day (8 hours) DD session was convened, following a Citizens Jury model of deliberation, which brings veteran patients together to learn about a topic, ask questions of experts, deliberate with peers, and generate a “citizen’s report” that contains a set of recommendations (Table 1). An overview of the different models of DD and rationale for each can be found elsewhere.^8,15

Recruitment Considerations

A purposively selected sample of civilian care-eligible veterans from a midwestern VHA health care system (1 medical center and 3 community-based outpatient clinics [CBOCs]) were invited to the DD session. The targeted number of participants was 30. Female veterans, who comprise only 7% of the local veteran population, were oversampled to account for their potentially different health care needs and to create balance between males and females in the session. Oversampling for other characteristics was not possible due to the relatively small sample size. Based on prior experience,⁷ it was assumed that 70% of willing participants would attend the session; therefore 34 veterans were invited and 24 attended. Each participant received a $200 incentive in appreciation for their substantial time commitment and to offset transportation costs.

Background Materials

A packet with educational materials (Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level of 10.5) was mailed to participants about 2 weeks before the DD session. Participants were asked to review prior to attending the session. These materials described the session (eg, purpose, organizers, importance) and provided factual information about the Choice Act (eg, eligibility, out-of-pocket costs, travel pay, prescription drug policies).

Session Overview

The session was structured to accomplish the following goals: (1) Elicit participants’ opinions about access to health care and reasons for those opinions; (2) Provide in-depth education about the Choice Act through presentations and discussions with topical experts; and (3) Elicit reasoning and recommendations on both the criteria by which participants prioritize candidates for civilian care and how participants would allocate additional funding to improve access (ie, by building VHA capacity to deliver more timely health care vs purchasing health care from civilian HCPs).

Participants were asked to fill out a survey on arrival in the morning and were assigned to 1 of 3 tables or small groups. Each table had a facilitator who had extensive experience in qualitative data collection methods and guided the dialogue using a scripted protocol that they helped develop and refine. The facilitation materials drew from and used previously published studies.^22,23 Each facilitator audio recorded the sessions and took notes. Three experts presented during plenary education sessions. Presentations were designed to provide balanced factual information and included a veteran’s perspective. One presenter was a clinician on the project team, another was a local clinical leader responsible for making decisions about what services to provide via civilian care (buy) vs enhancing the local VHA health system’s ability to provide those services (build), and the third presenter was a veteran who was on the project team.

Education Session 1

The first plenary education session with expert presentations was conducted after each table completed an icebreaker exercise. The project team physician provided a brief history and description of the Choice Act to reinforce educational materials sent to participants prior to the session. The health system clinical leader described his decision process and principles and highlighted constraints placed on him by the Choice Act that were in place at the time of the DD session. He also described existing local and national programs to provide civilian care (eg, local fee-basis non-VHA care programs) and how these programs sought to achieve goals similar to the Choice Act. The veteran presenter focused on the importance of session participants providing candid insight and observations and emphasized that this session was a significant opportunity to “have their voices heard.”

Deliberation 1: What criteria should be used to prioritize patients for receiving civilian care paid for by the VHA? To elicit preferences on the central question of this deliberation, participants were presented with 8 real-world cases that were based on interviews conducted with Choice Act-eligible veterans (Table 2 and eAppendices A

Education Session 2

In the second plenary session, the project team physician provided information about health care access issues, both inside and outside of the VHA, particularly between urban and rural areas. He also discussed factors related to the insufficient capacity to meet growing demand that contributed to the VHA wait-time crisis. The veteran presenter shared reflections on health care access from a veteran’s perspective.

Deliberation 2: How should additional funding be divided between increasing the ability of the VHA to (1) provide care by VHA HCPs; and (2) pay for care from non-VHA civilian HCPs? Participants were presented the patient examples and Choice Act funding scenarios (the buy policy option) and contrasted that with a build policy option. Participants were explicitly encouraged to shift their perspectives from thinking about individual cases to considering policy-level decisions and the broader social good (Table 2).

Ensuring Robust Deliberations

If participants do not adequately grasp the complexities of the topic, a deliberation can fail. To facilitate nuanced reasoning, real-world concrete examples were developed as the starting point of each deliberation based on interviews with actual patients (deliberation 1) and actual policy proposals relevant to the funding allocation decisions within the Choice Act (deliberation 2).

A deliberation also can fail with self-silencing, where participants withhold opinions that differ from those articulated first or by more vocal members of the group.²⁴ To combat self-silencing, highly experienced facilitators were used to ensure sharing from all participants and to support an open-minded, courteous, and reason-based environment for discourse. It was specified that the best solutions are achieved through reason-based and cordial disagreement and that success can be undermined when participants simply agree because it is easier or more comfortable.

A third way a deliberation can fail is if individuals do not adopt a group or system-level perspective. To counter this, facilitators reinforced at multiple points the importance of taking a broader social perspective rather than sharing only one’s personal preferences.

Finally, it is important to assess the quality of the deliberative process itself, to ensure that results are trustworthy.²⁵ To assess the quality of the deliberative process, participants knowledge about key issues pre- and postdeliberation were assessed. Participants also were asked to rate the quality of the facilitators and how well they felt their voice was heard and respected, and facilitators made qualitative assessments about the extent to which participants were engaged in reason-based and collaborative discussion.

Data

Quantitative data were collected via pre- and postsession surveys. The surveys contained items related to knowledge about the Choice Act, expectations for the DD session, beliefs and opinions about the provision of health care for veterans, recommended funding allocations between build vs buy policy options, and general demographics. Qualitative data were collected through detailed notes taken by the 3 facilitators. Each table’s deliberations were audio recorded so that gaps in the notes could be filled.

The 3 facilitators, who were all experienced qualitative researchers, typed their written notes into a template immediately after the session. Two of the 3 facilitators led the analysis of the session notes. Findings within and across the 3 deliberation tables were developed using content and matrix analysis methods.²⁶ Descriptive statistics were generated from survey responses and compared survey items pre- and postsession using paired t tests or χ² tests for categorical responses.

Results

Thirty-three percent of individuals invited (n = 127) agreed to participate. Those who declined cited conflicts related to distance, transportation, work/school, medical appointments, family commitments, or were not interested. In all, 24 (69%) of the 35 veterans who accepted the invitation attended the deliberation session. Of the 11 who accepted but did not attend, 5 cancelled ahead of time because of conflicts (Figure). Most participants were male (70%), 48% were aged 61 to 75 years, 65% were white, 43% had some college education, 43% reported an annual income of between $25,000 and $40,000, and only 35% reported very good health (eAppendix D).

Deliberation 1

During the deliberation on the prioritization criteria, the concept of “condition severity” emerged as an important criterion for veterans. This criterion captured simultaneous consideration of both clinical necessity and burden on the veteran to obtain care. For example, participants felt that patients with a life-threatening illness should be prioritized for civilian care over patients who need preventative or primary care (clinical necessity) and that elderly patients with substantial difficulty traveling to VHA appointments should be prioritized over patients who can travel more easily (burden). The Choice Act regulations at the time of the DD session did not reflect this nuanced perspective, stipulating only that veterans must live > 40 miles from the nearest VHA medical facility.

One of the 3 groups did not prioritize the patient cases because some members felt that no veteran should be constrained from receiving civilian care if they desired it. Nonetheless, this group did agree with prioritizing the first 2 cases in Table 3. The other groups prioritized all 8 cases in generally similar ways.

Deliberation 2

No clear consensus emerged on the buy vs build question. A representative from each table presented their group’s positions, rationale, and recommendations after deliberations were completed. After hearing the range of positions, the groups then had another opportunity to deliberate based on what they heard from the other tables; no new recommendations or consensus emerged.

Participants who were in favor of allocating more funds toward the build policy offered a range of rationales, saying that it would (1) increase access for rural veterans by building CBOCs and deploying more mobile units that could bring outlets for health care closer to their home communities; (2) provide critical and unique medical expertise to address veteran-specific issues such as prosthetics, traumatic brain injury, posttraumatic stress disorder, spinal cord injury, and shrapnel wounds that are typically not available through civilian providers; (3) give VHA more oversight over the quality and cost of care, which is more challenging to do with civilian providers; and (4) Improve VHA infrastructure by, for example, upgrading technology and attracting the best clinicians and staff to support “our VHA.”

Participants who were in favor of allocating more funds toward the buy policy also offered a range of rationales, saying that it would (1) decrease patient burden by increasing access through community providers, decreasing wait time, and lessening personal cost and travel time; (2) allow more patients to receive civilian care, which was generally seen as beneficial by a few participants because of perceptions that the VHA provides lower quality care due to a shortage of VHA providers, run-down/older facilities, lack of technology, and poorer-quality VHA providers; and (3) provide an opportunity to divest of costly facilities and invest in other innovative approaches. Regarding this last reason, a few participants felt that the VHA is “gouged” when building medical centers that overrun budgets. They also were concerned that investing in facilities tied VHA to specific locations when current locations of veterans may change “25 years from now.”

Survey Results

Twenty-three of the 24 participants completed both pre- and postsession surveys. The majority of participants in the session felt people in the group respected their opinion (96%); felt that the facilitator did not try to influence the group with her own opinions (96%); indicated they understood the information enough to participate as much as they wanted (100%); and were hopeful that their reasoning and recommendations would help inform VHA policy makers (82%).

The surveys also provided an opportunity to examine the extent to which knowledge, attitudes, and opinions changed from before to after the deliberation. Even with the small sample, responses revealed a trend toward improved knowledge about key elements of the Choice Act and its goals. Further, there was a shift in some participants’ opinions about how patients should be prioritized to receive civilian care. For example, before the deliberation participants generally felt that all veterans should be able to receive civilian care, whereas postdeliberation this was not the case. Postdeliberation, most participants felt that primary care should not be a high priority for civilian care but continued to endorse prioritizing civilian care for specialty services like orthopedic or cardiology-related care. Finally, participants moved from more diverse recommendations regarding additional funds allocations, toward consensus after the deliberation around allocating funds to the build policy. Eight participants supported a build policy beforehand, whereas 16 supported this policy afterward.

Discussion

This study explored DD as a method for deeply engaging veterans in complex policy making to guide funding allocation and prioritization decisions related to the Choice Act, decisions that are still very relevant today within the context of the Mission Act and have substantial implications for how health care is delivered in the VHA. The Mission Act passed on June 6, 2018, with the goal of improving access to and the reliability of civilian or community care for eligible veterans.²⁷ Decisions related to appropriating scarce funding to improve access to care is an emotional and value-laden topic that elicited strong and divergent opinions among the participants. Veterans were eager to have their voices heard and had strong expectations that VHA leadership would be briefed about their recommendations. The majority of participants were satisfied with the deliberation process, felt they understood the issues, and felt their opinions were respected. They expressed feelings of comradery and community throughout the process.

In this single deliberation session, the groups did not achieve a single, final consensus regarding how VHA funding should ultimately be allocated between buy and build policy options. Nonetheless, participants provided a rich array of recommendations and rationale for them. Session moderators observed rich, sophisticated, fair, and reason-based discussions on this complex topic. Participants left with a deeper knowledge and appreciation for the complex trade-offs and expressed strong rationales for both sides of the policy debate on build vs buy. In addition, the project yielded results of high interest to VHA policy makers.

This work was presented in multiple venues between 2015 to 2016, and to both local and national VHA leadership, including the local Executive Quality Leadership Boards, the VHA Central Office Committee on the Future State of VA Community Care, the VA Office of Patient Centered Care, and the National Veteran Experience Committee. Through these discussions and others, we saw great interest within the VHA system and high-level leaders to explore ways to include veterans’ voices in the policy-making process. This work was invaluable to our research team (eAppendix E 

Many health system decisions regarding what care should be delivered (and how) involve making difficult, value-laden choices in the context of limited resources. DD methods can be used to target and obtain specific viewpoints from diverse populations, such as the informed perspectives of minority and underrepresented populations within the VHA.¹⁹ For example, female veterans were oversampled to ensure that the informed preferences of this population was obtained. Thus, DD methods could provide a valuable tool for health systems to elicit in-depth diverse patient input on high-profile policies that will have a substantial impact on the system’s patient population.

Limitations

One potential downside of DD is that, because of the resource-intensive nature of deliberation sessions, they are often conducted with relatively small groups.⁹ Viewpoints of those within these small samples who are willing to spend an entire day discussing a complex topic may not be representative of the larger patient community. However, the core goal of DD is diversity of opinions rather than representativeness.

A stratified random sampling strategy that oversampled for underrepresented and minority populations was used to help select a diverse group that represents the population on key characteristics and partially addresses concern about representativeness. Efforts to optimize participation rates, including providing monetary incentives, also are helpful and have led to high participation rates in past deliberations.⁷

Health system communication strategies that promote the importance of becoming involved in DD sessions also may be helpful in improving rates of recruitment. On particularly important topics where health system leaders feel a larger resource investment is justified, conducting larger scale deliberations with many small groups may obtain more generalizable evidence about what individual patients and groups of patients recommend.⁷ However, due to the inherent limitations of surveys and focus group approaches for obtaining informed views on complex topics, there are no clear systematic alternatives to the DD approach.

Conclusion

DD is an effective method to meaningfully engage patients in deep deliberations to guide complex policy making. Although design of deliberative sessions is resource-intensive, patient engagement efforts, such as those described in this paper, could be an important aspect of a well-functioning learning health system. Further research into alternative, streamlined methods that can also engage veterans more deeply is needed. DD also can be combined with other approaches to broaden and confirm findings, including focus groups, town hall meetings, or surveys.

Although this study did not provide consensus on how the VHA should allocate funds with respect to the Choice Act, it did provide insight into the importance and feasibility of engaging veterans in the policy-making process. As more policies aimed at improving veterans’ access to civilian care are created, such as the most recent Mission Act, policy makers should strongly consider using the DD method of obtaining informed veteran input into future policy decisions.

Acknowledgments
Funding was provided by the US Department of Veterans Affairs Office of Analytics and Business Intelligence (OABI) and the VA Quality Enhancement Research Initiative (QUERI). Dr. Caverly was supported in part by a VA Career Development Award (CDA 16-151). Dr. Krein is supported by a VA Health Services Research and Development Research Career Scientist Award (RCS 11-222). The authors thank the veterans who participated in this work. They also thank Caitlin Reardon and Natalya Wawrin for their assistance in organizing the deliberation session.

Providing high-quality, patient-centered health care is a top priority for the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Veteran Health Administration (VHA), whose core mission is to improve the health and well-being of US veterans. Thus, news of long wait times for medical appointments in the VHA sparked intense national attention and debate and led to changes in senior management and legislative action. ¹ On August 8, 2014, President Bara c k Obama signed the Veterans Access, Choice, and Accountability Act of 2014, also known as the Choice Act, which provided an additional $16 billion in emergency spending over 3 years to improve veterans’ access to timely health care. ² The Choice Act sought to develop an integrated health care network that allowed qualified VHA patients to receive specific health care services in their communities delivered by non-VHA health care providers (HCPs) but paid for by the VHA. The Choice Act also laid out explicit criteria for how to prioritize who would be eligible for VHA-purchased civilian care: (1) veterans who could not get timely appointments at a VHA medical facility within 30 days of referral; or (2) veterans who lived > 40 miles from the closest VHA medical facility.

VHA decision makers seeking to improve care delivery also need to weigh trade-offs between alternative approaches to providing rapid access. For instance, increasing access to non-VHA HCPs may not always decrease wait times and could result in loss of continuity, limited care coordination, limited ability to ensure and enforce high-quality standards at the VHA, and other challenges.^3-6 Although the concerns and views of elected representatives, advocacy groups, and health system leaders are important, it is unknown whether these views and preferences align with those of veterans. Arguably, the range of views and concerns of informed veterans whose health is at stake should be particularly prominent in such policy decision making.

To identify the considerations that were most important to veterans regarding VHA policy around decreasing wait times, a study was designed to engage a group of veterans who were eligible for civilian care under the Choice Act. The study took place 1 year after the Choice Act was passed. Veterans were asked to focus on 2 related questions: First, how should funding be used for building VHA capacity (build) vs purchasing civilian care (buy)? Second, under what circumstances should civilian care be prioritized?

The aim of this paper is to describe democratic deliberation (DD), a specific method that engaged veteran patients in complex policy decisions around access to care. DD methods have been used increasingly in health care for developing policy guidance, setting priorities, providing advice on ethical dilemmas, weighing risk-benefit trade-offs, and determining decision-making authority.^7-12 For example, DD helped guide national policy for mammography screening for breast cancer in New Zealand.¹³ The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality has completed a systematic review and a large, randomized experiment on best practices for carrying out public deliberation.^8,13,14 However, despite the potential value of this approach, there has been little use of deliberative methods within the VHA for the explicit purpose of informing veteran health care delivery.

This paper describes the experience engaging veterans by using DD methodology and informing VHA leadership about the results of those deliberations. The specific aims were to understand whether DD is an acceptable approach to use to engage patients in the medical services policy-making process within VHA and whether veterans are able to come to an informed consensus.

Methods

Engaging patients and incorporating their needs and concerns within the policy-making process may improve health system policies and make those policies more patient centered. Such engagement also could be a way to generate creative solutions. However, because health-system decisions often involve making difficult trade-offs, effectively obtaining patient population input on complex care delivery issues can be challenging.

Although surveys can provide intuitive, top-of-mind input from respondents, these opinions are generally not sufficient for resolving complex problems.¹⁵ Focus groups and interviews may produce results that are more in-depth than surveys, but these methods tend to elicit settled private preferences rather than opinions about what the community should do.¹⁶ DD, on the other hand, is designed to elicit deeply informed public opinions on complex, value-laden topics to develop recommendations and policies for a larger community.¹⁷ The goal is to find collective solutions to challenging social problems. DD achieves this by giving participants an opportunity to explore a topic in-depth, question experts, and engage peers in reason-based discussions.^18,19 This method has its roots in political science and has been used over several decades to successfully inform policy making on a broad array of topics nationally and internationally—from health research ethics in the US to nuclear and energy policy in Japan.^7,16,20,21 DD has been found to promote ownership of public programs and lend legitimacy to policy decisions, political institutions, and democracy itself.¹⁸

A single day (8 hours) DD session was convened, following a Citizens Jury model of deliberation, which brings veteran patients together to learn about a topic, ask questions of experts, deliberate with peers, and generate a “citizen’s report” that contains a set of recommendations (Table 1). An overview of the different models of DD and rationale for each can be found elsewhere.^8,15

Recruitment Considerations

A purposively selected sample of civilian care-eligible veterans from a midwestern VHA health care system (1 medical center and 3 community-based outpatient clinics [CBOCs]) were invited to the DD session. The targeted number of participants was 30. Female veterans, who comprise only 7% of the local veteran population, were oversampled to account for their potentially different health care needs and to create balance between males and females in the session. Oversampling for other characteristics was not possible due to the relatively small sample size. Based on prior experience,⁷ it was assumed that 70% of willing participants would attend the session; therefore 34 veterans were invited and 24 attended. Each participant received a $200 incentive in appreciation for their substantial time commitment and to offset transportation costs.

Background Materials

A packet with educational materials (Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level of 10.5) was mailed to participants about 2 weeks before the DD session. Participants were asked to review prior to attending the session. These materials described the session (eg, purpose, organizers, importance) and provided factual information about the Choice Act (eg, eligibility, out-of-pocket costs, travel pay, prescription drug policies).

Session Overview

The session was structured to accomplish the following goals: (1) Elicit participants’ opinions about access to health care and reasons for those opinions; (2) Provide in-depth education about the Choice Act through presentations and discussions with topical experts; and (3) Elicit reasoning and recommendations on both the criteria by which participants prioritize candidates for civilian care and how participants would allocate additional funding to improve access (ie, by building VHA capacity to deliver more timely health care vs purchasing health care from civilian HCPs).

Participants were asked to fill out a survey on arrival in the morning and were assigned to 1 of 3 tables or small groups. Each table had a facilitator who had extensive experience in qualitative data collection methods and guided the dialogue using a scripted protocol that they helped develop and refine. The facilitation materials drew from and used previously published studies.^22,23 Each facilitator audio recorded the sessions and took notes. Three experts presented during plenary education sessions. Presentations were designed to provide balanced factual information and included a veteran’s perspective. One presenter was a clinician on the project team, another was a local clinical leader responsible for making decisions about what services to provide via civilian care (buy) vs enhancing the local VHA health system’s ability to provide those services (build), and the third presenter was a veteran who was on the project team.

Education Session 1

The first plenary education session with expert presentations was conducted after each table completed an icebreaker exercise. The project team physician provided a brief history and description of the Choice Act to reinforce educational materials sent to participants prior to the session. The health system clinical leader described his decision process and principles and highlighted constraints placed on him by the Choice Act that were in place at the time of the DD session. He also described existing local and national programs to provide civilian care (eg, local fee-basis non-VHA care programs) and how these programs sought to achieve goals similar to the Choice Act. The veteran presenter focused on the importance of session participants providing candid insight and observations and emphasized that this session was a significant opportunity to “have their voices heard.”

Deliberation 1: What criteria should be used to prioritize patients for receiving civilian care paid for by the VHA? To elicit preferences on the central question of this deliberation, participants were presented with 8 real-world cases that were based on interviews conducted with Choice Act-eligible veterans (Table 2 and eAppendices A

Education Session 2

In the second plenary session, the project team physician provided information about health care access issues, both inside and outside of the VHA, particularly between urban and rural areas. He also discussed factors related to the insufficient capacity to meet growing demand that contributed to the VHA wait-time crisis. The veteran presenter shared reflections on health care access from a veteran’s perspective.

Deliberation 2: How should additional funding be divided between increasing the ability of the VHA to (1) provide care by VHA HCPs; and (2) pay for care from non-VHA civilian HCPs? Participants were presented the patient examples and Choice Act funding scenarios (the buy policy option) and contrasted that with a build policy option. Participants were explicitly encouraged to shift their perspectives from thinking about individual cases to considering policy-level decisions and the broader social good (Table 2).

Ensuring Robust Deliberations

If participants do not adequately grasp the complexities of the topic, a deliberation can fail. To facilitate nuanced reasoning, real-world concrete examples were developed as the starting point of each deliberation based on interviews with actual patients (deliberation 1) and actual policy proposals relevant to the funding allocation decisions within the Choice Act (deliberation 2).

A deliberation also can fail with self-silencing, where participants withhold opinions that differ from those articulated first or by more vocal members of the group.²⁴ To combat self-silencing, highly experienced facilitators were used to ensure sharing from all participants and to support an open-minded, courteous, and reason-based environment for discourse. It was specified that the best solutions are achieved through reason-based and cordial disagreement and that success can be undermined when participants simply agree because it is easier or more comfortable.

A third way a deliberation can fail is if individuals do not adopt a group or system-level perspective. To counter this, facilitators reinforced at multiple points the importance of taking a broader social perspective rather than sharing only one’s personal preferences.

Finally, it is important to assess the quality of the deliberative process itself, to ensure that results are trustworthy.²⁵ To assess the quality of the deliberative process, participants knowledge about key issues pre- and postdeliberation were assessed. Participants also were asked to rate the quality of the facilitators and how well they felt their voice was heard and respected, and facilitators made qualitative assessments about the extent to which participants were engaged in reason-based and collaborative discussion.

Data

Quantitative data were collected via pre- and postsession surveys. The surveys contained items related to knowledge about the Choice Act, expectations for the DD session, beliefs and opinions about the provision of health care for veterans, recommended funding allocations between build vs buy policy options, and general demographics. Qualitative data were collected through detailed notes taken by the 3 facilitators. Each table’s deliberations were audio recorded so that gaps in the notes could be filled.

The 3 facilitators, who were all experienced qualitative researchers, typed their written notes into a template immediately after the session. Two of the 3 facilitators led the analysis of the session notes. Findings within and across the 3 deliberation tables were developed using content and matrix analysis methods.²⁶ Descriptive statistics were generated from survey responses and compared survey items pre- and postsession using paired t tests or χ² tests for categorical responses.

Results

Thirty-three percent of individuals invited (n = 127) agreed to participate. Those who declined cited conflicts related to distance, transportation, work/school, medical appointments, family commitments, or were not interested. In all, 24 (69%) of the 35 veterans who accepted the invitation attended the deliberation session. Of the 11 who accepted but did not attend, 5 cancelled ahead of time because of conflicts (Figure). Most participants were male (70%), 48% were aged 61 to 75 years, 65% were white, 43% had some college education, 43% reported an annual income of between $25,000 and $40,000, and only 35% reported very good health (eAppendix D).

Deliberation 1

During the deliberation on the prioritization criteria, the concept of “condition severity” emerged as an important criterion for veterans. This criterion captured simultaneous consideration of both clinical necessity and burden on the veteran to obtain care. For example, participants felt that patients with a life-threatening illness should be prioritized for civilian care over patients who need preventative or primary care (clinical necessity) and that elderly patients with substantial difficulty traveling to VHA appointments should be prioritized over patients who can travel more easily (burden). The Choice Act regulations at the time of the DD session did not reflect this nuanced perspective, stipulating only that veterans must live > 40 miles from the nearest VHA medical facility.

One of the 3 groups did not prioritize the patient cases because some members felt that no veteran should be constrained from receiving civilian care if they desired it. Nonetheless, this group did agree with prioritizing the first 2 cases in Table 3. The other groups prioritized all 8 cases in generally similar ways.

Deliberation 2

No clear consensus emerged on the buy vs build question. A representative from each table presented their group’s positions, rationale, and recommendations after deliberations were completed. After hearing the range of positions, the groups then had another opportunity to deliberate based on what they heard from the other tables; no new recommendations or consensus emerged.

Participants who were in favor of allocating more funds toward the build policy offered a range of rationales, saying that it would (1) increase access for rural veterans by building CBOCs and deploying more mobile units that could bring outlets for health care closer to their home communities; (2) provide critical and unique medical expertise to address veteran-specific issues such as prosthetics, traumatic brain injury, posttraumatic stress disorder, spinal cord injury, and shrapnel wounds that are typically not available through civilian providers; (3) give VHA more oversight over the quality and cost of care, which is more challenging to do with civilian providers; and (4) Improve VHA infrastructure by, for example, upgrading technology and attracting the best clinicians and staff to support “our VHA.”

Participants who were in favor of allocating more funds toward the buy policy also offered a range of rationales, saying that it would (1) decrease patient burden by increasing access through community providers, decreasing wait time, and lessening personal cost and travel time; (2) allow more patients to receive civilian care, which was generally seen as beneficial by a few participants because of perceptions that the VHA provides lower quality care due to a shortage of VHA providers, run-down/older facilities, lack of technology, and poorer-quality VHA providers; and (3) provide an opportunity to divest of costly facilities and invest in other innovative approaches. Regarding this last reason, a few participants felt that the VHA is “gouged” when building medical centers that overrun budgets. They also were concerned that investing in facilities tied VHA to specific locations when current locations of veterans may change “25 years from now.”

Survey Results

Twenty-three of the 24 participants completed both pre- and postsession surveys. The majority of participants in the session felt people in the group respected their opinion (96%); felt that the facilitator did not try to influence the group with her own opinions (96%); indicated they understood the information enough to participate as much as they wanted (100%); and were hopeful that their reasoning and recommendations would help inform VHA policy makers (82%).

The surveys also provided an opportunity to examine the extent to which knowledge, attitudes, and opinions changed from before to after the deliberation. Even with the small sample, responses revealed a trend toward improved knowledge about key elements of the Choice Act and its goals. Further, there was a shift in some participants’ opinions about how patients should be prioritized to receive civilian care. For example, before the deliberation participants generally felt that all veterans should be able to receive civilian care, whereas postdeliberation this was not the case. Postdeliberation, most participants felt that primary care should not be a high priority for civilian care but continued to endorse prioritizing civilian care for specialty services like orthopedic or cardiology-related care. Finally, participants moved from more diverse recommendations regarding additional funds allocations, toward consensus after the deliberation around allocating funds to the build policy. Eight participants supported a build policy beforehand, whereas 16 supported this policy afterward.

Discussion

This study explored DD as a method for deeply engaging veterans in complex policy making to guide funding allocation and prioritization decisions related to the Choice Act, decisions that are still very relevant today within the context of the Mission Act and have substantial implications for how health care is delivered in the VHA. The Mission Act passed on June 6, 2018, with the goal of improving access to and the reliability of civilian or community care for eligible veterans.²⁷ Decisions related to appropriating scarce funding to improve access to care is an emotional and value-laden topic that elicited strong and divergent opinions among the participants. Veterans were eager to have their voices heard and had strong expectations that VHA leadership would be briefed about their recommendations. The majority of participants were satisfied with the deliberation process, felt they understood the issues, and felt their opinions were respected. They expressed feelings of comradery and community throughout the process.

In this single deliberation session, the groups did not achieve a single, final consensus regarding how VHA funding should ultimately be allocated between buy and build policy options. Nonetheless, participants provided a rich array of recommendations and rationale for them. Session moderators observed rich, sophisticated, fair, and reason-based discussions on this complex topic. Participants left with a deeper knowledge and appreciation for the complex trade-offs and expressed strong rationales for both sides of the policy debate on build vs buy. In addition, the project yielded results of high interest to VHA policy makers.

This work was presented in multiple venues between 2015 to 2016, and to both local and national VHA leadership, including the local Executive Quality Leadership Boards, the VHA Central Office Committee on the Future State of VA Community Care, the VA Office of Patient Centered Care, and the National Veteran Experience Committee. Through these discussions and others, we saw great interest within the VHA system and high-level leaders to explore ways to include veterans’ voices in the policy-making process. This work was invaluable to our research team (eAppendix E 

Many health system decisions regarding what care should be delivered (and how) involve making difficult, value-laden choices in the context of limited resources. DD methods can be used to target and obtain specific viewpoints from diverse populations, such as the informed perspectives of minority and underrepresented populations within the VHA.¹⁹ For example, female veterans were oversampled to ensure that the informed preferences of this population was obtained. Thus, DD methods could provide a valuable tool for health systems to elicit in-depth diverse patient input on high-profile policies that will have a substantial impact on the system’s patient population.

Limitations

One potential downside of DD is that, because of the resource-intensive nature of deliberation sessions, they are often conducted with relatively small groups.⁹ Viewpoints of those within these small samples who are willing to spend an entire day discussing a complex topic may not be representative of the larger patient community. However, the core goal of DD is diversity of opinions rather than representativeness.

A stratified random sampling strategy that oversampled for underrepresented and minority populations was used to help select a diverse group that represents the population on key characteristics and partially addresses concern about representativeness. Efforts to optimize participation rates, including providing monetary incentives, also are helpful and have led to high participation rates in past deliberations.⁷

Health system communication strategies that promote the importance of becoming involved in DD sessions also may be helpful in improving rates of recruitment. On particularly important topics where health system leaders feel a larger resource investment is justified, conducting larger scale deliberations with many small groups may obtain more generalizable evidence about what individual patients and groups of patients recommend.⁷ However, due to the inherent limitations of surveys and focus group approaches for obtaining informed views on complex topics, there are no clear systematic alternatives to the DD approach.

Conclusion

DD is an effective method to meaningfully engage patients in deep deliberations to guide complex policy making. Although design of deliberative sessions is resource-intensive, patient engagement efforts, such as those described in this paper, could be an important aspect of a well-functioning learning health system. Further research into alternative, streamlined methods that can also engage veterans more deeply is needed. DD also can be combined with other approaches to broaden and confirm findings, including focus groups, town hall meetings, or surveys.

Although this study did not provide consensus on how the VHA should allocate funds with respect to the Choice Act, it did provide insight into the importance and feasibility of engaging veterans in the policy-making process. As more policies aimed at improving veterans’ access to civilian care are created, such as the most recent Mission Act, policy makers should strongly consider using the DD method of obtaining informed veteran input into future policy decisions.

Acknowledgments
Funding was provided by the US Department of Veterans Affairs Office of Analytics and Business Intelligence (OABI) and the VA Quality Enhancement Research Initiative (QUERI). Dr. Caverly was supported in part by a VA Career Development Award (CDA 16-151). Dr. Krein is supported by a VA Health Services Research and Development Research Career Scientist Award (RCS 11-222). The authors thank the veterans who participated in this work. They also thank Caitlin Reardon and Natalya Wawrin for their assistance in organizing the deliberation session.

Nearly 1 in 8 households—and 1 in 6 households with children—experienced food insecurity in 2017, defined as limited or uncertain availability of nutritionally adequate and safe foods.¹ Food insecurity is often even more pronounced among households with individuals with acute or chronic medical conditions.^2-6 Moreover, food insecurity is independently associated with a range of adverse health outcomes, including poorer control of diabetes mellitus, hypertension, depression and other major psychiatric disorders, HIV, and chronic lung and kidney disease, as well as poorer overall health status.^7-14 Food insecurity also has been associated with increased health care costs and acute care utilization as well as increased probability of delayed or missed care.^15-19

The relationship between food insecurity and poor health outcomes is a complex and often cyclic phenomenon (Figure 1). Poor nutritional status is fueled by limited access to healthful foods as well as increased reliance on calorie-dense and nutrient-poor “junk” foods, which are less expensive and often more readily available in low-income neighborhoods.^5,20-24 These compensatory dietary patterns place individuals at higher risk for developing cardiometabolic conditions and for poor control of these conditions.^{5,8,9,12,25,26} Additionally, the physiological and psychological stressors of food insecurity may precipitate depression and anxiety or worsen existing mental health conditions, resulting in feelings of overwhelm and decreased self-management capacity.^5,8,27-31 Food insecurity has further been associated with poor sleep, declines in cognitive function, and increased falls, particularly among the frail and elderly.^32-34

Prevalence and Importance of Food Insecurity Among US Veterans

Nearly 1.5 million veterans in the US are living below the federal poverty level (FPL).³⁹ An additional 2.4 million veterans are living paycheck to paycheck at < 200% of the FPL.⁴⁰ Veterans living in poverty are at even higher risk than nonveterans for food insecurity, homelessness, and other material hardship.⁴¹

Estimates of food insecurity among veterans vary widely, ranging from 6% to 24%—nearly twice that of the general US population.^8,42-45 Higher rates of food insecurity have been reported among certain high-risk subgroups, including veterans who served in Iraq and Afghanistan (27%), female veterans (28%), homeless and formerly homeless veterans (49%), and veterans with serious mental illness (35%).^6,32,43,46 Additional risk factors for food insecurity specific to veteran populations include younger age, having recently left active-duty military service, and lower final military paygrade.^42,45-47 As in the general population, veteran food insecurity is associated with a range of adverse health outcomes, including poorer overall health status as well as increased probability of delayed or missed care.^{6,8,32,42-44,46}

Even among veterans enrolled in federal food assistance programs, many still struggle to afford nutritionally adequate foods. As one example, in a study of mostly male homeless and formerly homeless veterans, O’Toole and colleagues found that nearly half of those reporting food insecurity were already receiving federal food assistance benefits, and 22% relied on emergency food resources.³² Of households served by Feeding America food pantries and meal programs, 20% have a member who has served in the US military.⁴⁸

Federal Programs To Address Food Insecurity

There are several important federal food assistance programs designed to help alleviate food insecurity. The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP, formerly the Food Stamp program) is the largest federal food assistance program and provides low-income Americans with cash benefits to purchase food. SNAP has been shown to substantially reduce food insecurity.^7,49 The program also is associated with significant decreases in cost-related medication nonadherence as well as reductions in health care costs and both acute care and nursing home utilization.^16,50-54 Although nearly 1.4 million veterans live in SNAP-enrolled households, 59% of eligible veterans are not enrolled.^43,55 Closing this SNAP eligibility-enrollment gap, has been a focus of recent efforts to improve long-term food security among veterans. There also are several federal food assistance programs for households with children, including the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) and school meals programs. Among federal nutrition programs for seniors, the Older American’s Act contains designated funding to support nutrition services for older adults, including congregate meal programs in community settings like senior centers, places of worship, and housing communities, and home-delivered meals through programs like Meals on Wheels.⁵⁶

VHA Response to Food Insecurity

The Veterans Health Administration (VHA) is the country’s largest integrated, federally funded health care system.⁵⁷ In November 2015, congressional briefings on veteran food insecurity organized by the national non-profit organization MAZON: A Jewish Response to Hunger and hosted with bipartisan support were provided to the US House and Senate. As a result of these briefings, VHA chartered the national Ensuring Veteran Food Security Workgroup with a mandate to partner with governmental and nonprofit agencies to “focus on the issue of food insecurity, the identification of veterans at risk, the needed training of VHA staff and the coordination of resources and initiatives to support the veterans for whom we care.” Building off a pilot in US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Homeless Patient Aligned Care Teams (H-PACTs),³² VHA subsequently integrated a single-item food insecurity screening tool into the VA electronic health record (EHR) clinical reminder system (Figure 2). The clinical reminder, which was rolled out across VA medical centers nationally in October 2017, provides an alert to screen all noninstitutionalized veterans for food insecurity. To date, nearly 5 million veterans have been screened. When a veteran endorses food insecurity based on the initial screening question, a prompt appears to offer the veteran a referral to a social worker and/or dietitian. Positive screening results also should be communicated to the patient’s primary care provider. Depending on site-specific clinical flow, the reminders are typically completed in the outpatient setting either by nurses or medical assistants during intake or by providers as part of the clinical visit. However, any member of the health care team can complete the clinical reminder at any time. As of September 2019, approximately 74,000 veterans have been identified as food insecure.⁵⁸

Addressing Food Insecurity

VHA has been a recognized leader in addressing homelessness and other social determinants of health through its integrated care and PACT delivery models.^59-61 The food insecurity clinical reminder was designed to facilitate a tailored, interdisciplinary approach to identify and address food insecurity. Interdisciplinary care team members—including medical assistants, clinicians, social workers, registered dietitians, nurse care managers, occupational or physical therapists, and pharmacists—are uniquely positioned to identify veterans impacted by food insecurity, assess for associated clinical and/or social risk factors, and offer appropriate medical and nutrition interventions and resource referrals.

This interdisciplinary team-based model is essential given the range of potential drivers underlying veteran experiences of food insecurity and subsequent health outcomes. It is critically important for clinicians to review the medication list with veterans screening positive for food insecurity to assess for risk of hypoglycemia and/or cost-related nonadherence, make any necessary adjustments to therapeutic regimens, and assess for additional risk factors associated with food insecurity. Examples of tailored nutrition counseling that clinical dietitians may provide include meal preparation strategies for veterans who only have access to a microwave or hotplate, or recommendations for how veterans on medically restricted diets can best navigate food selection at soup kitchens or food pantries. Resource referrals provided by social workers or other care team members may include both emergency food resources to address immediate shortages (eg, food pantries, soup kitchens, or vouchers for free lunch) as well as resources focused on improving longer term food security (eg, federal food assistance programs or home delivered meal programs). Importantly, although providing a list of food resources may be helpful for some patients, such lists are often insufficient.^62,63 Many patients require active assistance with program enrollment either onsite the day of their clinic visit or through connection with a partnering community-based organization that can, in turn, identify appropriate resources and facilitate program enrollment.^63,64 Planned follow-up is also crucial to determine whether referrals are successful and to assess for ongoing need. Proposed roles for interdisciplinary care team members in addressing a positive food insecurity screen are outlined in Table 1.

VHA-Community Partnerships

In addition to services offered within VA, public and private sector partnerships can greatly enhance the range of resources available to food insecure veterans. Several VA facilities have developed formal community partnerships, such as the Veterans Pantry Pilot (VPP) program, a national partnership between Feeding America food banks and VA medical centers to establish onsite or mobile food pantries. There are currently 17 active Feeding America VPP sites, with a number of additional sites under development. Several of the VPP sites also include other “wraparound services,” such as SNAP application assistance.^65,66

State Veterans Affairs offices⁶⁷ and Veterans Service Organizations (VSOs)⁶⁸ also can serve as valuable partners for connecting veterans with needed resources. VSOs offer a range of services, including assistancewith benefit claims, employment and housing assistance, emergency food assistance, and transportation to medical appointments. Some VSOs also have established local affiliations with Meals on Wheels focused on veteran outreach and providing hot meals for low-income, homebound, and disabled veterans.

Additional Resources

Although resources vary by regional setting, several key governmental and community-based food assistance programs are summarized in Table 2. Local community partners and online/phone-based directories, such as United Way’s 2-1-1 can help identify additional local resources. For older adults and individuals with disabilities, local Aging and Disability Resources Centers can provide information and assistance connecting to needed resources.⁶⁹ Finally, there are a number of online resources available for clinicians interested in learning more about the impact of food insecurity on health and tools to use in the clinical setting (Table 3).

Conclusion

The VA has recognized food insecurity as a critical concern for the well-being of our nation’s veterans. Use of the EHR clinical reminder represents a crucial first step toward increasing provider awareness about veteran food insecurity and improving clinical efforts to address food insecurity once identified. Through the reminder, health care teams can connect veterans to needed resources and create both the individual and population-level data necessary to inform VHA and community efforts to address veteran food insecurity. Clinical reminder data are currently being used for local quality improvement efforts and have established the need nationally for formalized partnerships between VHA Social Work Services and Nutrition and Food Services to connect veterans with food and provide them with strategies to best use available food resources.

Moving forward, the Ensuring Veteran Food Security Workgroup continues to work with agencies and organizations across the country to improve food insecure veterans’ access to needed services. In addition to existing VA partnerships with Feeding America for the VPP, memorandums of understanding are currently underway to formalize partnerships with both the Food Research and Action Center (FRAC) and MAZON. Additional research is needed both to formally validate the current food insecurity clinical reminder screening question and to identify best practices and potential models for how to most effectively use VHA-community partnerships to address the unique needs of the veteran population.

Ensuring the food security of our nation’s veterans is essential to VA’s commitment to providing integrated, veteran-centered, whole person care. Toward that goal, VA health care teams are urged to use the clinical reminder and help connect food insecure veterans with relevant resources both within and outside of the VA health care system.

Nearly 1 in 8 households—and 1 in 6 households with children—experienced food insecurity in 2017, defined as limited or uncertain availability of nutritionally adequate and safe foods.¹ Food insecurity is often even more pronounced among households with individuals with acute or chronic medical conditions.^2-6 Moreover, food insecurity is independently associated with a range of adverse health outcomes, including poorer control of diabetes mellitus, hypertension, depression and other major psychiatric disorders, HIV, and chronic lung and kidney disease, as well as poorer overall health status.^7-14 Food insecurity also has been associated with increased health care costs and acute care utilization as well as increased probability of delayed or missed care.^15-19

The relationship between food insecurity and poor health outcomes is a complex and often cyclic phenomenon (Figure 1). Poor nutritional status is fueled by limited access to healthful foods as well as increased reliance on calorie-dense and nutrient-poor “junk” foods, which are less expensive and often more readily available in low-income neighborhoods.^5,20-24 These compensatory dietary patterns place individuals at higher risk for developing cardiometabolic conditions and for poor control of these conditions.^{5,8,9,12,25,26} Additionally, the physiological and psychological stressors of food insecurity may precipitate depression and anxiety or worsen existing mental health conditions, resulting in feelings of overwhelm and decreased self-management capacity.^5,8,27-31 Food insecurity has further been associated with poor sleep, declines in cognitive function, and increased falls, particularly among the frail and elderly.^32-34

Prevalence and Importance of Food Insecurity Among US Veterans

Nearly 1.5 million veterans in the US are living below the federal poverty level (FPL).³⁹ An additional 2.4 million veterans are living paycheck to paycheck at < 200% of the FPL.⁴⁰ Veterans living in poverty are at even higher risk than nonveterans for food insecurity, homelessness, and other material hardship.⁴¹

Estimates of food insecurity among veterans vary widely, ranging from 6% to 24%—nearly twice that of the general US population.^8,42-45 Higher rates of food insecurity have been reported among certain high-risk subgroups, including veterans who served in Iraq and Afghanistan (27%), female veterans (28%), homeless and formerly homeless veterans (49%), and veterans with serious mental illness (35%).^6,32,43,46 Additional risk factors for food insecurity specific to veteran populations include younger age, having recently left active-duty military service, and lower final military paygrade.^42,45-47 As in the general population, veteran food insecurity is associated with a range of adverse health outcomes, including poorer overall health status as well as increased probability of delayed or missed care.^{6,8,32,42-44,46}

Even among veterans enrolled in federal food assistance programs, many still struggle to afford nutritionally adequate foods. As one example, in a study of mostly male homeless and formerly homeless veterans, O’Toole and colleagues found that nearly half of those reporting food insecurity were already receiving federal food assistance benefits, and 22% relied on emergency food resources.³² Of households served by Feeding America food pantries and meal programs, 20% have a member who has served in the US military.⁴⁸

Federal Programs To Address Food Insecurity

There are several important federal food assistance programs designed to help alleviate food insecurity. The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP, formerly the Food Stamp program) is the largest federal food assistance program and provides low-income Americans with cash benefits to purchase food. SNAP has been shown to substantially reduce food insecurity.^7,49 The program also is associated with significant decreases in cost-related medication nonadherence as well as reductions in health care costs and both acute care and nursing home utilization.^16,50-54 Although nearly 1.4 million veterans live in SNAP-enrolled households, 59% of eligible veterans are not enrolled.^43,55 Closing this SNAP eligibility-enrollment gap, has been a focus of recent efforts to improve long-term food security among veterans. There also are several federal food assistance programs for households with children, including the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) and school meals programs. Among federal nutrition programs for seniors, the Older American’s Act contains designated funding to support nutrition services for older adults, including congregate meal programs in community settings like senior centers, places of worship, and housing communities, and home-delivered meals through programs like Meals on Wheels.⁵⁶

VHA Response to Food Insecurity

The Veterans Health Administration (VHA) is the country’s largest integrated, federally funded health care system.⁵⁷ In November 2015, congressional briefings on veteran food insecurity organized by the national non-profit organization MAZON: A Jewish Response to Hunger and hosted with bipartisan support were provided to the US House and Senate. As a result of these briefings, VHA chartered the national Ensuring Veteran Food Security Workgroup with a mandate to partner with governmental and nonprofit agencies to “focus on the issue of food insecurity, the identification of veterans at risk, the needed training of VHA staff and the coordination of resources and initiatives to support the veterans for whom we care.” Building off a pilot in US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Homeless Patient Aligned Care Teams (H-PACTs),³² VHA subsequently integrated a single-item food insecurity screening tool into the VA electronic health record (EHR) clinical reminder system (Figure 2). The clinical reminder, which was rolled out across VA medical centers nationally in October 2017, provides an alert to screen all noninstitutionalized veterans for food insecurity. To date, nearly 5 million veterans have been screened. When a veteran endorses food insecurity based on the initial screening question, a prompt appears to offer the veteran a referral to a social worker and/or dietitian. Positive screening results also should be communicated to the patient’s primary care provider. Depending on site-specific clinical flow, the reminders are typically completed in the outpatient setting either by nurses or medical assistants during intake or by providers as part of the clinical visit. However, any member of the health care team can complete the clinical reminder at any time. As of September 2019, approximately 74,000 veterans have been identified as food insecure.⁵⁸

Addressing Food Insecurity

VHA has been a recognized leader in addressing homelessness and other social determinants of health through its integrated care and PACT delivery models.^59-61 The food insecurity clinical reminder was designed to facilitate a tailored, interdisciplinary approach to identify and address food insecurity. Interdisciplinary care team members—including medical assistants, clinicians, social workers, registered dietitians, nurse care managers, occupational or physical therapists, and pharmacists—are uniquely positioned to identify veterans impacted by food insecurity, assess for associated clinical and/or social risk factors, and offer appropriate medical and nutrition interventions and resource referrals.

This interdisciplinary team-based model is essential given the range of potential drivers underlying veteran experiences of food insecurity and subsequent health outcomes. It is critically important for clinicians to review the medication list with veterans screening positive for food insecurity to assess for risk of hypoglycemia and/or cost-related nonadherence, make any necessary adjustments to therapeutic regimens, and assess for additional risk factors associated with food insecurity. Examples of tailored nutrition counseling that clinical dietitians may provide include meal preparation strategies for veterans who only have access to a microwave or hotplate, or recommendations for how veterans on medically restricted diets can best navigate food selection at soup kitchens or food pantries. Resource referrals provided by social workers or other care team members may include both emergency food resources to address immediate shortages (eg, food pantries, soup kitchens, or vouchers for free lunch) as well as resources focused on improving longer term food security (eg, federal food assistance programs or home delivered meal programs). Importantly, although providing a list of food resources may be helpful for some patients, such lists are often insufficient.^62,63 Many patients require active assistance with program enrollment either onsite the day of their clinic visit or through connection with a partnering community-based organization that can, in turn, identify appropriate resources and facilitate program enrollment.^63,64 Planned follow-up is also crucial to determine whether referrals are successful and to assess for ongoing need. Proposed roles for interdisciplinary care team members in addressing a positive food insecurity screen are outlined in Table 1.

VHA-Community Partnerships

In addition to services offered within VA, public and private sector partnerships can greatly enhance the range of resources available to food insecure veterans. Several VA facilities have developed formal community partnerships, such as the Veterans Pantry Pilot (VPP) program, a national partnership between Feeding America food banks and VA medical centers to establish onsite or mobile food pantries. There are currently 17 active Feeding America VPP sites, with a number of additional sites under development. Several of the VPP sites also include other “wraparound services,” such as SNAP application assistance.^65,66

State Veterans Affairs offices⁶⁷ and Veterans Service Organizations (VSOs)⁶⁸ also can serve as valuable partners for connecting veterans with needed resources. VSOs offer a range of services, including assistancewith benefit claims, employment and housing assistance, emergency food assistance, and transportation to medical appointments. Some VSOs also have established local affiliations with Meals on Wheels focused on veteran outreach and providing hot meals for low-income, homebound, and disabled veterans.

Additional Resources

Although resources vary by regional setting, several key governmental and community-based food assistance programs are summarized in Table 2. Local community partners and online/phone-based directories, such as United Way’s 2-1-1 can help identify additional local resources. For older adults and individuals with disabilities, local Aging and Disability Resources Centers can provide information and assistance connecting to needed resources.⁶⁹ Finally, there are a number of online resources available for clinicians interested in learning more about the impact of food insecurity on health and tools to use in the clinical setting (Table 3).

Conclusion

The VA has recognized food insecurity as a critical concern for the well-being of our nation’s veterans. Use of the EHR clinical reminder represents a crucial first step toward increasing provider awareness about veteran food insecurity and improving clinical efforts to address food insecurity once identified. Through the reminder, health care teams can connect veterans to needed resources and create both the individual and population-level data necessary to inform VHA and community efforts to address veteran food insecurity. Clinical reminder data are currently being used for local quality improvement efforts and have established the need nationally for formalized partnerships between VHA Social Work Services and Nutrition and Food Services to connect veterans with food and provide them with strategies to best use available food resources.

Moving forward, the Ensuring Veteran Food Security Workgroup continues to work with agencies and organizations across the country to improve food insecure veterans’ access to needed services. In addition to existing VA partnerships with Feeding America for the VPP, memorandums of understanding are currently underway to formalize partnerships with both the Food Research and Action Center (FRAC) and MAZON. Additional research is needed both to formally validate the current food insecurity clinical reminder screening question and to identify best practices and potential models for how to most effectively use VHA-community partnerships to address the unique needs of the veteran population.

Ensuring the food security of our nation’s veterans is essential to VA’s commitment to providing integrated, veteran-centered, whole person care. Toward that goal, VA health care teams are urged to use the clinical reminder and help connect food insecure veterans with relevant resources both within and outside of the VA health care system.

Nearly 1 in 8 households—and 1 in 6 households with children—experienced food insecurity in 2017, defined as limited or uncertain availability of nutritionally adequate and safe foods.¹ Food insecurity is often even more pronounced among households with individuals with acute or chronic medical conditions.^2-6 Moreover, food insecurity is independently associated with a range of adverse health outcomes, including poorer control of diabetes mellitus, hypertension, depression and other major psychiatric disorders, HIV, and chronic lung and kidney disease, as well as poorer overall health status.^7-14 Food insecurity also has been associated with increased health care costs and acute care utilization as well as increased probability of delayed or missed care.^15-19

The relationship between food insecurity and poor health outcomes is a complex and often cyclic phenomenon (Figure 1). Poor nutritional status is fueled by limited access to healthful foods as well as increased reliance on calorie-dense and nutrient-poor “junk” foods, which are less expensive and often more readily available in low-income neighborhoods.^5,20-24 These compensatory dietary patterns place individuals at higher risk for developing cardiometabolic conditions and for poor control of these conditions.^{5,8,9,12,25,26} Additionally, the physiological and psychological stressors of food insecurity may precipitate depression and anxiety or worsen existing mental health conditions, resulting in feelings of overwhelm and decreased self-management capacity.^5,8,27-31 Food insecurity has further been associated with poor sleep, declines in cognitive function, and increased falls, particularly among the frail and elderly.^32-34

Prevalence and Importance of Food Insecurity Among US Veterans

Nearly 1.5 million veterans in the US are living below the federal poverty level (FPL).³⁹ An additional 2.4 million veterans are living paycheck to paycheck at < 200% of the FPL.⁴⁰ Veterans living in poverty are at even higher risk than nonveterans for food insecurity, homelessness, and other material hardship.⁴¹

Estimates of food insecurity among veterans vary widely, ranging from 6% to 24%—nearly twice that of the general US population.^8,42-45 Higher rates of food insecurity have been reported among certain high-risk subgroups, including veterans who served in Iraq and Afghanistan (27%), female veterans (28%), homeless and formerly homeless veterans (49%), and veterans with serious mental illness (35%).^6,32,43,46 Additional risk factors for food insecurity specific to veteran populations include younger age, having recently left active-duty military service, and lower final military paygrade.^42,45-47 As in the general population, veteran food insecurity is associated with a range of adverse health outcomes, including poorer overall health status as well as increased probability of delayed or missed care.^{6,8,32,42-44,46}

Even among veterans enrolled in federal food assistance programs, many still struggle to afford nutritionally adequate foods. As one example, in a study of mostly male homeless and formerly homeless veterans, O’Toole and colleagues found that nearly half of those reporting food insecurity were already receiving federal food assistance benefits, and 22% relied on emergency food resources.³² Of households served by Feeding America food pantries and meal programs, 20% have a member who has served in the US military.⁴⁸

Federal Programs To Address Food Insecurity

There are several important federal food assistance programs designed to help alleviate food insecurity. The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP, formerly the Food Stamp program) is the largest federal food assistance program and provides low-income Americans with cash benefits to purchase food. SNAP has been shown to substantially reduce food insecurity.^7,49 The program also is associated with significant decreases in cost-related medication nonadherence as well as reductions in health care costs and both acute care and nursing home utilization.^16,50-54 Although nearly 1.4 million veterans live in SNAP-enrolled households, 59% of eligible veterans are not enrolled.^43,55 Closing this SNAP eligibility-enrollment gap, has been a focus of recent efforts to improve long-term food security among veterans. There also are several federal food assistance programs for households with children, including the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) and school meals programs. Among federal nutrition programs for seniors, the Older American’s Act contains designated funding to support nutrition services for older adults, including congregate meal programs in community settings like senior centers, places of worship, and housing communities, and home-delivered meals through programs like Meals on Wheels.⁵⁶

VHA Response to Food Insecurity

The Veterans Health Administration (VHA) is the country’s largest integrated, federally funded health care system.⁵⁷ In November 2015, congressional briefings on veteran food insecurity organized by the national non-profit organization MAZON: A Jewish Response to Hunger and hosted with bipartisan support were provided to the US House and Senate. As a result of these briefings, VHA chartered the national Ensuring Veteran Food Security Workgroup with a mandate to partner with governmental and nonprofit agencies to “focus on the issue of food insecurity, the identification of veterans at risk, the needed training of VHA staff and the coordination of resources and initiatives to support the veterans for whom we care.” Building off a pilot in US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Homeless Patient Aligned Care Teams (H-PACTs),³² VHA subsequently integrated a single-item food insecurity screening tool into the VA electronic health record (EHR) clinical reminder system (Figure 2). The clinical reminder, which was rolled out across VA medical centers nationally in October 2017, provides an alert to screen all noninstitutionalized veterans for food insecurity. To date, nearly 5 million veterans have been screened. When a veteran endorses food insecurity based on the initial screening question, a prompt appears to offer the veteran a referral to a social worker and/or dietitian. Positive screening results also should be communicated to the patient’s primary care provider. Depending on site-specific clinical flow, the reminders are typically completed in the outpatient setting either by nurses or medical assistants during intake or by providers as part of the clinical visit. However, any member of the health care team can complete the clinical reminder at any time. As of September 2019, approximately 74,000 veterans have been identified as food insecure.⁵⁸

Addressing Food Insecurity

VHA has been a recognized leader in addressing homelessness and other social determinants of health through its integrated care and PACT delivery models.^59-61 The food insecurity clinical reminder was designed to facilitate a tailored, interdisciplinary approach to identify and address food insecurity. Interdisciplinary care team members—including medical assistants, clinicians, social workers, registered dietitians, nurse care managers, occupational or physical therapists, and pharmacists—are uniquely positioned to identify veterans impacted by food insecurity, assess for associated clinical and/or social risk factors, and offer appropriate medical and nutrition interventions and resource referrals.

This interdisciplinary team-based model is essential given the range of potential drivers underlying veteran experiences of food insecurity and subsequent health outcomes. It is critically important for clinicians to review the medication list with veterans screening positive for food insecurity to assess for risk of hypoglycemia and/or cost-related nonadherence, make any necessary adjustments to therapeutic regimens, and assess for additional risk factors associated with food insecurity. Examples of tailored nutrition counseling that clinical dietitians may provide include meal preparation strategies for veterans who only have access to a microwave or hotplate, or recommendations for how veterans on medically restricted diets can best navigate food selection at soup kitchens or food pantries. Resource referrals provided by social workers or other care team members may include both emergency food resources to address immediate shortages (eg, food pantries, soup kitchens, or vouchers for free lunch) as well as resources focused on improving longer term food security (eg, federal food assistance programs or home delivered meal programs). Importantly, although providing a list of food resources may be helpful for some patients, such lists are often insufficient.^62,63 Many patients require active assistance with program enrollment either onsite the day of their clinic visit or through connection with a partnering community-based organization that can, in turn, identify appropriate resources and facilitate program enrollment.^63,64 Planned follow-up is also crucial to determine whether referrals are successful and to assess for ongoing need. Proposed roles for interdisciplinary care team members in addressing a positive food insecurity screen are outlined in Table 1.

VHA-Community Partnerships

In addition to services offered within VA, public and private sector partnerships can greatly enhance the range of resources available to food insecure veterans. Several VA facilities have developed formal community partnerships, such as the Veterans Pantry Pilot (VPP) program, a national partnership between Feeding America food banks and VA medical centers to establish onsite or mobile food pantries. There are currently 17 active Feeding America VPP sites, with a number of additional sites under development. Several of the VPP sites also include other “wraparound services,” such as SNAP application assistance.^65,66

State Veterans Affairs offices⁶⁷ and Veterans Service Organizations (VSOs)⁶⁸ also can serve as valuable partners for connecting veterans with needed resources. VSOs offer a range of services, including assistancewith benefit claims, employment and housing assistance, emergency food assistance, and transportation to medical appointments. Some VSOs also have established local affiliations with Meals on Wheels focused on veteran outreach and providing hot meals for low-income, homebound, and disabled veterans.

Additional Resources

Although resources vary by regional setting, several key governmental and community-based food assistance programs are summarized in Table 2. Local community partners and online/phone-based directories, such as United Way’s 2-1-1 can help identify additional local resources. For older adults and individuals with disabilities, local Aging and Disability Resources Centers can provide information and assistance connecting to needed resources.⁶⁹ Finally, there are a number of online resources available for clinicians interested in learning more about the impact of food insecurity on health and tools to use in the clinical setting (Table 3).

Conclusion

The VA has recognized food insecurity as a critical concern for the well-being of our nation’s veterans. Use of the EHR clinical reminder represents a crucial first step toward increasing provider awareness about veteran food insecurity and improving clinical efforts to address food insecurity once identified. Through the reminder, health care teams can connect veterans to needed resources and create both the individual and population-level data necessary to inform VHA and community efforts to address veteran food insecurity. Clinical reminder data are currently being used for local quality improvement efforts and have established the need nationally for formalized partnerships between VHA Social Work Services and Nutrition and Food Services to connect veterans with food and provide them with strategies to best use available food resources.

Moving forward, the Ensuring Veteran Food Security Workgroup continues to work with agencies and organizations across the country to improve food insecure veterans’ access to needed services. In addition to existing VA partnerships with Feeding America for the VPP, memorandums of understanding are currently underway to formalize partnerships with both the Food Research and Action Center (FRAC) and MAZON. Additional research is needed both to formally validate the current food insecurity clinical reminder screening question and to identify best practices and potential models for how to most effectively use VHA-community partnerships to address the unique needs of the veteran population.

Ensuring the food security of our nation’s veterans is essential to VA’s commitment to providing integrated, veteran-centered, whole person care. Toward that goal, VA health care teams are urged to use the clinical reminder and help connect food insecure veterans with relevant resources both within and outside of the VA health care system.

The certainty that federal health care will be different, and the equal uncertainty about when and how the systems will evolve, were major topics at the recent AMSUS annual meeting. The Veterans Health Administration (VHA) and Military Health System (MHS) are in the midst of major transformations, although they are at very different points in the process and the final outcomes are yet unknown. This editorial, written at the end of 2019, will review some of the highlights of a discussion that is sure to continue in 2020 and beyond.

Almost everyone in the VA and many of the public can pinpoint the exact place (and time) the VHA’s upheaval began: Phoenix, Arizona, in 2014. “The attack on our system,” as VHA Executive in Charge Richard A. Stone, MD, described it at AMSUS, happened because “we were just too slow a bureaucracy,” he explained.¹ “We can debate how many veterans died while waiting for care, but the answer is that 1 was too many and it had to be fixed. We had to become a more agile organization.”

The US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) response to the media firestorm and congressional outrage was uncharacteristically swift and sweeping. Both the VA Secretary and Deputy Under Secretary of Health were removed, as were many others in leadership at Phoenix and elsewhere. The VA faced an existential crisis as many loud voices called for dismantling the entire system in the wake of its perceived inability or unwillingness to care for those it was legally mandated to serve.² The Veterans’ Access to Care through Choice, Accountability, and Transparency Act of 2014 and its successor the VA Mission Act of 2018 dramatically expanded veterans’ access to covered health care from non-VA health care providers (HCPs).

Debate continues in the veteran community and the wider society about whether this expansion constitutes an abandonment of a health care system dedicated to veterans and their unique health problems or a commitment to deliver the most efficient and high-quality care to veterans that can be obtained.^3-5 Many see this as a crossroads for the VA. Still, even if the VA will continue to exist, the question remains: in what form?

The increased use of private sector HCPs has wrought significant and long-lasting modifications to the traditional VA organization. In fiscal year (FY) 2017, the VA paid for care that non-VA HCPs provided for 24% of patients.⁶ Veterans with higher service-connected disability ratings and aged > 65 years were more likely to rely on the VA for care than were less disabled and younger patients.⁶ The Mission Act is expected to increase the VA expenditures by nearly $19 billion between FY 2019 and FY 2023, with the bulk of the patients still going to the VHA for their care.⁶ Stakeholders from unions to politicians are concerned that every dollar spent on community care is one less they can spend in VA institutions. It is unclear to what degree this concern will be actualized, as smaller hospitals and those in rural areas have always had contact with the private sector to obtain the specialty care veterans needed that the VA could not provide.

Compounding these trends is the VA’s ongoing staffing challenges. To meet the demand and eliminate wait times between September 2014 and September 2018, the VHA grew its workforce by > 40,000 individuals, a 13% growth rate. In FY 2019 alone, the VHA hired 28,000 new employees. And yet despite the rapid growth, a lower than average turnover rate, and relatively high employee satisfaction measures (at least when compared with those of other federal employees), the VHA still has 43,000 vacancies.^7,8

Which brings us to the very different set of challenges facing the Defense Health Agency (DHA). In an era of ballooning military budgets the DHA is being asked to “transform the MHS into an integrated readiness and health system, eliminate redundancies, and create a common high-quality experience for our beneficiaries.”⁹ The seeds of change were tucked into the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) of 2017, and their ramifications are only now becoming apparent. Among the most consequential of these changes are transfer of the management of hundreds of MHS hospitals and clinics from the medical services of the Army, Navy, and Air Force to the DHA.

“If we don’t shape our future, others will step in and do it for us,” Tom McCaffrey, Assistant Secretary of Defense for Health Affairs explained at AMSUS.¹⁰ In October 2019, DoD transitioned the first group of facilities to the DHA, and the remainder will change management by the end of 2022. In the next step of the process, facilities will be combined—along with TRICARE providers—in 21 geographically based “markets” to streamline management and avoid “redundancies.” 

Lost in the bland language, though, is the scale of the contemplated changes. Although the exact shape of the changes have not been finalized, up to 18,000 MHS health care providers—civilian or uniformed—may be eliminated as DHA relies more heavily on TRICARE providers.¹¹ Not even the future of the Uniformed Service University for the Health Sciences and its leadership training and health care research are guaranteed.¹² The ominous possibility that the nation could lose its only military medical school has raised alarm among medical educators. They fear that the country may sacrifice its ability to train physicians with the highly skilled specialities needed on the battlefield and the familiarity with military culture that enables doctors in uniform to relate to the problems of active-duty families and retired service members.¹²VHA and MHS colleagues are undergoing a similar organizational transition with all the trepidation and expectation that accompanies the turning of an enormous ship in stormy seas. In the midst of these major institutional transformations, VHA and MHS need to band together if the unique specialty of military and VA medicine is to survive. Unless these unprecedented changes can establish a new spirit of solidarity to 2 often separate partners in one mission to care for those who serve, we may well be asking in the next few years, “Where have all the federal practitioners gone?”

The certainty that federal health care will be different, and the equal uncertainty about when and how the systems will evolve, were major topics at the recent AMSUS annual meeting. The Veterans Health Administration (VHA) and Military Health System (MHS) are in the midst of major transformations, although they are at very different points in the process and the final outcomes are yet unknown. This editorial, written at the end of 2019, will review some of the highlights of a discussion that is sure to continue in 2020 and beyond.

Almost everyone in the VA and many of the public can pinpoint the exact place (and time) the VHA’s upheaval began: Phoenix, Arizona, in 2014. “The attack on our system,” as VHA Executive in Charge Richard A. Stone, MD, described it at AMSUS, happened because “we were just too slow a bureaucracy,” he explained.¹ “We can debate how many veterans died while waiting for care, but the answer is that 1 was too many and it had to be fixed. We had to become a more agile organization.”

The US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) response to the media firestorm and congressional outrage was uncharacteristically swift and sweeping. Both the VA Secretary and Deputy Under Secretary of Health were removed, as were many others in leadership at Phoenix and elsewhere. The VA faced an existential crisis as many loud voices called for dismantling the entire system in the wake of its perceived inability or unwillingness to care for those it was legally mandated to serve.² The Veterans’ Access to Care through Choice, Accountability, and Transparency Act of 2014 and its successor the VA Mission Act of 2018 dramatically expanded veterans’ access to covered health care from non-VA health care providers (HCPs).

Debate continues in the veteran community and the wider society about whether this expansion constitutes an abandonment of a health care system dedicated to veterans and their unique health problems or a commitment to deliver the most efficient and high-quality care to veterans that can be obtained.^3-5 Many see this as a crossroads for the VA. Still, even if the VA will continue to exist, the question remains: in what form?

The increased use of private sector HCPs has wrought significant and long-lasting modifications to the traditional VA organization. In fiscal year (FY) 2017, the VA paid for care that non-VA HCPs provided for 24% of patients.⁶ Veterans with higher service-connected disability ratings and aged > 65 years were more likely to rely on the VA for care than were less disabled and younger patients.⁶ The Mission Act is expected to increase the VA expenditures by nearly $19 billion between FY 2019 and FY 2023, with the bulk of the patients still going to the VHA for their care.⁶ Stakeholders from unions to politicians are concerned that every dollar spent on community care is one less they can spend in VA institutions. It is unclear to what degree this concern will be actualized, as smaller hospitals and those in rural areas have always had contact with the private sector to obtain the specialty care veterans needed that the VA could not provide.

Compounding these trends is the VA’s ongoing staffing challenges. To meet the demand and eliminate wait times between September 2014 and September 2018, the VHA grew its workforce by > 40,000 individuals, a 13% growth rate. In FY 2019 alone, the VHA hired 28,000 new employees. And yet despite the rapid growth, a lower than average turnover rate, and relatively high employee satisfaction measures (at least when compared with those of other federal employees), the VHA still has 43,000 vacancies.^7,8

Which brings us to the very different set of challenges facing the Defense Health Agency (DHA). In an era of ballooning military budgets the DHA is being asked to “transform the MHS into an integrated readiness and health system, eliminate redundancies, and create a common high-quality experience for our beneficiaries.”⁹ The seeds of change were tucked into the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) of 2017, and their ramifications are only now becoming apparent. Among the most consequential of these changes are transfer of the management of hundreds of MHS hospitals and clinics from the medical services of the Army, Navy, and Air Force to the DHA.

“If we don’t shape our future, others will step in and do it for us,” Tom McCaffrey, Assistant Secretary of Defense for Health Affairs explained at AMSUS.¹⁰ In October 2019, DoD transitioned the first group of facilities to the DHA, and the remainder will change management by the end of 2022. In the next step of the process, facilities will be combined—along with TRICARE providers—in 21 geographically based “markets” to streamline management and avoid “redundancies.” 

Lost in the bland language, though, is the scale of the contemplated changes. Although the exact shape of the changes have not been finalized, up to 18,000 MHS health care providers—civilian or uniformed—may be eliminated as DHA relies more heavily on TRICARE providers.¹¹ Not even the future of the Uniformed Service University for the Health Sciences and its leadership training and health care research are guaranteed.¹² The ominous possibility that the nation could lose its only military medical school has raised alarm among medical educators. They fear that the country may sacrifice its ability to train physicians with the highly skilled specialities needed on the battlefield and the familiarity with military culture that enables doctors in uniform to relate to the problems of active-duty families and retired service members.¹²VHA and MHS colleagues are undergoing a similar organizational transition with all the trepidation and expectation that accompanies the turning of an enormous ship in stormy seas. In the midst of these major institutional transformations, VHA and MHS need to band together if the unique specialty of military and VA medicine is to survive. Unless these unprecedented changes can establish a new spirit of solidarity to 2 often separate partners in one mission to care for those who serve, we may well be asking in the next few years, “Where have all the federal practitioners gone?”

The certainty that federal health care will be different, and the equal uncertainty about when and how the systems will evolve, were major topics at the recent AMSUS annual meeting. The Veterans Health Administration (VHA) and Military Health System (MHS) are in the midst of major transformations, although they are at very different points in the process and the final outcomes are yet unknown. This editorial, written at the end of 2019, will review some of the highlights of a discussion that is sure to continue in 2020 and beyond.

Almost everyone in the VA and many of the public can pinpoint the exact place (and time) the VHA’s upheaval began: Phoenix, Arizona, in 2014. “The attack on our system,” as VHA Executive in Charge Richard A. Stone, MD, described it at AMSUS, happened because “we were just too slow a bureaucracy,” he explained.¹ “We can debate how many veterans died while waiting for care, but the answer is that 1 was too many and it had to be fixed. We had to become a more agile organization.”

The US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) response to the media firestorm and congressional outrage was uncharacteristically swift and sweeping. Both the VA Secretary and Deputy Under Secretary of Health were removed, as were many others in leadership at Phoenix and elsewhere. The VA faced an existential crisis as many loud voices called for dismantling the entire system in the wake of its perceived inability or unwillingness to care for those it was legally mandated to serve.² The Veterans’ Access to Care through Choice, Accountability, and Transparency Act of 2014 and its successor the VA Mission Act of 2018 dramatically expanded veterans’ access to covered health care from non-VA health care providers (HCPs).

Debate continues in the veteran community and the wider society about whether this expansion constitutes an abandonment of a health care system dedicated to veterans and their unique health problems or a commitment to deliver the most efficient and high-quality care to veterans that can be obtained.^3-5 Many see this as a crossroads for the VA. Still, even if the VA will continue to exist, the question remains: in what form?

The increased use of private sector HCPs has wrought significant and long-lasting modifications to the traditional VA organization. In fiscal year (FY) 2017, the VA paid for care that non-VA HCPs provided for 24% of patients.⁶ Veterans with higher service-connected disability ratings and aged > 65 years were more likely to rely on the VA for care than were less disabled and younger patients.⁶ The Mission Act is expected to increase the VA expenditures by nearly $19 billion between FY 2019 and FY 2023, with the bulk of the patients still going to the VHA for their care.⁶ Stakeholders from unions to politicians are concerned that every dollar spent on community care is one less they can spend in VA institutions. It is unclear to what degree this concern will be actualized, as smaller hospitals and those in rural areas have always had contact with the private sector to obtain the specialty care veterans needed that the VA could not provide.

Compounding these trends is the VA’s ongoing staffing challenges. To meet the demand and eliminate wait times between September 2014 and September 2018, the VHA grew its workforce by > 40,000 individuals, a 13% growth rate. In FY 2019 alone, the VHA hired 28,000 new employees. And yet despite the rapid growth, a lower than average turnover rate, and relatively high employee satisfaction measures (at least when compared with those of other federal employees), the VHA still has 43,000 vacancies.^7,8

Which brings us to the very different set of challenges facing the Defense Health Agency (DHA). In an era of ballooning military budgets the DHA is being asked to “transform the MHS into an integrated readiness and health system, eliminate redundancies, and create a common high-quality experience for our beneficiaries.”⁹ The seeds of change were tucked into the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) of 2017, and their ramifications are only now becoming apparent. Among the most consequential of these changes are transfer of the management of hundreds of MHS hospitals and clinics from the medical services of the Army, Navy, and Air Force to the DHA.

“If we don’t shape our future, others will step in and do it for us,” Tom McCaffrey, Assistant Secretary of Defense for Health Affairs explained at AMSUS.¹⁰ In October 2019, DoD transitioned the first group of facilities to the DHA, and the remainder will change management by the end of 2022. In the next step of the process, facilities will be combined—along with TRICARE providers—in 21 geographically based “markets” to streamline management and avoid “redundancies.” 

Lost in the bland language, though, is the scale of the contemplated changes. Although the exact shape of the changes have not been finalized, up to 18,000 MHS health care providers—civilian or uniformed—may be eliminated as DHA relies more heavily on TRICARE providers.¹¹ Not even the future of the Uniformed Service University for the Health Sciences and its leadership training and health care research are guaranteed.¹² The ominous possibility that the nation could lose its only military medical school has raised alarm among medical educators. They fear that the country may sacrifice its ability to train physicians with the highly skilled specialities needed on the battlefield and the familiarity with military culture that enables doctors in uniform to relate to the problems of active-duty families and retired service members.¹²VHA and MHS colleagues are undergoing a similar organizational transition with all the trepidation and expectation that accompanies the turning of an enormous ship in stormy seas. In the midst of these major institutional transformations, VHA and MHS need to band together if the unique specialty of military and VA medicine is to survive. Unless these unprecedented changes can establish a new spirit of solidarity to 2 often separate partners in one mission to care for those who serve, we may well be asking in the next few years, “Where have all the federal practitioners gone?”

The Department of Health & Human Services is taking the first steps in allowing drugs to be imported into the United States.

Wikimedia Commons/WWsgConnect/CC-SA 4.0

HHS proposes to offer two different pathways for importation: One allowing states to design programs to import certain drugs directly from Canada and another allowing manufacturers to obtain a new National Drug Code (NDC) number to import their own Food and Drug Administration–approved products manufactured outside of the United States.

“The importation proposals we are rolling out ... are a historic step forward in efforts to bring down drug prices and out-of-pocket costs,” HHS Secretary Alex Azar said during a Dec. 17, 2019, press conference. “New pathways for importation can move us toward a more open and competitive marketplace that supplies American patients with safe, effective, affordable prescription drugs.”

The proposals were made public on Dec. 18, the day the House Rules committee was scheduled to vote on impeaching President Trump.

He emphasized that these proposals “are both important steps in advancing the FDA’s safe-importation action plan, [which] aims to insure that importation is done in a way that prioritizes safety and includes elements to help insure importation does not put patients or the U.S. drug supply chain at risk.”

The pathway for states to import drugs from Canada will be proposed through the federal regulatory process. The notice of proposed rulemaking, which implements authority for FDA regulation of importation granted in the Medicare Modernization Act of 2003, will outline a process by which states, potentially working with wholesalers and/or pharmacies, will submit proposals for FDA review and approval on how they would implement an importation program.

Only certain drugs would be eligible for importation from Canada under this proposal. The drugs would need to be approved in Canada and, except for Canadian labeling, need to meet the conditions of an FDA-approved new drug application or abbreviated new drug application.

Controlled substances, biologics, intravenously injected drugs, drugs with a risk evaluation and management strategy, and drugs injected into the spinal column or eye would be excluded from importation.

Drugs coming in from Canada would be relabeled with U.S.-approved labels and would be subject to testing to ensure they are authentic, not degraded, and compliant with U.S. standards.

States would be required to show that importing drugs poses no additional risk in public health and safety and it would result in the reduction of costs, according to information provided by HHS.

Many of the most expensive drugs, as well as insulins, would not be eligible for importation under this pathway, Mr. Azar acknowledged, adding that “I would envision that as we demonstrate the safety as well as the cost savings from this pathway, [this could serve as] a pilot and a proof of concept that Congress could then look to and potentially take up for more complex molecules that involve cold-chain storage and more complex distribution channels.”

The proposed regulations do not offer any estimates on how much savings could be achieved. He said that there is no way to estimate which states might develop importation plans and how those plans might work.

The second proposed pathway would involve FDA guidance to manufacturers allowing them to import their own FDA-approved products manufactured abroad. Under this proposal, there would be no restriction on which type or kind of FDA-approved product to be imported.

“The FDA has become aware that manufacturers of some brand-name drugs want to offer their drugs at lower costs in the U.S. market but, due to certain challenges in the private market, are not readily [able] to do so without obtaining a different national drug code for their drugs,” Adm. Brett Giroir, MD, HHS assistant secretary for health, said during the press conference.

Obtaining a separate NDC for imported drugs could address the challenges, particularly those posed by the incentives to raise list prices and offer higher rebates to pharmacy benefit managers, Mr. Azar said.

The draft guidance outlines procedures manufacturers could follow to get that NDC for those products and how manufacturers can demonstrate that these products meet U.S. regulatory standards. Products imported in this pathway could be made available to patients in hospitals, physician offices, and pharmacies. Generic drugs are not part of this guidance, but the proposed guidance asked for feedback on whether a similar approach is needed for generic products.

“This would potentially allow for the sale of these drugs at lower prices than currently offered to American consumers, giving drugmakers new flexibility to reduce list prices,” Mr. Azar said.

The proposed regulation on state-level importation will have a 75-day comment period from the day it is published in the Federal Register, and Mr. Azar said that the FDA is committing resources to getting the comments analyzed and reflected in the final rule.

“We will be moving as quickly as we possibly can,” Mr. Azar said, adding that the FDA guidance to manufacturers may move more quickly through its approval process because it is not a formal rule.

gtwachtman@mdedge.com

The Department of Health & Human Services is taking the first steps in allowing drugs to be imported into the United States.

Wikimedia Commons/WWsgConnect/CC-SA 4.0

HHS proposes to offer two different pathways for importation: One allowing states to design programs to import certain drugs directly from Canada and another allowing manufacturers to obtain a new National Drug Code (NDC) number to import their own Food and Drug Administration–approved products manufactured outside of the United States.

“The importation proposals we are rolling out ... are a historic step forward in efforts to bring down drug prices and out-of-pocket costs,” HHS Secretary Alex Azar said during a Dec. 17, 2019, press conference. “New pathways for importation can move us toward a more open and competitive marketplace that supplies American patients with safe, effective, affordable prescription drugs.”

The proposals were made public on Dec. 18, the day the House Rules committee was scheduled to vote on impeaching President Trump.

He emphasized that these proposals “are both important steps in advancing the FDA’s safe-importation action plan, [which] aims to insure that importation is done in a way that prioritizes safety and includes elements to help insure importation does not put patients or the U.S. drug supply chain at risk.”

The pathway for states to import drugs from Canada will be proposed through the federal regulatory process. The notice of proposed rulemaking, which implements authority for FDA regulation of importation granted in the Medicare Modernization Act of 2003, will outline a process by which states, potentially working with wholesalers and/or pharmacies, will submit proposals for FDA review and approval on how they would implement an importation program.

Only certain drugs would be eligible for importation from Canada under this proposal. The drugs would need to be approved in Canada and, except for Canadian labeling, need to meet the conditions of an FDA-approved new drug application or abbreviated new drug application.

Controlled substances, biologics, intravenously injected drugs, drugs with a risk evaluation and management strategy, and drugs injected into the spinal column or eye would be excluded from importation.

Drugs coming in from Canada would be relabeled with U.S.-approved labels and would be subject to testing to ensure they are authentic, not degraded, and compliant with U.S. standards.

States would be required to show that importing drugs poses no additional risk in public health and safety and it would result in the reduction of costs, according to information provided by HHS.

Many of the most expensive drugs, as well as insulins, would not be eligible for importation under this pathway, Mr. Azar acknowledged, adding that “I would envision that as we demonstrate the safety as well as the cost savings from this pathway, [this could serve as] a pilot and a proof of concept that Congress could then look to and potentially take up for more complex molecules that involve cold-chain storage and more complex distribution channels.”

The proposed regulations do not offer any estimates on how much savings could be achieved. He said that there is no way to estimate which states might develop importation plans and how those plans might work.

The second proposed pathway would involve FDA guidance to manufacturers allowing them to import their own FDA-approved products manufactured abroad. Under this proposal, there would be no restriction on which type or kind of FDA-approved product to be imported.

“The FDA has become aware that manufacturers of some brand-name drugs want to offer their drugs at lower costs in the U.S. market but, due to certain challenges in the private market, are not readily [able] to do so without obtaining a different national drug code for their drugs,” Adm. Brett Giroir, MD, HHS assistant secretary for health, said during the press conference.

Obtaining a separate NDC for imported drugs could address the challenges, particularly those posed by the incentives to raise list prices and offer higher rebates to pharmacy benefit managers, Mr. Azar said.

The draft guidance outlines procedures manufacturers could follow to get that NDC for those products and how manufacturers can demonstrate that these products meet U.S. regulatory standards. Products imported in this pathway could be made available to patients in hospitals, physician offices, and pharmacies. Generic drugs are not part of this guidance, but the proposed guidance asked for feedback on whether a similar approach is needed for generic products.

“This would potentially allow for the sale of these drugs at lower prices than currently offered to American consumers, giving drugmakers new flexibility to reduce list prices,” Mr. Azar said.

The proposed regulation on state-level importation will have a 75-day comment period from the day it is published in the Federal Register, and Mr. Azar said that the FDA is committing resources to getting the comments analyzed and reflected in the final rule.

“We will be moving as quickly as we possibly can,” Mr. Azar said, adding that the FDA guidance to manufacturers may move more quickly through its approval process because it is not a formal rule.

gtwachtman@mdedge.com

The Department of Health & Human Services is taking the first steps in allowing drugs to be imported into the United States.

Wikimedia Commons/WWsgConnect/CC-SA 4.0

HHS proposes to offer two different pathways for importation: One allowing states to design programs to import certain drugs directly from Canada and another allowing manufacturers to obtain a new National Drug Code (NDC) number to import their own Food and Drug Administration–approved products manufactured outside of the United States.

“The importation proposals we are rolling out ... are a historic step forward in efforts to bring down drug prices and out-of-pocket costs,” HHS Secretary Alex Azar said during a Dec. 17, 2019, press conference. “New pathways for importation can move us toward a more open and competitive marketplace that supplies American patients with safe, effective, affordable prescription drugs.”

The proposals were made public on Dec. 18, the day the House Rules committee was scheduled to vote on impeaching President Trump.

He emphasized that these proposals “are both important steps in advancing the FDA’s safe-importation action plan, [which] aims to insure that importation is done in a way that prioritizes safety and includes elements to help insure importation does not put patients or the U.S. drug supply chain at risk.”

The pathway for states to import drugs from Canada will be proposed through the federal regulatory process. The notice of proposed rulemaking, which implements authority for FDA regulation of importation granted in the Medicare Modernization Act of 2003, will outline a process by which states, potentially working with wholesalers and/or pharmacies, will submit proposals for FDA review and approval on how they would implement an importation program.

Only certain drugs would be eligible for importation from Canada under this proposal. The drugs would need to be approved in Canada and, except for Canadian labeling, need to meet the conditions of an FDA-approved new drug application or abbreviated new drug application.

Controlled substances, biologics, intravenously injected drugs, drugs with a risk evaluation and management strategy, and drugs injected into the spinal column or eye would be excluded from importation.

Drugs coming in from Canada would be relabeled with U.S.-approved labels and would be subject to testing to ensure they are authentic, not degraded, and compliant with U.S. standards.

States would be required to show that importing drugs poses no additional risk in public health and safety and it would result in the reduction of costs, according to information provided by HHS.

Many of the most expensive drugs, as well as insulins, would not be eligible for importation under this pathway, Mr. Azar acknowledged, adding that “I would envision that as we demonstrate the safety as well as the cost savings from this pathway, [this could serve as] a pilot and a proof of concept that Congress could then look to and potentially take up for more complex molecules that involve cold-chain storage and more complex distribution channels.”

The proposed regulations do not offer any estimates on how much savings could be achieved. He said that there is no way to estimate which states might develop importation plans and how those plans might work.

The second proposed pathway would involve FDA guidance to manufacturers allowing them to import their own FDA-approved products manufactured abroad. Under this proposal, there would be no restriction on which type or kind of FDA-approved product to be imported.

“The FDA has become aware that manufacturers of some brand-name drugs want to offer their drugs at lower costs in the U.S. market but, due to certain challenges in the private market, are not readily [able] to do so without obtaining a different national drug code for their drugs,” Adm. Brett Giroir, MD, HHS assistant secretary for health, said during the press conference.

Obtaining a separate NDC for imported drugs could address the challenges, particularly those posed by the incentives to raise list prices and offer higher rebates to pharmacy benefit managers, Mr. Azar said.

The draft guidance outlines procedures manufacturers could follow to get that NDC for those products and how manufacturers can demonstrate that these products meet U.S. regulatory standards. Products imported in this pathway could be made available to patients in hospitals, physician offices, and pharmacies. Generic drugs are not part of this guidance, but the proposed guidance asked for feedback on whether a similar approach is needed for generic products.

“This would potentially allow for the sale of these drugs at lower prices than currently offered to American consumers, giving drugmakers new flexibility to reduce list prices,” Mr. Azar said.

The proposed regulation on state-level importation will have a 75-day comment period from the day it is published in the Federal Register, and Mr. Azar said that the FDA is committing resources to getting the comments analyzed and reflected in the final rule.

“We will be moving as quickly as we possibly can,” Mr. Azar said, adding that the FDA guidance to manufacturers may move more quickly through its approval process because it is not a formal rule.

gtwachtman@mdedge.com

More work is needed to address how addiction is handled both within the military and for veterans after they serve. Removing the stigma around addiction treatment is key to addressing the issue, Anthony Dekker, DO, Northern Arizona VA Healthcare System, said at the AMSUS annual meeting on December 4, 2019.

“When we are talking about treating addiction in the military and the VA, those are 2 different issues,” Dr. Dekker said. “In the VA, it should be understood this is a service that needs to be provided. In the military, it is highly dependent on command. Some commands are in favor of treatment. Some commands are in favor of separation.”

But that separation comes with a cost. Dr. Dekker noted that the military spends about $200,000 to get a person from recruitment to an E-5 pay grade and about $400,000 to an O-5 pay grade. That can be a huge investment loss considering the cost of treatment for someone who is suffering from a use disorder.

“Treatment is going to cost about $44,000,” he said. “That will be treatment in a residential center. That was a person who is serious enough to come into a residential center, follow up with a partial hospital program and continue with ongoing [treatment] that would last a year.”

He touted some of the successes addiction treatment programs have had, recalling data from 2008-2009 from 110 military active-duty service members treated across 5 residential treatment centers in the Washington, DC, area. Within a year, 91% had separated from the military either because of a command decision before treatment or because of loss of recover.

“We know what works in addiction,” he said, noting that program changes that involved using a combination of medication-assisted treatments with regular substance use screenings and medical practitioner follow-up has helped to reduce the rate of lost recovery to 12%. He also noted that in 2013-2014, 41 active military members who received treatment in the same centers were able to be redeployed to Afghanistan and had no relapses during that deployment. 

“We try to take the stigma away,” Dr. Dekker said. “So if you have leadership who has a stigma against addiction treatment, you are going to have a steep incline to work against, whereas if you have leadership that were, I would say, endowed with a different sense of knowledge and experience,” there is a much greater chance for helping both military service members and veterans alike.

He called on the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) to look more closely at how it is prescribing opioids. While acknowledging the opioid addiction epidemic, he noted that simply cutting back on prescribing may not be the right solution because it is having a ripple effect and causing other problems, namely that although the VA has written 60% fewer opioid prescriptions from 2012 to 2019, overdose rates have doubled as military members and veterans are seeking opioids from other sources outside of a controlled, safer medical environment.

It can be especially problematic for those who have a legitimate medical need for opioids but have a disqualifying event that causes the pain medication to be cut off.

“We need to have a different answer to this because termination of opioids because a patient is positive for marijuana or even positive for cocaine doesn’t mean you take services away. You ramp services up,” Dr. Dekker said. “If I have a patient who has a chronic pain syndrome, the only thing that is going to push him out of my system is if they threaten my staff.…The loss from recovery is not a reason to lose treatment. That is another concept that needs to be addressed and we need to really look at that.”

He also called on VA leadership to be more encouraging in prescribing buprenorphine, noting that many doctors and nurses have waivers to prescribe it, but there is a lot of reluctance to do so, even though there is a lot of success with that treatment.

More work is needed to address how addiction is handled both within the military and for veterans after they serve. Removing the stigma around addiction treatment is key to addressing the issue, Anthony Dekker, DO, Northern Arizona VA Healthcare System, said at the AMSUS annual meeting on December 4, 2019.

“When we are talking about treating addiction in the military and the VA, those are 2 different issues,” Dr. Dekker said. “In the VA, it should be understood this is a service that needs to be provided. In the military, it is highly dependent on command. Some commands are in favor of treatment. Some commands are in favor of separation.”

But that separation comes with a cost. Dr. Dekker noted that the military spends about $200,000 to get a person from recruitment to an E-5 pay grade and about $400,000 to an O-5 pay grade. That can be a huge investment loss considering the cost of treatment for someone who is suffering from a use disorder.

“Treatment is going to cost about $44,000,” he said. “That will be treatment in a residential center. That was a person who is serious enough to come into a residential center, follow up with a partial hospital program and continue with ongoing [treatment] that would last a year.”

He touted some of the successes addiction treatment programs have had, recalling data from 2008-2009 from 110 military active-duty service members treated across 5 residential treatment centers in the Washington, DC, area. Within a year, 91% had separated from the military either because of a command decision before treatment or because of loss of recover.

“We know what works in addiction,” he said, noting that program changes that involved using a combination of medication-assisted treatments with regular substance use screenings and medical practitioner follow-up has helped to reduce the rate of lost recovery to 12%. He also noted that in 2013-2014, 41 active military members who received treatment in the same centers were able to be redeployed to Afghanistan and had no relapses during that deployment. 

“We try to take the stigma away,” Dr. Dekker said. “So if you have leadership who has a stigma against addiction treatment, you are going to have a steep incline to work against, whereas if you have leadership that were, I would say, endowed with a different sense of knowledge and experience,” there is a much greater chance for helping both military service members and veterans alike.

He called on the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) to look more closely at how it is prescribing opioids. While acknowledging the opioid addiction epidemic, he noted that simply cutting back on prescribing may not be the right solution because it is having a ripple effect and causing other problems, namely that although the VA has written 60% fewer opioid prescriptions from 2012 to 2019, overdose rates have doubled as military members and veterans are seeking opioids from other sources outside of a controlled, safer medical environment.

It can be especially problematic for those who have a legitimate medical need for opioids but have a disqualifying event that causes the pain medication to be cut off.

“We need to have a different answer to this because termination of opioids because a patient is positive for marijuana or even positive for cocaine doesn’t mean you take services away. You ramp services up,” Dr. Dekker said. “If I have a patient who has a chronic pain syndrome, the only thing that is going to push him out of my system is if they threaten my staff.…The loss from recovery is not a reason to lose treatment. That is another concept that needs to be addressed and we need to really look at that.”

He also called on VA leadership to be more encouraging in prescribing buprenorphine, noting that many doctors and nurses have waivers to prescribe it, but there is a lot of reluctance to do so, even though there is a lot of success with that treatment.

More work is needed to address how addiction is handled both within the military and for veterans after they serve. Removing the stigma around addiction treatment is key to addressing the issue, Anthony Dekker, DO, Northern Arizona VA Healthcare System, said at the AMSUS annual meeting on December 4, 2019.

“When we are talking about treating addiction in the military and the VA, those are 2 different issues,” Dr. Dekker said. “In the VA, it should be understood this is a service that needs to be provided. In the military, it is highly dependent on command. Some commands are in favor of treatment. Some commands are in favor of separation.”

But that separation comes with a cost. Dr. Dekker noted that the military spends about $200,000 to get a person from recruitment to an E-5 pay grade and about $400,000 to an O-5 pay grade. That can be a huge investment loss considering the cost of treatment for someone who is suffering from a use disorder.

“Treatment is going to cost about $44,000,” he said. “That will be treatment in a residential center. That was a person who is serious enough to come into a residential center, follow up with a partial hospital program and continue with ongoing [treatment] that would last a year.”

He touted some of the successes addiction treatment programs have had, recalling data from 2008-2009 from 110 military active-duty service members treated across 5 residential treatment centers in the Washington, DC, area. Within a year, 91% had separated from the military either because of a command decision before treatment or because of loss of recover.

“We know what works in addiction,” he said, noting that program changes that involved using a combination of medication-assisted treatments with regular substance use screenings and medical practitioner follow-up has helped to reduce the rate of lost recovery to 12%. He also noted that in 2013-2014, 41 active military members who received treatment in the same centers were able to be redeployed to Afghanistan and had no relapses during that deployment. 

“We try to take the stigma away,” Dr. Dekker said. “So if you have leadership who has a stigma against addiction treatment, you are going to have a steep incline to work against, whereas if you have leadership that were, I would say, endowed with a different sense of knowledge and experience,” there is a much greater chance for helping both military service members and veterans alike.

He called on the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) to look more closely at how it is prescribing opioids. While acknowledging the opioid addiction epidemic, he noted that simply cutting back on prescribing may not be the right solution because it is having a ripple effect and causing other problems, namely that although the VA has written 60% fewer opioid prescriptions from 2012 to 2019, overdose rates have doubled as military members and veterans are seeking opioids from other sources outside of a controlled, safer medical environment.

It can be especially problematic for those who have a legitimate medical need for opioids but have a disqualifying event that causes the pain medication to be cut off.

“We need to have a different answer to this because termination of opioids because a patient is positive for marijuana or even positive for cocaine doesn’t mean you take services away. You ramp services up,” Dr. Dekker said. “If I have a patient who has a chronic pain syndrome, the only thing that is going to push him out of my system is if they threaten my staff.…The loss from recovery is not a reason to lose treatment. That is another concept that needs to be addressed and we need to really look at that.”

He also called on VA leadership to be more encouraging in prescribing buprenorphine, noting that many doctors and nurses have waivers to prescribe it, but there is a lot of reluctance to do so, even though there is a lot of success with that treatment.

One theme emerged from multiple military healthy system (MHS) leaders at the recent AMSUS annual conference: Significant change is coming to the MHS, and military health care providers can either embrace and shape that change or somebody else will. “If we don’t shape our future, others will step in and do it for us,” Tom McCaffrey, Assistant Secretary of Defense for Health Affairs; Defense Health Agency (DHA), and the Uniformed Service University for the Health Sciences (USU) told the audience.

The “historic” changes are underway, as the DHA has already begun to take over control of many military treatment facilities (MTFs) that were formerly operated by the separate services. In the next step of the transition, nearly 250 individual MTFs will be combined—along with TRICARE providers—in 21 geographically based “markets” in order to streamline management and avoid redundancies.

The exact details of the changes in store have not been released. McCaffrey noted that US Department of Defense (DoD) leadership will submit the “framework” for their assessment of the MHS to Congress “very soon, and at that point we will begin the hard work of detailed implementation of the results of that assessment and recommendations from the department.” Changes are expected to continue through fiscal year 2021, and some sources have estimated that as many as 18,000 jobs could be eliminated in the process.

Although Congress drove these changes in the National Defense Authorization Act of 2017, MHS leaders insist they are determining how to make the transformation without hurting medical readiness. “We the senior leadership of the MHS must continue to work together to shape our system to meet the challenges of the new environment,” McCaffrey insisted.

It seems as though all elements of the MHS are on the table. One report has suggested that the USU budget could be cut by a third. “Given the USU’s track record of excellence, we were alarmed to learn that the department is considering cuts as high as 30% to the university’s budget for research, development, testing, and evaluation, and 34% to university operations and maintenance... includ[ing] the cancellation of a $445 million military construction project and closure of the USU medical school,” US senators Chris Van Hollen (D-MD), Ben Cardin (D-MD.), Jack Reed (D-RI), and Congressman Jamie Raskin (D-MD) wrote in a November 21, 2019, letter to US Department of Defense Secretary Mark Esper. “These cuts, even if only partially implemented or scaled back, will adversely impact the enterprise across recruitment, retention, access to research funding, and severely impact medical readiness at a time when demand is increasing.”

The medical readiness of military health care providers remains one of the thorniest challenges revolving around the DHA transition. “As an infantryman, from my perspective if you can't maintain effectiveness on the trauma side than it is not worth getting more efficient,” argued LTG (Ret) Jeffrey S. Buchannon, who formerly served as senior commander of Fort Sam Houston, which includes Brooke Army Medical Center, the military’s only level 1 trauma center and 1 of only 2 trauma centers in San Antonio. “We need the home game in order to prepare for the away game,”

In its review, DoD is looking at how the MTFs support inpatient and/or outpatient services to maintain medical force readiness. “We need to identify those areas where we can expand capacity at MTFs that offer potential for sustaining the skills and knowledge of our members,” said McCaffrey. “But we also must examine those areas where facilities do not offer now and likely will not be able to offer in the future a platform for maximizing capabilities to support medical readiness. In those situations, we must be open to right sizing MTF services and capabilities so as to ensure that we are using finite resources most efficiently while not compromising our ability to meet the mission.”

“Our military healthy system is the envy of the world. Any great power competitor would trade its health care and battlefield medicine capabilities for the system you have built,” McCaffrey said. “But just as America’s combat supremacy is not guaranteed nor is the supremacy of the MHS.” The US faces new global security challenges, McCaffrey argued, and “we must adapt and evolve if we are to successfully meet these challenges.”

One theme emerged from multiple military healthy system (MHS) leaders at the recent AMSUS annual conference: Significant change is coming to the MHS, and military health care providers can either embrace and shape that change or somebody else will. “If we don’t shape our future, others will step in and do it for us,” Tom McCaffrey, Assistant Secretary of Defense for Health Affairs; Defense Health Agency (DHA), and the Uniformed Service University for the Health Sciences (USU) told the audience.

The “historic” changes are underway, as the DHA has already begun to take over control of many military treatment facilities (MTFs) that were formerly operated by the separate services. In the next step of the transition, nearly 250 individual MTFs will be combined—along with TRICARE providers—in 21 geographically based “markets” in order to streamline management and avoid redundancies.

The exact details of the changes in store have not been released. McCaffrey noted that US Department of Defense (DoD) leadership will submit the “framework” for their assessment of the MHS to Congress “very soon, and at that point we will begin the hard work of detailed implementation of the results of that assessment and recommendations from the department.” Changes are expected to continue through fiscal year 2021, and some sources have estimated that as many as 18,000 jobs could be eliminated in the process.

Although Congress drove these changes in the National Defense Authorization Act of 2017, MHS leaders insist they are determining how to make the transformation without hurting medical readiness. “We the senior leadership of the MHS must continue to work together to shape our system to meet the challenges of the new environment,” McCaffrey insisted.

It seems as though all elements of the MHS are on the table. One report has suggested that the USU budget could be cut by a third. “Given the USU’s track record of excellence, we were alarmed to learn that the department is considering cuts as high as 30% to the university’s budget for research, development, testing, and evaluation, and 34% to university operations and maintenance... includ[ing] the cancellation of a $445 million military construction project and closure of the USU medical school,” US senators Chris Van Hollen (D-MD), Ben Cardin (D-MD.), Jack Reed (D-RI), and Congressman Jamie Raskin (D-MD) wrote in a November 21, 2019, letter to US Department of Defense Secretary Mark Esper. “These cuts, even if only partially implemented or scaled back, will adversely impact the enterprise across recruitment, retention, access to research funding, and severely impact medical readiness at a time when demand is increasing.”

The medical readiness of military health care providers remains one of the thorniest challenges revolving around the DHA transition. “As an infantryman, from my perspective if you can't maintain effectiveness on the trauma side than it is not worth getting more efficient,” argued LTG (Ret) Jeffrey S. Buchannon, who formerly served as senior commander of Fort Sam Houston, which includes Brooke Army Medical Center, the military’s only level 1 trauma center and 1 of only 2 trauma centers in San Antonio. “We need the home game in order to prepare for the away game,”

In its review, DoD is looking at how the MTFs support inpatient and/or outpatient services to maintain medical force readiness. “We need to identify those areas where we can expand capacity at MTFs that offer potential for sustaining the skills and knowledge of our members,” said McCaffrey. “But we also must examine those areas where facilities do not offer now and likely will not be able to offer in the future a platform for maximizing capabilities to support medical readiness. In those situations, we must be open to right sizing MTF services and capabilities so as to ensure that we are using finite resources most efficiently while not compromising our ability to meet the mission.”

“Our military healthy system is the envy of the world. Any great power competitor would trade its health care and battlefield medicine capabilities for the system you have built,” McCaffrey said. “But just as America’s combat supremacy is not guaranteed nor is the supremacy of the MHS.” The US faces new global security challenges, McCaffrey argued, and “we must adapt and evolve if we are to successfully meet these challenges.”

One theme emerged from multiple military healthy system (MHS) leaders at the recent AMSUS annual conference: Significant change is coming to the MHS, and military health care providers can either embrace and shape that change or somebody else will. “If we don’t shape our future, others will step in and do it for us,” Tom McCaffrey, Assistant Secretary of Defense for Health Affairs; Defense Health Agency (DHA), and the Uniformed Service University for the Health Sciences (USU) told the audience.

The “historic” changes are underway, as the DHA has already begun to take over control of many military treatment facilities (MTFs) that were formerly operated by the separate services. In the next step of the transition, nearly 250 individual MTFs will be combined—along with TRICARE providers—in 21 geographically based “markets” in order to streamline management and avoid redundancies.

The exact details of the changes in store have not been released. McCaffrey noted that US Department of Defense (DoD) leadership will submit the “framework” for their assessment of the MHS to Congress “very soon, and at that point we will begin the hard work of detailed implementation of the results of that assessment and recommendations from the department.” Changes are expected to continue through fiscal year 2021, and some sources have estimated that as many as 18,000 jobs could be eliminated in the process.

Although Congress drove these changes in the National Defense Authorization Act of 2017, MHS leaders insist they are determining how to make the transformation without hurting medical readiness. “We the senior leadership of the MHS must continue to work together to shape our system to meet the challenges of the new environment,” McCaffrey insisted.

It seems as though all elements of the MHS are on the table. One report has suggested that the USU budget could be cut by a third. “Given the USU’s track record of excellence, we were alarmed to learn that the department is considering cuts as high as 30% to the university’s budget for research, development, testing, and evaluation, and 34% to university operations and maintenance... includ[ing] the cancellation of a $445 million military construction project and closure of the USU medical school,” US senators Chris Van Hollen (D-MD), Ben Cardin (D-MD.), Jack Reed (D-RI), and Congressman Jamie Raskin (D-MD) wrote in a November 21, 2019, letter to US Department of Defense Secretary Mark Esper. “These cuts, even if only partially implemented or scaled back, will adversely impact the enterprise across recruitment, retention, access to research funding, and severely impact medical readiness at a time when demand is increasing.”

The medical readiness of military health care providers remains one of the thorniest challenges revolving around the DHA transition. “As an infantryman, from my perspective if you can't maintain effectiveness on the trauma side than it is not worth getting more efficient,” argued LTG (Ret) Jeffrey S. Buchannon, who formerly served as senior commander of Fort Sam Houston, which includes Brooke Army Medical Center, the military’s only level 1 trauma center and 1 of only 2 trauma centers in San Antonio. “We need the home game in order to prepare for the away game,”

In its review, DoD is looking at how the MTFs support inpatient and/or outpatient services to maintain medical force readiness. “We need to identify those areas where we can expand capacity at MTFs that offer potential for sustaining the skills and knowledge of our members,” said McCaffrey. “But we also must examine those areas where facilities do not offer now and likely will not be able to offer in the future a platform for maximizing capabilities to support medical readiness. In those situations, we must be open to right sizing MTF services and capabilities so as to ensure that we are using finite resources most efficiently while not compromising our ability to meet the mission.”

“Our military healthy system is the envy of the world. Any great power competitor would trade its health care and battlefield medicine capabilities for the system you have built,” McCaffrey said. “But just as America’s combat supremacy is not guaranteed nor is the supremacy of the MHS.” The US faces new global security challenges, McCaffrey argued, and “we must adapt and evolve if we are to successfully meet these challenges.”