Praxis Health Insights

What happens when mental health care finally becomes accountable, not just accessible? Policymakers are signaling that outcomes—not intentions—will define the next era of behavioral health. As measures tighten and payment models evolve, evidence generation, patient‑reported outcomes, and real‑world performance are quickly becoming the new currency of credibility. My latest piece for Praxis Health Insights explores how this shift is reshaping expectations across stakeholders and discusses measurement trends that are pushing the field toward a new standard of value.

Artificial intelligence infrastructure has become a controversial news topic over the last several months as we’ve seen rapid growth in the number of data centers being built in U.S. communities. More and more, we’re seeing increased pushback over the impact of their construction on the environment, utility costs, and public health. So what needs to be done to understand the impact of data center expansion on health outcomes — including for vulnerable and rural populations — and how should advocates and policymakers be leveraging quality measures? In the blog post below, my Praxis Health Insights colleagues and I discuss this topic, examples of relevant public health measure sets and tools, and opportunities for interested stakeholders to take action. We anticipate that we’ll continue to see national and state-level efforts to build strategies and best practices for measuring the impact of data centers. To learn more about how Praxis Health Insights can help advocacy groups and policymakers develop measurement strategies, visit https://lnkd.in/eZ-qHbTv.

Medical neurotechnology has incredible potential to improve human health. Some of that potential has been already realized, but much more is still coming. One challenge we face when integrating new medical neurotech into care processes is that modern value-based care frameworks are not prepared to maximize the quality of neurotech-based care delivery. With a few exceptions, conditions and care pathways involving the brain and spinal cord have long been underserved in value-based care frameworks, partly because it used to be so hard to treat or even manage those conditions. The rapidly evolving neurotech market is changing that. So what can we do to prepare the healthcare system for the coming waves of amazing medical neurotech devices? In the attached blog, written with my fellow value-based care experts at Praxis Health Insights, I begin to delve into this question. I briefly explore three ways that changes in programs, measures, incentives, and evidence generation can be improved now to better prepare the system for the future. I hope to spur thinking among payers, care model administrators, and health systems about how to be proactive on this question, to stay ahead of the curve (for once!), and make sure that the value of integrating neurotech is fully captured as it comes. To learn more about how Praxis Health Insights can help your market access and value strategy, visit https://lnkd.in/e4Nsga-e

Community oncology got some good news last month, courtesy of COA and Flatiron. New evidence suggests patients treated at independent practices may live significantly longer than national benchmarks, and at lower cost. But the payment environment is doing its best to undercut that story. The site-neutrality win is real, but so are the challenges associated with MFP in community oncology. My latest piece for Praxis Health Insights breaks down what the COA/Flatiron data actually show and why the economics of buy-and-bill are the continued headline every community oncology stakeholder should be watching.

We are in the golden age of biopharmaceutical innovation and gene therapies are one example. But we need as much innovation in how we pay for them as we see in the lab.  A new study by the National Pharmaceutical Council examines the unique challenges gene therapies pose to traditional reimbursement models and outlines consensus-based principles and practices to help navigate them. Kudos to Jon Campbell, and Tyler Wagner for their continued work in this space and to Jacqlyn Riposo, Kendra Mehling Gould, MSPH, Theresa Schmidt, and James T. Kenney for the collaboration. NPC’s prior research includes substantial evidence on the historical landscape of innovative contracts for gene therapies. These principles should serve as a starting point and evolve alongside new evidence, payment innovation, and policy reform. Read the work at the link in the comments.