The Pay for Success model may prove to be a valuable tool for increasing critical investments in effective health and wellness interventions. The public-private nature of the approach can encourage important ties between the business community, investment groups, philanthropy, and public agencies and service systems; and stimulate innovative changes in the financing and delivery of sustainable, community-driven solutions.
Budget cuts have forced many school districts to prioritize school programs, and extracurricular activities such as sports are often viewed as less essential than academics. Yet rather than reducing or eliminating sports programs altogether, some districts are electing to transfer some of the costs of sports participation to student athletes and their families. This opens the door to wide variation of fees and processes, and may contribute to inequities in sports participation for low-income students already at higher-risk for poorer health outcomes.
What kind of cost savings could be achieved if a "Pay for Success" (PFS) financing model were applied to a home-based, multi-component asthma intervention among low-income children on Medicaid in Detroit? The University of Michigan Research Hub team found that the economics of a PFS intervention are most viable if it targets children who have already experienced an expensive episode of asthma-related care.
Richard L. Hall and Peter Jacobson of the University of Michigan Research Hub published an article in Health Affairs on the relationship between Health in All Policies (HiAP) and health equity. They conducted 65 semi-structured interviews with state and local officials in five states where HiAP initiatives were underway, with a goal of examining whether and how policymakers and advocates use the framework to elevate health equity as a policy concern across sectors and jurisdictions.
Sandy Ahn and Sabrina Corlette from the Center on Health Insurance Reforms at Georgetown University released a paper analyzing the findings from a 50-state review of policies that lower consumers’ cost-sharing for expensive prescription drugs. The research was supplemented by in-depth interviews with officials and stakeholders in four states with such policies.