Service Guarantees Have a Place in Health Care

Being Relevant

Michael's Testimonial

The Next Stage of Buprenorphine Care for Opioid Use Disorder

Buprenorphine has been used internationally for the treatment of opioid use disorder (OUD) since the 1990s and has been available in the United States for more than a decade. Initial practice recommendations were intentionally conservative, were based on expert opinion, and were influenced by methadone regulations. Since 2003, the American crisis of OUD has dramatically worsened, and much related empirical research has been undertaken. The findings in several important areas conflict with initial clinical practice that is still prevalent. This article reviews research findings in the following 7 areas: location of buprenorphine induction, combining buprenorphine with a benzodiazepine, relapse during buprenorphine treatment, requirements for counseling, uses of drug testing, use of other substances during buprenorphine treatment, and duration of buprenorphine treatment. For each area, evidence for needed updates and modifications in practice is provided. These modifications will facilitate more successful, evidence-based treatment and care for patients with OUD.

Ten Principles for More Conservative, Care-Full Diagnosis

Making the Voices of Female Trainees Heard

A Student Reflection on Doctoring With Confidence: Mind the Gap

Value-Based Health Care Meets Cost-Effectiveness Analysis

Value-based health care (VBHC) has recently emerged as a prominent movement within health care. Value-based health care focuses on maximizing outcomes achieved per dollar spent. As such, it bears many similarities to a well-established method, cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA), which provides a framework for comparing the relative value of different diagnostic or treatment interventions. Both approaches address “bang for the health care buck,” but although they overlap in many ways, VBHC and CEA differ with regard to their main applications, their perspective, and the types of costs and outcomes they consider. For example, CEA generally considers costs and benefits from the societal or health care sector perspectives, whereas VBHC is intended to adopt the patient perspective. As such, CEA is intended to inform coverage decisions at a group or population level and VBHC is intended to be implemented at the level of clinician–patient interactions. Meanwhile, value-based payment has emerged as a visible component of VBHC and is gaining a foothold in the United States in various forms, particularly bundled payments and accountable care organizations, in an effort to reward high-value care and disincentivize low-value care. Differences aside, as the worlds of VBHC and CEA begin to intersect, each discipline can learn from the other.

Scrutiny-Dependent Cancer and Self-fulfilling Risk Factors

What Recent History Has Taught Us About Responding to Emerging Infectious Disease Threats

Presidential administrations face any number of unexpected crises during their tenure, and global pandemics are among the most challenging. As of January 2017, one of the authors had served under 5 presidents as the director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases at the National Institutes of Health. During each administration, the government faced unexpected pandemics, ranging from the HIV/AIDS pandemic, which began during the Reagan administration, to the recent Zika outbreak in the Americas, which started during the Obama administration. These experiences underscored the need to optimize preparation for and response to these threats whenever and wherever they emerge. This article recounts selected outbreaks occurring during this period and highlights lessons that were learned that can be applied to the infectious disease threats that will inevitably be faced in the current presidential administration and beyond.