"In Silicon Valley, where I live, the word “disruption” has an overwhelmingly positive valence: Thousands of smart, young people arrive here every year hoping to disrupt established ways of doing business — and become very rich in the process. For almost everyone else, however, disruption is a bad thing," writes CDDRL Mosbacher Director, Francis Fukuyama for New York Times. Read the article here.

"With Russia’s domestic politics and renewed international ambitions as a backdrop, Trump must think hard about what he wants to prevent in dealing with Putin’s Russia, and what he wants to achieve. Presumably, he wants to prevent outright war with Russia over Ukraine, Syria, or America’s NATO allies in the Baltics." - writes Kathryn Stoner, Director of the Ford Dorsey Program in International Policy Studies, in The Atlantic. Read the article here. 

Stanford economist Takeo Hoshi joined Nikkei CNBC’s television program “Night Express” in Tokyo to discuss what a U.S. presidency under Donald Trump holds for trade policy, U.S.-Japan relations and the global economy.
 
Hoshi, who is also the Japan Program director at the Shorenstein Asia-Pacific Research Center, said that, while many of the next administration’s plans remain uncertain, the president-elect's first task would be to bridge divisions among Republicans so it can move ahead on policy decision-making.
 
The television segment can be viewed in Japanese here.

 

Kathryn Stoner, Director of the Ford Dorsey Program in International Policy Studies and a Senior Fellow at the Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies, debates for the New York Times with Matthew Rojansky, the Director of the Kennan Institute at the Wilson Center, about the U.S. foreign policy challenges, arguing that there is no natural conflict between two powers.  "As the long history of cooperation demonstrates, there is no structural reason Russia and the U.S. cannot get along. They have and did for over 30 years. It was Putin’s offer of asylum to rogue U.S. security contractor Edward Snowden in 2013, followed by his unanticipated demand that the U.S. Agency for International Development leave Russia the same year, harassment of the U.S. ambassador and other embassy officials since, and finally his seizure of Crimea in Ukraine in 2014 and support of a low boil conflict in eastern Ukraine that ended cooperation. The next U.S. president will inherit not a “Russia problem” but a Putin problem, which makes Trump’s position not only odd, but dangerous." Read more here. 

As health-care costs climb ever upward, controlling expenses without sacrificing high-quality care becomes increasingly important. Payment systems based on the value of care are emerging as a way to combat rising costs.

Many researchers like Jason Wang, an associate professor of pediatrics and a Stanford Health Policy core faculty member, have found that bundled payment systems may help health-care institutions achieve better value of care.

In a new study in the Journal of the American Medical Association Oncology, Wang and his co-authors show that a value-based bundled payment system is associated with cost containment and improvement in care, even improving chances for survival.

The study examined Taiwan’s bundled pay-for-performance (PFP) system for breast cancer. Instead of the traditional fee-for-service (FFS) system that is typical in the United States — in which every test, surgery and exam is billed individually — this system includes all aspects of treatment in a single established cost, or bundled payment.

Based on guidelines set by Taiwan’s National Health Insurance Administration (NHIA), the pilot program reimbursed health-care institutions’ costs for breast cancer treatment based on the patient’s cancer stage, 0 to IV. Institutions that exceeded the NHIA’s standards received a financial bonus as an incentive for better performance.

The study followed 4,215 patients in the bundled-care system over a five-year period, comparing the quality of their care, the cost of their treatment and the outcomes of their treatment to 12,506 similar patients in the traditional FFS system.

The authors found that patients in the bundled-payment system received better care throughout treatment, were more likely to survive, and contained medical costs over time, compared to their peers in the FFS system.

Costs for patients in the bundled payment system remained about the same throughout the study. However, the cost of treatment for those in the FFS system steadily increased throughout the study period. By the end, even health-care institutions receiving the maximum bonus incentive would incur lower costs than those in the FFS system.

Yet even though their treatment was cheaper, patients in the bundled system experienced better results. Patients using the bundled system had significantly higher survival rates for cancer stages 0 to III, and they were more likely to receive higher quality care based on quality indicators.

This is largely due to the better coordination of care made necessary by the bundled system, according to Wang.

“When you play in an orchestra, the whole group needs to play together, so it plays the right tune,” said Wang. “Focusing on value for the patient and the health-care system forces people to play the same tune.”

Wang believes the lessons learned from Taiwan’s program could be applied in other parts of the world, including the United States, which is currently moving toward bundled cancer care.

Though the U.S. already bundles care for conditions like appendicitis and chemotherapy — in which costs are fairly predictable — many hospital administrators fear that broadening the use of bundled payments for more complex conditions is too risky, financially.

Wang does not share their misgivings.

“People say, ‘We can’t do this for a very complex disease.’ It’s not true,” he said. “When we went outside of the U.S., we started to find systems that work.”

Wang found that when institutions can coordinate care for patients — that is, when a single institution manages all aspects of a patient’s care — the patient is more likely to have better outcomes.

“If institutions take the leadership of providing the infrastructure to coordinate care, they can really deliver better care with the same or lower costs.”

There are benefits for the institutions, too. Right now, because health insurance providers may accept or reject particular costs in an unpredictable way, care institutions never know how much they’re going to get paid for a service. But in a bundled payment system, costs are much more stable and revenue easier to predict.

Considering the benefits, Wang hopes the Taiwan breast cancer study will show institutions in the United States and around the world that bundled payments for cancer can be done on a broad scale.

The value, he said, is worth the risk.