2019 LeapfrogToValue PDF

Leapfrog
to Value
How nations can adopt value-based care on
the path to universal health coverage
Steering Committee
Chintan Maru, Founder and Executive Director, Leapfrog to Value
Amy Lin, Technical Lead, Center for Innovation and Impact, United States Agency for International Development
Jean Kagubare, Deputy Director, Integrated Delivery, Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation
Amy Pollack, Director, Maternal, Neonatal, and Child Health, Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation
Andrew Stern, Founder and CEO, Global Development Incubator
Naveen Rao, Managing Director, Health, Rockefeller Foundation
Jeff Walker, Co-Chair, Community Health Acceleration Partnership, Hosted by WHO Ambassador for Global
Strategy
Leapfrog
to Value
Acknowledgments
The following individuals made significant contributions to the development of this report
David Milestone, Former Director, CII, USAID
Monisha Ashok, Market Access Advisor, CII, USAID
Danielle Dobos, Former Consultant, Dalberg
Foreword
Underperformance of health systems for people in low- and middle-income countries is a source
of lost lives (nearly 9 million per year), lost trust, and lost investment. The Lancet Commission
on High Quality Health Systems, 30 global experts and practitioners from 18 countries support-
ed by eight national Commissions and citizen representatives, concluded that the transformation
from the current low equilibrium to high quality health systems cannot be accomplished through
incremental approaches. Instead structural reforms in how health care is governed, where and by
whom services are provided, how providers are trained and supported, and, critically, how people’s
experiences, outcomes, and feedback are harnessed are key.
The Leapfrog to Value report provides useful ways forward for several of these structural changes.
It notes that neither the volume- and profit-based approach pursued by private providers nor the
access-first strategy embraced by the public sector responds to the health needs of patients nor
maximizes population health. This is a huge waste of public and family funds. The alternative
proposed is value-based care, defined here as using outcome and cost data to direct providers to
improve delivery through performance-linked payment.
The report makes several important suggestions. Track outcomes that matter to people, ideally over
time since cure is rarely accomplished in one visit, then organize care around the patient’s preferred
pathway and his or her needs. Make the data easy to understand and compare. Incorporate infor-
mation about people’s social environment in care plans. Revise service delivery so that all care is
right-placed: provided in settings that can assure sufficient quality to actually improve health. Help
providers do the right thing by sharing outcome and cost data and by arranging payment to incentiv-
ize actions in the best interest of the patient.
Value-based care requires local specificity and, once validated in the local setting, implementation at
scale to truly transform systems. Some payment innovations, for example, results-based financing,
have had modest impact on outcomes in high and low-income countries and consumed large shares
of scarce policy attention to implement. Technology, while clearly an underused asset in 21st centu-
ry health systems, cannot compensate for fundamental gaps in provider training and system compe-
tence—just as flight safety checklists cannot compensate for poorly trained pilots. The evidence for
many innovative approaches remains weak or is too far removed from the ground realities of any one
country. The report calls for local experimentation to fill this evidence gap.
While many questions remain, there is no question that departing from the status quo is needed
to improve health and reduce waste of health care resources. And today, when governments seek
to insure their populations, to meet ever expanding health needs, and to do it all without breaking
the bank, the moment is ripe for a focus on value-based care. The report makes a strong case that
compels innovation and action.
Margaret E. Kruk
Chair, Lancet Global Health Commission on High Quality Health Systems in the SDG Era
Associate Professor of Global Health, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health
3
Executive Summary
For decades, low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) viewed increasing
access to healthcare as a top priority, and for good reason. Increasing access to
evidence-based interventions like skilled birth attendance and immunizations
saved millions of lives. Success was largely based on volume—delivering more
services would lead to better outcomes. Given that priority, health systems have
been designed to maximize the quantity of services delivered, to track and maxi-
mize coverage rates, and to finance inputs and outputs.
However, we are now at a turning point where these volume-based systems no

longer address the greatest threats to public health. Last year, the Lancet Quality
Commission1 delivered a decisive reckoning: quality has eclipsed access as a driver
of survival. Their analysis showed that of the mortality amenable to healthcare,
60% is due to poor quality of care, compared to 40% due to lack of access2.
Quality of care is the key to addressing persistent mortality from maternal and
child conditions and from infectious diseases. Growing health threats, including
chronic conditions, also require high quality longitudinal care delivered by skilled
healthcare workers. To meet the demands of this new era, health systems need to
undergo structural reforms, redefining how they measure performance, deliver
care, and pay providers.
Value-based care offers a compelling framework to advance the quality agenda. It

puts forth best practices in measurement, delivery, and payment that maximize
outcomes achieved for the resources invested. Measurement is the north star of
value-based care. Instead of focusing on the volume of health services delivered,
value-based measurement tracks outcomes that matter to patients and costs.
Providers learn from that data and continuously improve delivery to maximize
value, often shifting the focus to preventive care and incorporating social and
behavioral interventions. Value-based payment reinforces this more efficient
delivery by rewarding the providers who deliver the highest value care.
4
MEASURE value in terms of outcomes and costs MEASURE
1 Track outcomes that matter to patients: clinical
outcomes, quality of life, and patient experience
2 Aggregate data longitudinally, to understand how
costs and outcomes accrue throughout the patient
journey
3 Make data insightful and actionable by
standardizing, benchmarking, and risk-adjusting
4 Integrate medical and non-biomedical data
(social, environmental, behavioral) to
understand the root causes of disease
DELIVER PAY
DELIVER value by using data to learn
and improve performance
1 Design care pathways around the patient journey
2 Establish iterative loops of learning and improvement that
involve frontline providers and senior decision-makers
3 Emphasize preventive care in community and primary care settings when
possible, providing access to hospital-based treatment when necessary
PAY for value to incentivize continued improvement

1 Provide transparency for providers into outcomes and cost data, and move away
from volume-based payments that promote unnecessary care
2 Design payment models that reward the highest value care
3 Reward caring for the sickest and most remote to ensure all patients benefit from
value-based care
High-income countries as diverse as the Netherlands, United States, and Japan

have started to adopt value-based care over the last decade. In the United States,
the Medicare Shared Savings Program has enrolled 11 million Americans through
accountable care organizations (ACOs). ACOs are networks of provider and payer
organizations that enter into a risk-sharing arrangement and jointly oversee the
health of a population. If providers lower costs while improving outcomes and
meeting quality standards, they share in the cost savings that accrue to payers.
Value-based models such as ACOs align the interests of patients, providers, and
payers. The Rio Grande Valley ACO, which serves a particularly vulnerable popula-
tion, applied value-based care principles, and has reduced per capita costs of care
by 14% while achieving best-in-class health outcomes.
5
Value-based care innovation is emerging in LMICs, too. Innovators featured in
this report push the boundaries of what seems possible in settings with limited
infrastructure and capabilities. In Kenya, for example, PharmAccess’s MomCare
offers a package of care for pregnant women in Nairobi. They track not only clin-
ical outcomes like pregnancy complications, but also patient-reported outcomes
such as birth experience and success with breastfeeding. These data are used to
improve and incentivize provider behaviors. PharmAccess’s mobile health plat-
form, MTIBA, facilitates data capture and payments to providers. Examples like
MomCare shine a light on the advantages of experimenting in systems unbur-
dened by mature, legacy systems—the leapfrog potential of LMICs. With further
experimentation and a paradigm shift toward value-based care, innovators such as
these can achieve their full potential, in terms of effectiveness and scale.
Value-based care models can help address 9 of the 16 million avertable deaths per
year in LMICs3. They can achieve this by bolstering quality initiatives, by making
care more patient-centered and thereby improving demand, and by systematically
steering more resources to address social, environmental, and behavioral deter-
minants of health. Value-based care models can also optimize costs by rewarding
providers for being stewards of resources. This increases utilization of appropriate
preventive care and reduces the provision of unnecessary drugs and procedures.
By doing so, value-based care models can help reduce the USD 250 billion per year
of waste that exists in the health systems of LMICs.4
There are immediate opportunities for governments and donors to hasten a value-
based care transformation.
Cultivate experimentation. Governments and donors can offer the finan-

cial and technical support to launch and scale value-based care pilots. These
should focus on opportunities that are both feasible and salient. This means
identifying providers who are prepared to be frontrunners of change and to
tackle major public health challenges. Experiments should involve partners
(e.g. a large insurance scheme) who are well-positioned to scale models that
succeed, and academic partners who can create an evidence base.
Apply a value lens. Governments and donors should apply a value lens to
near-term decisions that have long-term implications. Three categories are
most important: 1) Digital health strategies should plan for data systems that
can longitudinally track outcomes and costs at the patient level and can relay
that data to payers and providers. 2) Investment in healthcare infrastructure
6
and capabilities should balance resources across care settings, recognizing
that health systems with strong primary and preventive services achieve higher
value than those that lean too heavily on hospital care. 3) Health sector lead-
ers should communicate a long-term vision for value. This will help providers
prepare for new payment models, build public support for policy changes, and
encourage innovators to experiment with value-based care.
Leapfrog to value. In order to leapfrog to value, countries must scale success-

ful pilots. Governments and donors can begin to invest now in the conditions
that will enable scale: 1) Data standards on how to measure value can be estab-
lished by governments or other impartial institutions. 2) Capabilities to digest
and act on outcomes and cost data must be cultivated at each level of a health
system, from the ministry to the frontline. 3) Evidence, generated by inde-
pendent academics, is needed to inform decisions by policymakers, payers,
providers, and investors
The time to seize this opportunity is now. If LMICs continue on a volume-based

healthcare development path, they are at risk of establishing long-lasting struc-
tural flaws in their data systems, provider infrastructure, and payment policies.
LMICs have an opportunity to embrace value-based care principles before their
infrastructure becomes entrenched in volume-based approaches. Is initiating
such an ambitious transformation feasible in countries early in their develop-
ment journeys? Our answer is yes. This report points to a convergence of policy,
technology, and social tailwinds that can be harnessed by LMICs to leapfrog
their higher income peers.
7
Table of Contents
CHALLENGE.............................................................................................................. 10
Consequences of volume-based health systems................................................ 11
Risk of path dependency........................................................................................ 13
OPPORTUNITY......................................................................................................... 18
Core principles of value-based care..................................................................... 21
Measure.............................................................................................................. 22
Deliver................................................................................................................ 27
Pay....................................................................................................................... 31
Case for transformation......................................................................................... 36
Tailwinds of change................................................................................................. 39
STRATEGY.................................................................................................................. 43
Cultivate value-based experimentation............................................................... 45
Apply a value lens.................................................................................................... 49
Leapfrog to value..................................................................................................... 51
8
Acronyms
ACA Affordable Care Act
ACO Accountable care organization
AI Artificial intelligence
ANC Antenatal care
B2B Business to business
BMI Body mass index
CDA Clinicas del Azucar
CHW Community health worker
CMMI Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation
DHIS District Health Information Software
DRG Diagnosis-related group
EHR Electronic health record
ICHOM International Consortium for Health Outcomes Measurement
IHME Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation
LMIC Low- and middle-income country
MDG Millennium Development Goal
MSSP Medicare Shared Savings Program
NCD Non-communicable disease
NGO Non-governmental organization
NICU Neonatal intensive care unit
PM-JAY Pradhan Mantri Jan Arogya Yojana
PROM Patient-reported outcome measure
RBF Results-based financing
RGV Rio Grande Valley
ROI Return on investment
SDG Sustainable Development Goal
TB Tuberculosis
UHC Universal Health Coverage
USAID United States Agency for International Development
USD United States Dollar
WHO World Health Organization
9
CHALLENGE
Low- and middle-income countries are
replicating structural flaws we see in
high-income countries that increase
health spending, without delivering
proportional results
Consequences of volume-based health systems
Health systems in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) from India to
Nigeria suffer from a crisis of distrust. Patients question the quality of govern-
ment-run clinics. Newspapers expose private hospitals for peddling unnecessary
procedures. These are symptoms of volume-based health systems that tend to
focus on the quantity of care delivered and that have less capacity to track quality
or outcomes.
Private sector profits from volume can be distorted. Hospital administrators, for exam-
A volume orientation typifies the private sector which ple, seek to maximize the number of patients who
consumes half of the health spending in LMICs.5 present to the hospital, the percent of those patients
Households pay directly out-of-pocket for discrete they admit to an inpatient bed, their average length of
clinical consultations, diagnostics, and medicines. stay as an inpatient, and the profitability per bed per
Nearly all private providers—whether the informal night. Some hospitals set revenue targets for physi-
drug-seller in a Lagos slum or a surgeon in a hospital cians, often putting the clinician’s interests at odds
in Delhi—profit when they can sell more healthcare with the patient’s. By measuring and managing against
products and services. volume-oriented performance metrics like these,
private providers drive up costs without commensu-
A volume-oriented, fee-for-service business model can rate impact on health outcomes.
be an advantage in supply-constrained health systems,
increasing productivity and access. Indeed, many Public sector has pursued an access-first
health system planners consider private providers an strategy
important ally in the aspiration to achieve universal A volume-orientation also characterizes public sector
health coverage. However, that same profit motive delivery, even in the absence of a profit motive. For
also has adverse implications by driving unnecessary, most LMICs, public healthcare has been rooted in
sometimes harmful care. In India, for example, the the control of infectious diseases and the provision of
c-section rate in the private sector is three times higher maternal and neonatal healthcare. In many countries,
than that in public facilities.6 While consumers are not the government’s role focused on extending cover-
oblivious to the potential conflict of interest in the age of immunizations and other critical public health
private sector business model, they are often unable interventions. While the mandate of these systems
to compare prices or to know whether a prescribed has grown with rising incomes, donor investments,
treatment is appropriate. and shifting epidemiological priorities, the historical
health system paradigm prevails.
Private providers are not motivated by profit alone.
Many are revered community members, provide char- That access-first strategy is reflected in the metrics
ity care to those who can’t pay, and operate in locales that public healthcare systems track. They have
where the public sector has not reached. Further, emphasized coverage rates: the number of children
patient often prefer private clinics providers over immunized; the number of deliveries conducted by
government-run ones. In many instances, even the a skilled birth attendant; the number of households
poor opt to pay for private care when public facilities with an insecticide treated bed-net. There’s a strong
are free.7 Yet it is evident in how the private sector basis to this strategy. Maximizing the reach of these
measures performance that even the best intentions evidence-based interventions is a practical approach
11 Leapfrog to Value : Challenge

to lowering mortality and morbidity. Coupled with Yet that strategy won’t fulfill the next era of global
poverty reduction and progress in other sectors, health objectives. Even if all of today’s health inter-
that access-first strategy delivered reductions in ventions including medicines, vaccines, bed nets,
child mortality in the Millennium Development Goal and diagnostics were scaled up to 90-95% coverage
(MDG) era. In addition, in countries with poor data globally, we would still fall short of Sustainable
systems, tracking coverage rates is more achievable Development Goal (SDG) health targets.8 Interven-
than measuring outcomes. tions don’t generate projected impact, often due to
low quality of care (figure 1).
FIGURE 1
Low-value in critical care pathways
Primary care
Patients receive poor attention, communication, and respect from the primary
care system
• Five minute visits are commonplace
• Half of all diagnoses are never communicated to patients
• Large gaps in measuring quality of primary care. Even when measured,
large variation in quality across facilities
Infectious disease: tuberculosis Non-communicable disease:

diabetes and hypertension
Poor diagnosis and
follow-up for TB has Limited attention and
fueled growing control worsens one of
multi-drug resistance the fastest growing public
health crises in LMICs
• Fewer than half of all TB cases are correctly
diagnosed and managed • Only ~40% of diabetes patients received
• In India, the country with the highest TB burden: lifestyle modification advice and/or medications
- ~30% cases that presented to public health - In Sub-Saharan Africa, only ~15% had been
facilities were either not correctly diagnosed or advised to exercise
were not given the right treatment • Over ~80% of all amenable cardiovascular
- Less than one-third of providers knew the stan- disease deaths were due to poor quality health
dard four-drug regimen for drug-sensitive TB services
Maternity care
Maternity care remains a leading cause of early, preventable death for women
in LMICs
• Over half of all amenable maternal deaths were due to poor quality health services
• Only two in five women who delivered at a facility were examined within 1 hour
after birth, a critical time period
• In Africa, health care providers performed only ~60% of the eight recommended
antenatal care actions and only ~50% of nine sick-child care actions in
observed visits
Leapfrog to Value : Challenge 12

Access to antenatal care and skilled birth attendants outcomes. This volume-orientation yields more
has not delivered the expected impact on maternal healthcare, not necessarily better health.
mortality, for example, because of inadequate quality
of care. More women than ever are accessing antena-
tal care (ANC) and delivering in facilities, yet women
in LMICs receive only half of recommended actions
during a typical clinic visit.9 Increasing the quantity
“ The Lancet Quality Commission
delivered a decisive reckoning last
of services of inconsistent quality yields diminishing year: quality has eclipsed access as
returns and sometimes even harm. Extending access a driver of survival. Their analysis
to antibiotics has saved lives but has also led to over- showed that of the mortality amenable
use in the public and private sector. This has contrib- to healthcare, 60% is due to poor
uted to the rise of antibiotic resistance in infectious quality of care, compared to 40% due
”
disease pathways such as tuberculosis (TB), where to lack of access.
fewer than half of all cases are correctly diagnosed and
managed.10 Compounding this reality are demograph-
ic and epidemiologic trends. As populations age and
are burdened with more non-communicable diseases,
such as diabetes and hypertension, they require more Risk of path dependency
complex services and care that are more susceptible
Despite increasing global recognition of these chal-
to poor quality. The Lancet Quality Commission deliv-
lenges, the health systems of LMICs seem to be accel-
ered a decisive reckoning last year: quality has eclipsed
erating on a volume-based trajectory (figure 2). These
access as a driver of survival. Their analysis showed
danger signs are evident even in countries that have
that of the mortality amenable to healthcare, 60% is
made impressive strides toward the goal of universal
due to poor quality of care, compared to 40% due to
health coverage.
lack of access.11
The public sector’s volume orientation has had anoth-

er unintended consequence: indignity of care. One
in three people report negative experiences with the
public health system in terms of respect and attention
from staff across LMICs.12 Mistreatment and neglect
during labor and delivery is a common story of women
delivering in public facilities. While broken infrastruc-
ture and understaffing are significant obstacles to
respectful and compassionate care, the indignity of
care can also be explained by the reality that public
providers don’t systematically solicit feedback on
satisfaction with care.
The common observation across public and private

sector healthcare is that the current measurement,
delivery, and payment systems optimize volume of
care, with less systematic attention to patient-centered

FIGURE 2
Volume based challenges vary along the development journey
Concern
ACCESS
QUALITY
COSTS
LOW INCOME LOWER MIDDLE INCOME UPPER MIDDLE INCOME
Overarching challenge
Limited availability and Growing investments High-growth private Progress on achieving
access to basic levels in public-sector health sector has helped universal health coverage
of providers, services, care delivery has extend access, but has (UHC) is hindered by
and infrastructure expanded access, but resulted in low trust unsustainably high
poor quality of care and inconsistent health costs
remains a challenge quality of care
Country example
Malawi, where infectious Kenya, where the public India, where 60-70% Indonesia, which has
diseases like HIV, TB, and UHC plan is aiming to access private sector implemented robust UHC
malaria are dominant drivers reach 100% coverage by providers: coverage since 2014:
of mortality and morbidity 2022:
• Private providers in India • In 2015, the claim ratio of
• There is 1 surgeon per 100K, • 2 in 10 clinicians were not perform nearly 4x the average medical cost to
1 physician per 50K, and 1 able to offer correct c-sections recommended average premium collection
nurse per 3.5K people, well diagnosis of relatively by WHO guidelines or was 115%, and is projected to
below WHO standards common conditions such 900,000 unplanned or reach ~125% by 2019 in the
• 40% of community health as acute diarrhea, medically unjustified absence of contribution
workers report limited pneumonia and diabetes caesarean deliveries per adjustment and cost
supply of essential drugs • Only ~20% of the mothers year, driven mainly by containment
• Districts report 2-5 months received minimally financial incentives (a • Without change, the budget
of delay in transfer of funds adequate quality of caesarean pays 55% more will fall 25% short of costs
from the central govt. for delivery care and only on average than a natural annually by 2020
health ~10% received effective birth)
• Donors fund 74% of health ANC • Private providers prescribe
services, often in disease • 60% of patients were not an average of 50%
specific verticals, rather than told the side effects of the additional medicines as
primary care drugs that they were compared to public
prescribed providers, often due to
financial incentives

Take India, for example. In 2018 Indian Prime Minister
Modi passed an ambitious agenda for health reform
named Ayushman Bharat. The policy makes two “ In creating this surge in demand, India’s
Universal Health Coverage reforms will
commitments: universal access to free primary health-
become unbalanced and favor expensive
care and, for 500 million low-income Indians, insur-
ance for hospital care in public and private facilities.
inpatient hospital care rather than more
Ayushman Bharat represents a much-needed boost
in government healthcare spending in a country that
has underspent on healthcare for decades. However,
cost-effective primary care.
–Gro Brundtland, former WHO ”
Director General
the commitment also presents a risk. It will finance
a private healthcare market that will thrive as the
number of hospital admissions increases in an indus-
try already struggling with price-gouging and over- While Ayushman Bharat includes provisions for both
utilization (figure 3). Commenting on this perverse primary care and hospital coverage, it may tip an
incentive, former WHO Director General Brundtland already hospital-dominant system further off balance.
said “in creating this surge in demand, India’s If Brundtland’s prediction is correct and the imbalance
Universal Health Coverage reforms will become persists, it will have an enduring impact on infrastruc-
unbalanced and favor expensive inpatient hospital ture (e.g. a high ratio of hospital beds to primary care
care rather than more cost-effective primary care.”13 capacity) and capabilities (e.g. a high ratio of special-
ists to generalists).
FIGURE 3
Will the private sector in India be a threat or an ally of value?
India’s private healthcare providers have both Inappropriate care is not only costly, but also an
detracted from and improved the value of the additional health risk. Furthermore, it contributes
health system. to patients’ distrust of the health system.
Profit-seeking private providers often inflate On the other hand, India’s private healthcare
prices and prescribe unnecessary medicines providers also include a cadre of frugal
and procedures. The Times of India and other innovators.
top newspapers have reported on “price
gouging” by private providers. The National Organizations like Aravind Eye Care, Care
Pharmaceutical Pricing Authority (NPPA) has Hospitals, LifeSpring, and Narayana are well
documented profit margins of 300% - 1,500% known as value leaders. They deliver world
for common medical devices. A recent study class healthcare at low cost, and even offer
of maternal care in India reported that 40% of free or subsidized services for the lowest
births in the private sector are delivered by income. They are early proof-points that
c-section, while the WHO estimates 10% of delivering value to patients can be a winning
births require the procedure. business strategy.

Kenya has also made an ambitious commitment to specialty procedures and hospital care. The ACA
expand access, with the aspiration to achieve Universal reforms sought to correct this imbalance by introduc-
Health Coverage (UHC) by 2022. The country seeks ing incentives to establish accountable care organi-
to achieve this by expanding public delivery and by zations and medical home models which emphasize
increasing the population covered by the National comprehensive primary care.
Hospital Insurance Fund. While pursuing this UHC
agenda, government leaders recognize that cover- Despite increasing adoption of these new models, it
age gains must be accompanied by improvements has been difficult to shift entrenched provider systems
to quality to achieve real impact. With that in mind, toward primary care. The existing infrastructure and
the Health Ministry has launched quality initiatives workforce emphasize hospital and specialty care.
including the Kenya Quality Model for Health and Surgical centers, MRI and CT equipment, and special-
the National Health Inspections Checklist. This ty hospitals all generate a supplier-induced demand,
combined focus on access and quality has the poten- where provider capacity drives healthcare utilization,
tial to drive value. However, these initiatives evaluate independent of actual need14. Legacy infrastructure
quality based on structure and process indicators, and has become a barrier to transforming the way care
provide little visibility into outcomes. There is a risk is delivered and to shifting the health system toward
that without feedback on outcomes, process adher- primary care.
ence will drive quantity of procedures without leading
to impact. Kenya has an opportunity to start taking a America’s effort to improve its health data systems
more outcomes-oriented approach, before it becomes presented a similar dilemma. In 2009, Congress passed
too focused on volume and process. the HITECH Act that allocated USD 36 billion to
encourage providers to adopt electronic health record
Adhering to this development path can create (EHR) systems and use those systems to deliver better
long-lasting structural flaws. We have learned from care.15 The complication is that the legacy EHR systems
the experience of high-income countries that volume- were designed with volume-based healthcare in mind,
based healthcare development leads to systems that meant to smooth billing rather than to facilitate
are self-perpetuating and difficult to re-purpose. patient care. Retro-fitting these legacy data systems
Volume-based development leads to data systems that to meet the new value-based care paradigm has been
count inputs and outputs and process claims, rather costly—on the order of billions of dollars for large
than measure outcomes. It leads to facility and work- hospital systems—and has generated unprecedented
force investments that skew toward expensive hospi- resistance and burnout among clinicians. Physicians in
tal-based treatment. It establishes provider-oriented the U.S. now spend about two hours doing computer
approach to delivery, rather than patient-centered work for every one hour spent with a patient.16
care. This legacy infrastructure can beleaguer reform
and create a risk of path dependency. America’s story is not unique. Mature health systems
from the United Kingdom to Japan are taking steps to
The implementation of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) embrace value-based care principles but face the chal-
in the United States sheds light on these challenges. lenge of entrenched infrastructure. The experience of
The ACA included several initiatives designed to these countries poses a critical question for LMICs:
steer the system away from volume-based healthcare, Will they follow or leapfrog their high-income peers
including an agenda to strengthen primary care, which (figure 4)?
had suffered from underinvestment for decades.
Previously, fee-for-service reimbursement had favored

FIGURE 4
Charting a higher-value trajectory
Health adjusted life expectancy
78
Singapore
Japan
United Kingdom
Thailand
70 Mexico
Brazil
Germany United States
Bangladesh
Indonesia
Russia
60
Kenya
Pakistan
Ethiopia
India
South Africa
Tanzania
50 Malawi
Democratic Republic of the Congo
Nigeria
*Size of bubble correlates with population size

45
0 1K 2K 3K 4K 5K 6K 7K 8K 9K 10K
High income Middle income Low income Health spend per capita PPP
Leapfrog Follow

OPPORTUNITY
LMICs can leapfrog to
value-based care
Value-based care has emerged as a health systems framework that contrasts with
the prevailing volume-based paradigm. It centers care around the patient and
aligns patients, payers, and providers around the common goal of achieving the
best health and wellbeing for the resources invested. Measuring outcomes and
costs is the foundation of value-based care. This insight drives a cycle of continu-
ous innovation that maximizes value.
Before LMICs become entrenched in a volume-based It’s a path that requires continuous learning and
health infrastructure, they have a window of opportu- experimentation at both macro and grassroots levels
nity to chart a higher value trajectory (figure 5). This and that builds on many ongoing efforts to improve
report does not put forth a detailed guidebook to the value of health systems.
achieve that aspiration. Instead it offers value as the
core strategy that can guide a health system’s journey.
FIGURE 5
A narrow window of opportunity
Status of health
systems development LMIC health systems have a choice whether to follow or leapfrog
NASCENT
FOLLOW LEAPFROG
Point of feasibility
• Track inputs and • Track outcomes and
Data systems outputs true costs of care, in
• Account for charges addition to inputs and
outputs
Window of Provider • Center care in • Center care in primary

opportunity to hospitals care and community
infrastructure and settings
leapfrog to value capabilities • Emphasize treatment
• Emphasize prevention
Financing and • Finance, budget, and • Reward stakeholders

pay for care based on for value and equity
payment policies inputs and outputs
Risk of path
dependency
MATURE
19 Leapfrog to Value : Opportunity

While the principles underlying value-based care are countries, where cost containment has been a major
universally applicable, what they look like in practice focus. LMICs, in contrast, must increase spending
will vary according to a society’s level of health spend- on healthcare to increase access and improve quality.
ing, epidemiological trends, market structure, infra- To achieve their goals, LMICs will need to enhance
structure, and capabilities available, as well as social both the volume and value of their health systems
and cultural realities. To date, much of the dialogue (figure 6).
on value-based care has focused on high-income
FIGURE 6
Volume and value
VALUE DRIVES VOLUME VOLUME DRIVES VALUE
• Supply: Emphasis on cost-effectiveness

• Providers who see a high volume of
makes it more affordable to expand
cases
provision
- can hone their skills to generate
• Demand: Emphasis on patient
better outcomes
experience improves care-seeking
- can leverage economies of scale to
behavior
lower costs
LMICs need to increase both value and volume to achieve universal health coverage
Leapfrog to Value : Opportunity 20

This chapter first defines value-based care, outlining Core principles of value-based care
core principles for measuring, delivering, and paying
A value-based health system organizes care around
for value, alongside examples. Second, it offers a case
the patient and integrates best practices in measure-
for transformation, quantifying the potential impact in
ment, delivery, and payment (figure 7). Data systems
human and economic dimensions. Third, it describes
help providers track outcomes and costs. That insight
policy, technological, and societal tailwinds that, if
helps providers continuously improve the value of
harnessed, can support a journey toward a high value
patient-centered care pathways. And payer rewards
health system.
stakeholders for generating value for the patients.
FIGURE 7
Best practices in value-based care
MEASURE
value in terms of
outcomes and costs
DELIVER PAY
value by using data to for value to incentivize
learn and improve continued
performance improvement

Glimmers of these best practices abound in LMICs. from achieving their full potential, in terms of effec-
Value-spirited innovators push the boundaries of what tiveness and scale.
seems possible in settings with limited infrastructure
and capabilities. And they shine a light on the advantag- Dozens of experts contributed to our definition of the
es of experimenting in systems unburdened by mature, core principles in value-based care, and to an innova-
legacy systems—the leapfrog potential of LMICs. tion scan across LMICs. We highlight innovators that
span the public and private sector, emphasize LMICs,
Along with this optimism, the examples also expose and grapple with the biggest public health priorities,
barriers to achieve full-fledged value-based health including primary care, maternal and neonatal care,
systems, where value-based measurement, deliv- TB, and non-communicable diseases (NCDs). These
ery, and payment are linked. They illustrate how the innovations are transforming every aspect of measure-
current health system paradigm hinders these models ment, delivery, and payment.
MEASURE
1 Track outcomes that matter to patients: clinical outcomes, quality

of life, and patient experience
2 Aggregate data longitudinally, to understand how costs and

outcomes accrue throughout the patient journey
3 Make data insightful and actionable by standardizing,

benchmarking, and risk-adjusting
4 Integrate medical and non-biomedical data (social, environmental,

behavioral) to understand the root causes of disease
What a health system chooses to measure is its north star. It guides how it learns,
improves, and innovates. It is the basis for how success is defined and how resources
flow. If the goal is to maximize value—outcomes achieved for resources spent—
measuring value is imperative.

1 Track outcomes that matter to rates and refractive error), they’re also interested in
patients: clinical outcomes, quality of life, their visual functionality.
and patient experience
In addition, there is an opportunity to routinely
When LMICs track outcomes, they typically focus on measure patient experience of care which is critical
measures of mortality and morbidity (e.g., maternal and to building society’s trust in healthcare providers.
child survival, rates of preterm birth) at the population Numerous studies have shown that patients are more
level. These are fundamental public health measures. likely to return for follow-up treatment, form a lasting
However, they don’t fully represent the outcomes relationship with their providers, and achieve better
that matter to patients. For providers to understand health outcomes if they are treated with warmth and
these, data systems must record information that goes compassion.17
beyond labs, radiologic imaging, and clinical findings.
They must also ask patients directly about their health Organizations such as the International Consortium
and wellbeing— sometimes called patient-reported for Health Outcomes Measurement (ICHOM)
outcome measures (PROMs). A patient’s subjective are advocating for greater use of patient-centered
sense of wellbeing, functionality, or quality of life outcomes and standardizing their measurement. For
are often what motivated them to seek care in the select care pathways, they have developed standard sets
first place. For example, patients undergoing cataract of metrics that include indicators of survival, morbid-
surgery typically present to healthcare providers with ity, patient experience with care, and patient-reported
trouble carrying out day-to-day tasks. They’re not only health and wellbeing. ICHOM has focused its efforts
interested in clinical outcomes (surgical complication on high-income countries, but a handful of providers
are beginning to adapt their standard sets to LMICs.
Innovator example:
PharmAccess operates a suite of technology-enabled solutions that improve

access and quality of care across Africa. One of their initiatives is MomCare,
an innovative approach to delivering quality care to pregnant women
in Kenya. MomCare incorporates three dimensions of care: a) financing for a package of mater-
nal care, b) quality standards for its network of providers, and c) actionable data to improve and
incentivize patient and provider behaviors. Women register and pay for the program through the
MTIBA platform (developed by PharmAccess in partnership with the Kenyan technology company
CarePay). MTIBA can accept funds from the patient or directly through National Hospital Insurance
Fund, the government’s insurance program. The MomCare package is delivered by providers who
are supported by PharmAccess’s SafeCare quality program.
MomCare has adapted ICHOM’s standard set for maternity care to the Kenyan context. The patients—
primarily pregnant women in the informal settlements surrounding Nairobi—report measures such
as birth experience, success with breastfeeding, and confidence in their new role as a mother. It is
the first time many of these women have been asked about their subjective wellbeing in the health
system before. Providers currently capture this data via SMS and patient surveys, but if successful,
patient reporting could become an automated feature in the MTiba mobile platform. Patients would
then contribute to their own health history by self-reporting outcomes. With over 4 million MTiba
subscribers to date, it could become one of the first examples of PROMs being captured at scale in
any country, high- or low-income. 18

2 Aggregate data longitudinally, to little insight into how resources deployed generate
understand how costs and outcomes outcomes for patients.
accrue throughout the patient journey
Value-based care recognizes that a patient-centered
Today’s data is organized around the provider rather approach to measurement must be longitudinal, track-
than the patient. We currently track costs by adding up ing how value is generated for the patient across the
budget categories: labor, equipment, facilities, drugs, care continuum. Aggregating outcome and cost data in
and devices. We track delivery performance at the this way enables providers to discover ways to optimize
provider-level, too, such as number of visits complet- how and when care is provided along a care pathway.
ed, babies delivered, beds occupied. These data For example, it may reveal how allocating additional
points are snapshots in time, most often aggregated resources early in pregnancy to accurately assess risk
in facility registers and health management infor- factors may lead to better outcomes and lower costs
mation systems. They provide us operational insight for mothers and newborns.
into how to generate healthcare services but provide
Innovator example:
Watsi, Y-Combinator’s first nonprofit enterprise, is at the frontier of longitu-

dinal cost capture in East Africa with its platform, Meso. Meso has a suite
of mobile and web applications that facilitate end-to-end administration of
health insurance enrollment, patient identification, claims submission, claims processing, and
reporting.
Using Meso, a new member can enroll within minutes and receive a health insurance card that
follows patients along every step in the healthcare journey. When the member visits a health
facility, her card is scanned using Meso’s mobile application, which brings up her medical record.
The same application is used to document labs, drugs, and services that she receives, which can
be submitted by the health facility and reviewed by the health insurance administrator in nearly
real time.
Meso surfaces data to administrators at all levels of the health insurance system. At the facility and
district levels, providers can use Meso to track expecting mothers from first visit to delivery, as well
as referrals to other levels of the health system. By following patients across their patient journey,
Meso is able to track cost data longitudinally.19

3 Make data insightful and actionable health systems can begin to benchmark performance,
by standardizing, benchmarking, and comparing providers to their own historical baseline
risk-adjusting and to high-performing peers.
Health systems that embrace value-based measure- Provider performance can be heavily influenced by
ment principles will begin to track data they haven’t the makeup of their patients, making it difficult to
tracked before. To draw insight from this new data and fairly compare providers. Without accounting for this
to use it to inform decision-making, they must stan- variation, providers may be inclined to cherry-pick
dardize, benchmark, and risk-adjust it. patients who are more likely to have good outcomes
and to avoid more vulnerable patients. Strong value-
Standardization of value measurement is the first based health systems prevent that gamesmanship by
step to comparing performance across providers and risk-adjusting data according to common risk factors.
payers. This should be done at the level of a care path- For example, the expected outcomes and costs for
way, defining a set of patient-centered outcomes and a pregnancies of women who have high blood pressure
costing method for each pathway. ICHOM has defined or HIV would be different for a woman without those
“standard sets” of metrics for several care pathways, risk factors. Risk adjustment can be achieved either
primarily with high-income countries in mind. There is by defining separate patient segments (e.g. separating
an opportunity to build on that work and begin defin- high-risk pregnancies) or by developing algorithms to
ing standard sets for the highest priority care pathways adjust provider performance based on the risk profile
in LMICs. Once measurement standards have been set, of their patient panels.
Innovator example:
Medic Mobile is an m-health platform that offers the Community Health

Toolkit, a set of tools that make data meaningful for health systems.
Community health workers (CHWs) use the app to track patients they treat,
and supervisors use it to analyze the aggregated data across a group of CHWs.
Medical Mobile configures the toolkit for each health system. It collaborates with stakeholders to
standardize metrics that track coverage, speed, quality, and equity of services provided. Community
health workers contribute to the approach using principles of human-centered design, strengthen-
ing the link between data collection and data use. CHWs report metrics through SMS or the app
interface. Supervisors can review this data by individual health worker, or in aggregate. The dash-
board compares this data against historical averages and high-performing peers, and can stratify
the data by different risk groups. This enables supervisors to anticipate outbreaks, support overbur-
dened health workers, and identify and resolve problems in the care model.

4 Integrate medical and non-biomedical disease. Environmental concerns, such as exposure
data (social, environmental, behavioral) to to secondhand smoke, can lead to asthma. Poor diet
understand the root causes of disease and exercise habits are early predictors of diabetes,
hypertension, and many other conditions associated
A health system that prioritizes value can surface the with metabolic syndrome. Data systems focused on
highest value interventions, even if those interven- value help providers identify the biggest drivers of
tions fall outside of the health system’s traditional outcomes. That insight is the first step in prompting
remit. Providers typically see social, environmental, healthcare providers to collaborate with other sectors
and behavioral determinants of health as factors to implement social, behavioral, and environmental
outside of their control. Yet they are responsible for interventions alongside biomedical care.
60% of health outcomes.20 Weak social ties predict
poor mental health and greater susceptibility to
Innovator example:
Clínicas del Azúcar (CDA) is a “one-stop shop” for diabetes care in Mexico that
emphasizes the importance of lifestyle interventions to improve outcomes. CDA
follows in the footsteps of other frugal innovators in healthcare to offer low-cost
annual diabetes management plans for its primarily low-income client base.
When a CDA patient enters the clinic’s doors, he passes through a series of stations designed to
meet his holistic health needs. After capturing basic demographic data at the front desk, the nurse
checks his blood sugar levels and examines his feet for signs of nerve damage. His A1c comes back
at 6% – his blood sugar is controlled. He’s been walking two times a day and cut out sugary drinks,
in line with the personalized wellness plan he and a nutritionist wrote together. Instead of seeing
the physician, he moves on to the nutritionist, who congratulates him on the progress and lets him
know the discounts he has received on membership fees for the hard work. He walks across the
room to the psychologist station next, where he describes how hard it is to change his habits amid
the pressure from his wife and children. The counselor urges him to bring in his family next time for
a group session. He ends his visit at the retail pharmacy on-site with a prescription for metformin.
The visit takes less than two hours, and along the way nurses have captured data that will inform
improvements in future treatment. Over the course of the year, CDA captures more than 2,000
variables per patient that influence both treatment decisions and cost analyses. They estimate that
each patient who joins the clinic lowers his or her chance of developing diabetes-related compli-
cations by 50%, demonstrating the value of looking beyond biomedical interventions, to address
social and behavioral determinants of health.21

DELIVER
1 Design care pathways around the patient journey
2 Establish iterative loops of learning and improvement that

involve frontline providers and senior decision-makers
3 Emphasize preventive care in community and primary care

settings when possible, providing access to hospital-based treat-
ment when necessary
Value-based delivery is built from patient-centered care pathways. For each path-
way, providers routinely review value-based data and use that insight to continu-
ously improve care. The end result is a well-balanced provider system, one that is
as capable of treating the sick as keeping the population healthy.
1 Design care pathways around the for accompanying a patient on their full care journey.
patient journey One provider may offer antenatal care for an expect-
ing mother, another may be responsible for delivery,
Current management frameworks in health face two and another may be involved if a complication occurs.
challenges. First, care is supply-driven, organized Yet health outcomes are generated across that full
around provider activities rather than around patient patient journey. So, when providers don’t partici-
needs. Second, there is a focus on productivity and pate in the full care pathway, they aren’t able to see
process compliance that often compromises learning how their effort contributes to overall outcomes.
and innovation. Value-based delivery offers an alter- For example, ANC nurses may not screen for mater-
nate organizational strategy for delivery, organizing nal syphilis, because they don’t see the impact their
care around patient-centered clinical pathways and inaction has on stillbirth and congenital infection.
equipping providers with the data insight, capabilities, Furthermore, patient experience suffers when they
and flexibility to optimize the value of those pathways. have to piece together components of healthcare
for themselves.
Why should care be organized into pathways around
the patient? Today, providers are rarely responsible

In value-based delivery, care is organized around care along the full patient journey, the provider
a patient’s condition. Clinical and non-clinical can see and act on opportunities to intervene with
personnel work together to generate outcomes for prevention earlier or learn from complications that
patients as efficiently as possible. By integrating may happen after a procedure.
Innovator Example:
Jacaranda Maternity is a low-cost, private maternity hospital in Kenya that has

designed patient-centered care pathways for expecting mothers. When an
expecting mother completes her first ANC visit, she receives SMS messages
that direct her to general maternal education and reminds her of follow-up appointments. She
returns to the clinic for each ANC visit, picks up medications at the pharmacy on-site, and can call
a support hotline with any questions. She delivers with the Jacaranda nursing team who maintain
continuity of care with a team-based approach and medical records that track the mother’s jour-
ney. She returns with her newborn for early childhood vaccinations and postpartum screening. By
following patients through the full cycle of care, they are able to provide better continuity of care
to individual patients. Furthermore, having that longitudinal involvement has encouraged the
clinical team to strengthen preventive care early in the maternal care pathway that has a payoff
later in pregnancy.
Jacaranda provides this type of patient-centered, integrated care at a price point below most private
competitors and with a 60% lower complication rate than peer hospitals. Other private hospitals in
the local market have lowered prices to remain competitive with Jacaranda’s costs. It is an example
of the ripple effects of high value providers. Now Jacaranda is working on a round of investment to
expand to two more hospitals.

2 Establish iterative loops of learning variations in disease and wellness. Social, behavioral,
and environmental factors vary dramatically from
and improvement that involve frontline
community to community, person to person, and can’t
providers and senior decision-makers
be fully anticipated by high-level clinical experts.
Today, care models are designed centrally and then
pushed out to the frontline. Providers are meant to Value-based delivery merges these approaches in a
follow diagnostic and treatment guidelines. Facilities practice of adaptive management, establishing feed-
are meant to be staffed and equipped in a standard- back loops of performance that engage frontline
ized way. Payment systems reinforce this, dictating providers. Providers routinely review data on value to
requirements for specific billing codes, outside of refine and adapt the standard of care to local contexts.
which reimbursement wouldn’t occur. The advan- In this approach, providers have the responsibility
tage of such consistency is that it has the potential and autonomy to continuously learn and innovate.
to improve quality by reducing variation, especially When providers evaluate the value of care pathways,
where capabilities are weak. they refine health interventions and deliver them at
the right setting and the appropriate point in the care
Yet single-minded focus on consistency has some journey. This emphasis on learning and flexibility can
downside. Adherence to protocol creates rigidity. unlock more delivery innovation, leading to better
Centrally designed guidelines are blind to important outcomes and lower costs.
Innovator example:
Muso, a health systems design organization, has piloted a 360° Supervision

model for Community Health Workers in Mali, in partnership with Medic Mobile.
360° Supervision deploys dedicated supervisors and uses dashboards to assess
the coverage, quality, and speed of frontline health workers. Muso CHWs use a digital app to track
patients they see in a catchment area. The dashboard calculates:
• Coverage rates (percentage of population reached in given catchment area)

• Quality of services provided (percentage of patient care visits without any protocol errors
made according to the decision support tool)
• Speed of diagnosis and treatment (number and percentage of patients reached within 24
hours of symptom onset)
Supervisors triangulate the dashboard results by shadowing CHWs and conducting follow-up home
visits to understand patient satisfaction with care. They then meet with health workers one-on-one
to discuss the results and complete the feedback loop. Muso studied the results of the model via
randomized-controlled trial and found that supervision with the dashboard significantly increased
coverage without sacrificing either the quality or speed of care. The study also documented signif-
icant increases in quantity, speed, and quality of care by CHWs while they were receiving 360°
Supervision with real-time feedback and personal action plans for improvement from a dedicated
supervisor. The government of Mali plans to implement the 360° Supervision model for all CHWs
nationwide. If successful, Mali’s system could become a model for real-time feedback and improve-
ment at scale.22

3 Emphasize preventive care in This mismatch in care-seeking behavior—low acuity in
community and primary care settings hospitals and high acuity in primary care clinics—leads
to avertable mortality and morbidity and higher costs.
when possible, providing access to hospi-
tal-based treatment when necessary Value-based health systems center care where patients
Today our health systems struggle from a self-perpetu- live—in their own homes and communities—but
ating dilemma. Patients in many LMICs prefer to seek establish care pathways that also span primary,
care in hospitals because they perceive these hospi- secondary, and tertiary settings. Data on value helps
tals to be higher quality.23 Healthcare workers prefer providers continually optimize the care setting of each
to work in hospitals because they are often centrally step in a care pathway. Given 90% of a patient’s health
located and have higher pay. Primary care then suffers needs can be met in well-functioning primary care
on both the supply and demand sides, and hospitals settings, providers can push some care from hospitals
often end up overwhelmed by utilization. However, into the primary care setting.24 Or it may inspire inno-
primary care is better distributed, so patients may seek vation that takes advantage of mobile technologies,
care there when the problem is urgent, even when a enabling patients to better engage in prevention and
hospital is better equipped to address an acute need. self-management of diseases, and to seek care at the
appropriate level facility.
Innovator example:
Sevamob is transforming the clinical model by challenging the role of the

brick and mortar clinic in India, South Africa, and the United States. It uses
a combination of pop-up clinics, artificial intelligence (AI) enabled triage, point of care diagnostics,
and specialist telehealth services to deliver a range of primary care services.
Sevamob’s model is B2B. Its customers include employers, schools, NGOs, corporates, and local
government that purchase care for a population. Care covers general health, vision, dental, nutri-
tion, and infectious disease. Depending on the outcomes specified in the contract, the patients
receive weekly, monthly, or quarterly pop-up clinic visits and access to telehealth between onsite
visits.
On clinic day, a Sevamob team (including a general physician, nurse, and data collector) arrives on
site with tablet computers, rapid diagnostic kits, microscopes, and other equipment on hand. The
data collector onboards the patient and captures demographic information while the nurse uses
Sevamob’s AI-based point-of-care diagnostics. The physician performs the consultation and writes
prescriptions or dispenses generic medicines for common diseases. Between the pop-up clinic
visits, patients have access to phone-, web- or video-based telehealth. Sevamob and its payer
clients use online dashboards to track performance.
Sevamob has committed to improving health outcomes via these interventions by reducing malnu-
trition, infectious disease, dental complications, and vision defects in high-risk groups. The success
of its model lies in its ability to triage patients in the community setting, and to deliver early and
ongoing preventative care. By reimagining the setting of care, Sevamob is improving access and
quality to primary care services, while reducing costs.25

PAY
1 Provide transparency for providers into outcomes and cost data,
and move away from volume-based payments that promote
unnecessary care
2 Design payment models that reward the highest value care
3 Reward caring for the sickest and most remote to ensure all
patients benefit from value-based care
How resources flow in a system can act as the invisible hand that shapes how and
where care is delivered, how the health sector recruits talent, and which facilities
and infrastructure attract investment. Given these far-reaching implications, it is
important payment design reflects a health system’s priorities.
Value-based payments present an opportunity to to seek care in a cost-effective way. Results-based
shift away from prevailing resourcing models in the financing and pay-for-performance models draw on
private and public sectors. Fee-for-service payments, these approaches. Value-based care has the potential
which dominate the private sector and some new to add to the arsenal of strategic purchasing models
public insurance schemes, can be useful in generating that more tightly align payments with the objectives
productivity. However, they can also induce provid- of achieving outcomes and efficiency.
ers to deliver unnecessary care that drives costs and
can even be harmful. Budgeting systems in the public There is no single payment model to increase value.
sector, while simple to operationalize, typically don’t Like delivery models, payment models require ongo-
encourage resource stewardship and performance ing experimentation and adaptation to fit local
accountability. contexts. That experimentation can help systems
understand how payment models influence productiv-
Health systems have begun to adopt a variety of ity, quality of care, cost efficiency, and innovation. So
strategic purchasing mechanisms to address those instead of asserting a single payment framework, it is
challenges.26 These mechanisms can determine what instead useful to heed a few principles that can guide
services are purchased, from which providers. And experimentation.
they can use financial incentives to encourage provid-
ers to deliver high quality care and to prompt patients

1 Provide transparency for providers The next step is to reduce perverse volume-based
into outcomes and cost data, and move incentives by bundling care into packages. These
away from volume-based payments that include episode payments (e.g. before, during, and
promote unnecessary care after a surgery), diagnosis-related group payments
(i.e. a single charge for a hospital stay for a specific
Providers have an intrinsic will to serve patients well. diagnosis), subscription models for primary care,
Transparency into outcomes and costs, and visibility service guarantees that cover the cost of any compli-
into how performance varies among peers, can tap into cations, and capitation. It’s important to recognize
providers’ sense of duty and motivate them to opti- that payment transformation doesn’t need to start
mize their behavior. Transparency into value is also with payers. In many markets, private providers have
a prerequisite to establishing value-based payment already begun to bundle care and offer innovative
models. Before providers are willing to accept value- payment options directly to consumers.
based payments for their services, they need to under-
stand their baseline performance as well as understand
how outcomes and costs are calculated.
Innovator example:
Swasth India Medical Centers, a nonprofit health system in Mumbai, strives to

offer fair and transparent pricing across its 25 primary care centers. Committed to
‘health and joy’ for its primarily low-income customer base, Swasth takes several
steps to ensure care remains cost-effective.
Providers who work for the health system agree to receive a set salary and forego kickback arrange-
ments for referrals and prescriptions. This removes incentives to deliver unnecessary procedures
and medications. Moreover, Swasth offers a clear pricing structure for procedures to patients. For
some services, prices include service guarantees. If a patient experiences a complication following
a dental procedure, for example, Swasth provides corrective care at no extra cost. This redistributes
financial risk following a procedure from patient to Swasth and realigns incentive structures to focus
on high-quality care.27

2 Design payment models that reward There are many ways to structure value-based payments.
the highest value care They may be bundled payments with bonuses for high
quality. They may be capitation payments for primary
Paying for value aligns the provider’s interests with care, with shared savings for reductions in hospital
the patient’s and can drive competition and inno- spending. Whatever the form, it’s important that new
vation. Value-based payments motivate providers payment models carefully account for care quality
to adopt the highest value interventions. This may and intrinsic provider motivation. Psychologists and
involve delivering care in new settings, task-shifting behavioral scientists point out that over-reliance on
from nurses to health assistants, or integrating ways financial incentives can erode the intrinsic altruism of
to influence behavioral, social, and environmental providers and compromise care quality. Therefore, it
factors which are often more cost-effective than is important to couple payment transformation with
biomedical interventions. a cultural movement that cultivates the compassion
that drew providers to the profession.
Innovator example:
Thailand was one of the first middle-income countries to expand health coverage to
all citizens. Its experience with payment transformation illustrates the complexity that
goes into designing appropriate incentive structures.
As early as 2001, the country adopted a capitated system to finance primary care and diagnosis
related group (DRG) reimbursement for hospital care. The shift was a success from patients’ and
payers’ perspectives. Health coverage improved greatly, with nearly 100% of the population receiv-
ing coverage for essential services. Costs for the average citizen also dropped, catastrophic health
spending more than halved, alleviating poverty for an estimated one million citizens, and overall
health expenditure remained relatively constant. By most measures, Thailand was well on its way
to high-value care.
However, providers were increasingly dissatisfied, forcing the health system to reexamine its
payment scheme regarding provider motivation, productivity, and cost efficiency. Private primary
care providers were overburdened by the demand for health services at below-cost capitation,
causing them to compromise on quality, or pass patients on to higher levels of care. The health
ministry increased capitation rates and implemented a provider pay-for-performance program to
reward quality to respond to these challenges. It is still experimenting with payment structures today.
Thailand’s experience shows how a commitment to learning and experimentation with payment
models can lead to continuous improvement. 28

3 Reward caring for the sickest and One way to do this is to adjust payments according to
most remote to ensure all patients benefit patients’ risk profile. For example, a maternal provid-
from value-based care er who cares for many high-risk pregnancies should
be rewarded at a higher rate. Another method for
Paying for outcomes presents risks that are import- ensuring the most vulnerable patients are served is
ant to monitor and mitigate. The primary risk is that to exclude outlier patients from performance scores.
outcomes-based payment can lead providers to cher- For example, it may not be fair to count the full NICU
ry-pick healthier patient segments who are less likely costs of caring for an unusually sick newborn against
to have complications and higher costs. Therefore, it’s the child’s provider. Value-based payment models
critical for value-based payment to reward providers often have exclusion criteria that help address these
for caring for sicker, more vulnerable populations. outlier cases.
Innovator example:
Einstein Hospital in Brazil has designed a value-based care system that works to
incentivize care for high-risk groups. Einstein is testing a risk-adjusted bundled
payment model for several conditions, beginning with diabetes and coronary heart disease, that spans
primary and secondary care.
These payments are the product of a three-year pilot which tracked patient health outcomes and costs
longitudinally across different episodes of care. Patients were sorted into three risk groups based on
demographic variables correlated with overall health status (e.g., income, education level, BMI, history
of preexisting conditions). Costs were calculated by risk group, allowing the health system to calibrate
its bundled payments based on patients’ personal risk profiles and reimburse provides appropriately for
sicker patients’ more intensive healthcare needs.29

Integrating measurement, delivery, and they have no clear application, leading to poor qual-
payment best practices ity data that may go unused. Efforts to improve the
quality and effectiveness of delivery are more likely to
Value-based care is a health systems framework rather
stick when they’re reinforced by supporting payment
than a set of discrete interventions to improve measure-
systems. And payment systems are most likely to
ment, delivery, and payment. The best practices are
succeed when providers have the capabilities and
highly interdependent. Value-based measurement is
culture to continually improve. In value-based health
a prerequisite to value-based delivery and payment,
systems, all three core principles of measurement,
providing data insight that informs how we deliver
delivery, and payment work in tandem to generate
and pay for care. When instituted alone, measurement
value for patients.
reforms are rejected by frontline providers, because
Innovator Example:
The United States has experimented with accountable care organizations (ACOs)
as one example of value-based care that integrates measurement, delivery, and
payment best practices. ACOs are networks of provider and payer organizations
that enter into a risk-sharing arrangement. Providers agree to oversee the health of a given popu-
lation. If they lower costs while maintaining quality, they share in the cost savings that accrue to
insurers. In this manner ACOs align provider and payer interests. Through the Medicare Shared
Savings Program (MSSP), roughly 11 million Americans receive care through an ACO model.
Some ACOs have seen great success using the core principles of value-based care. The Rio Grande
Valley (RGV) ACO is one such example that faces many of the same challenges common to patient
populations in LMICs. Located on the border of Texas and Mexico, RGV oversees primarily low-income
and rural enrollees with a high disease burden and high cost of care (~40% above national average).
RGV’s approach to diabetes care illustrates how it employs value-based care best practices. On
intake, RGV identifies patients who have diabetes—roughly 45% of their membership. Physicians
proactively engage these patients to enroll them into a diabetes care management. Once enrolled,
RGV tracks patient-centered outcomes in a diabetes registry and regularly solicits patient feedback.
Each of the 13 practices in the ACO are able to visualize its performance on outcomes relative
to peers. This data informs a monthly Quality Assessment Process Improvement meeting which
provides an opportunity for interdisciplinary teams to contribute to delivery improvements. In addi-
tion, high-performing clinicians routinely coach new staff.
For ACOs that achieve a threshold performance on quality metrics, MSSP shares cost savings rela-
tive to a baseline performance. To motivate staff, RGV distributes some of its shared savings in the
form of performance-based pay. This system of financial incentives reinforces RGV’s value-based
care approach.
RGV’s performance has reduced per capita costs of care by 14% primarily through reductions in
hospital utilization, all while achieving top-notch health outcomes for a particularly underserved
population in the United States.30

Case for transformation They can also reduce waste and inefficiencies in the
health sector that amount to USD 250 billion per year.
The aspiration of value-based care is to optimize
Further experimentation and research are required to
both sides of the value equation—outcomes and
determine how much of this opportunity can be real-
costs (figure 8). Health systems that embrace value-
istically captured.
based care have the potential to prevent 60% of the
16 million avertable deaths each year—9 million lives.
FIGURE 8
The equation for value
OUTCOMES
VALUE = COSTS
IMPACT › Health Outcomes Economic Costs
Improve care quality Right care, right place,

right time
Improve behavioral
LEVERS › determinants of health Frugal innovation
Improve demand for high Operational efficiency
value care
Opportunity to improve outcomes prioritized biomedical interventions. Value-based care

emphasizes implementing whatever interventions
There are three principal levers through which value-
yield the best outcomes at the lowest costs, and this
based care improves outcomes. The most important
often includes behavior change. In these instances,
is aligning the health system around delivering higher
non-clinical personnel can play a larger role in driv-
quality of care. Lancet Quality Commission’s analysis
ing health outcomes. According to IHME estimates,
shows that quality has eclipsed access as a driver of
behavioral determinants account for 40% of the global
avertable mortality, amounting to 5 million deaths per
burden of disease.32 Layering on the Lancet Quality
year (figure 9).31
Commission’s analysis, we estimate that this amounts
The second lever is addressing the behavioral determi- to 3 million deaths per year.
nants of health. The healthcare system has traditionally

FIGURE 9
VBC’s potential to impact health outcomes
Avertable deaths in LMICs, Lancet Commission on Health Quality
8
7M
7
6
5M Improve environmental /
5
metabolic determinants
(~60%) (e.g. air quality)
4 3.6M
3
Improve care quality
Improve access / supply
(~5M lives)
2 of care (~70%)
Improve behavioral
determinants, e.g. smoking
1 (~40% or ~3M)
Improve demand for care
(~30% or ~1M lives)
0
quality non utilization
Deaths amenable to healthcare Deaths preventable by

public health intervention
Directly addressable by VBC Addressable by other interventions
The third lever is improving the demand for care. In assessment of mortality due to non-utilization and
reorienting care around the patient and aligning the estimate demand-side factors account for 1 million
health system around outcomes that matter to the deaths per year. Supply-side constraints (e.g. lack
patients, value-based care can improve how patients of facilities and healthcare providers in rural areas)
seek care. Review of literature and expert interviews remain important drivers of non-utilization of health-
suggests that approximately 20 to 40% of non-utili- care services. By incenting efficient use of resources,
zation can be attributed to demand-side factors. We value-based care may improve the supply of care, too,
apply this fraction to the Lancet Quality Commission’s but we do not include this potential in our estimate.

Opportunity to optimize costs by 25% in 2019.34 The World Health Organization
estimates that 20 to 40% of total health costs are
Value-based care can also optimize the cost side of the
due to waste and/or overutilization.35 This translates
value equation (figure 10). Out of pocket healthcare
to approximately USD 250 billion in LMICs per year.
costs push 100 million people per year into poverty33.
Failures in health delivery and care coordination, over-
Mounting government health spending strains public
treatment, overpricing, complex overhead, and fraud
budgets. For example, Indonesia has seen health
are all contributing factors.36 Value-based care can
spending increase rapidly since it implemented UHC
align stakeholders to address those challenges.
in 2014, with medical costs projected to exceed budget
FIGURE 10
VBC’s potential to impact costs Governments struggling with financial solvency
of health coverage schemes
Total health expenditure in LMICs ($) (2015)
Households pushed into poverty due to health
spending (~100M people per year globally)
850B Donor funds declining as portion of total health
expenditures
WHO estimates 20-40% of
health spending is wasted A snapshot of
through inefficiency, per capita spending by actor
representing ~$250B of ~250B ($PPP per capita)
waste in LMICs.
97
This places unsustainable
pressure on governments,
households, and donors 50 19 28
already overburdened by
healthcare costs.
Low
600B 258
168 82 8
Lower-middle
TOTAL

Value-based care optimizes costs through three levers. covers 11 million individuals in the United States. In
The first is ensuring the right care, in the right place, 2012 RGV invested USD 1.2 million on operations to set
at the right time. Providers reduce prescription of up its ACO. It managed to reduce the per capita costs
unnecessary drugs and procedures. They deliver care of its Medicare patients by 14%.37 Over the first four
in the highest value place, shifting non-acute care from years of the program, this yielded approximately USD
hospitals to primary care and community-based 28 million in savings, or a roughly twenty-to-one ROI.38
settings. Providers intervene at the highest value
moment in a patient journey, reaching each patient To be sure, achieving this level of savings at a coun-
before his or her condition worsens and leads to try level would be a tremendous undertaking and
high-cost treatment later. the adoption of value-based care principles does not
guarantee this impact. However, it provides a frame of
The second lever is driving frugal innovation. Today, reference for countries considering investing in inno-
research and development are oriented around vative health systems models. Take India and Kenya as
volume-based business models. It encourages phar- examples. By 2040 India’s total health expenditure is
maceutical, med-tech, and service delivery innovators projected to reach USD 860 billion PPP and Kenya’s
to drive solutions that they can generate demand for, 18 billion39. If by 2040 they were able to achieve even
regardless of their value proposition. Value-based care half the efficiency gains seen in the Medicare ACO
shifts the business model and rewards innovation that above, India would save USD 56 billion annually and
improves outcomes and lowers costs. Kenya USD 1.3 billion. If we believe countries like
India and Kenya can bend their value performance
The third lever is increasing operational efficiency. curves—outcomes achieved per dollar invested—it is
Current approaches to accounting for health spend- worth making significant investments in value-based
ing overlook critical cost drivers. System planners and measurement, delivery, and payment reforms.
healthcare providers, for example, do not know how
much of a physician’s time or a diagnostic machine’s Tailwinds of change
capacity is required along a patient’s care pathway. Implementing value-based measurement, delivery, and
Value-based measurement shines a light on the full payment best practices is challenging. It requires data
costs required to generate outcomes for patients and systems, capabilities, infrastructure, and policies that
provides insight into how to manage these costs. many countries are still working to build. Yet devel-
opment stories in telecommunications, banking, and
Return on investment (ROI) of value-based care
energy suggest that nascent sectors can defy expec-
What is the ROI of value-based care? In order to tations, and leverage innovation and new technology
capture tremendous opportunities to improve to leapfrog their higher income peers (figure 11). The
outcomes and efficiency, health systems will need to lack of fixed-line internet led to the mobile informa-
invest significant resources in transformation. There is tion explosion. The paucity of brick and mortar banks
limited meta-data available to estimate the return on made it possible for mobile-banking platforms to
these value-based care investments and more research capture market share through new SMS-based tech-
will help build the case for transformation. However, nology. The lack of traditional electrical transmission
we can infer the potential scale of impact from case infrastructure made decentralized power generation
studies in high-income countries, like the Rio Grande from solar and wind possible. These sectors demon-
Valley (RGV) accountable care organization (ACO) strate how LMICs can harness emergent trends and
in the United States. RGV is one of over 500 ACOs in take advantage of the absence of legacy infrastructure
the Medicare Shared Saving Program (MSSP). MSSP to establish more efficient systems.

FIGURE 11
Leapfrogging telecom infrastructure
high-income countries still connect to the

internet through telephone (DSL) or television
cable wiring. It is far faster to deliver internet
directly through fiber optic cable, but
high-income countries continue to rely on the
infrastructure of old services.
LMICs have leapfrogged this infrastructure. Not

only are countries such as Rwanda building out
The telecommunications industry in LMICs is extensive fiber optic cable to deliver quick
one of the most well-studied leapfrog stories. internet, they are doubling down on mobile
The lack of internet connectivity has led to the broadband delivery. Countries are jumping past
rapid uptake of mobile broadband. Today, most 2G to build the infrastructure for 3G and 4G LTE
people in LMICs that connect to the internet networks and deliver access to a new
aren’t just mobile-first they’re mobile only. This generation of mobile data users. More
has led to a vibrant economy built around impressively, a whole ecosystem has
mobile services. developed around mobile services. Mobile
High-income countries progressed slowly money, banking, and health are increasingly
through various stages of fixed-line internet commonplace in LMICs, unlocking new
connectivity. Today, most households in leapfrog opportunities in these sectors as well.
There are trends in LMICs that support the core Three kindred movements will help countries achieve
principles of value-based care. They include policy, value on the path to UHC: primary and community
technology, and societal tailwinds that, if harnessed, care, quality of care, and strategic purchasing.
can help countries capture the leapfrog opportunity
(figure 12). First, the movement for primary and community
care has made an investment case for strengthen-
Policy ing the highest value healthcare settings. While the
The movement to achieve UHC presents an opportu- public health community has recognized the value of
nity to steer health systems toward value. Numerous primary and community care for years, donors and
countries and development partners have signed on to country governments have recently doubled down
the Global Compact to expand UHC to all citizens by on their efforts. The Global Financing Facility, the
2030. Regardless of the specific approach to coverage Primary Health Care Performance Initiative, and the
(e.g. insurance or direct public delivery), risk-pooling Community Health Impact Coalition, for example,
and shifting away from out-of-pocket payments create partner directly with countries to improve these
an opportunity to redesign measurement, delivery, systems.
and payment systems. Countries face a choice: they
can expand coverage under the status quo or use the Second is the quality of care movement. The Lancet
momentum of UHC to explore higher-value alternatives. Quality Commission’s landscape report in 2019
showed that healthcare quality has surpassed access as

a driver of avertable mortality. That seminal academic modular solutions that are becoming cheaper, better
work will draw more resources to ongoing efforts to designed, more easily integrated, and more widely
strengthen how we measure, deliver, and pay for qual- available. DHIS-2 is one popular platform built with
ity. Much of this work to date has characterized qual- such principles in mind. While initially designed to
ity as process compliance. Process compliance is an manage population-level health, DHIS-2 is being
important step toward achieving high quality care, but adapted to manage facilities and even individual
it doesn’t ensure impact. The quality of antenatal care, patient care. OpenMRS is another example; it is an
for example, is defined by the fraction of evidenced- open-source EHR engineered specifically for low-re-
based guidelines followed, rather than whether those source settings. As countries continue to invest in the
guidelines actually delivered results. Nevertheless, the expansion of such platforms, they have an opportunity
tools and capabilities of the quality of care movement to design them to not only track the volume of inputs
can be adapted and deployed to power value-based and outputs needed to deliver services, but also track
health systems. These include data systems to track outcomes. If they do so, they will surpass the health
outcomes at the patient level, performance feedback data systems of many high-income countries.
loops to refine care models, and carrot and stick regu-
latory mechanisms to encourage quality of care. Technology is also transforming service delivery,
extending delivery from facilities into communities
Third is the movement to improve accountability for and households and reinforcing clinical standards
service delivery through a variety of strategic purchas- through decision-support. Light and durable medical
ing mechanisms. Results-based financing (RBF) is an technology specially designed for mobile application
early example. Led by organizations like the World is expanding the diagnostic and treatment abilities of
Bank’s Health Results Innovation Trust, the RBF move- frontline health workers. CHWs can now administer
ment has used financing and payment as leverage to rapid malaria diagnostics with a finger prick, for exam-
ensure adequate delivery of health services. Like RBF, ple. Telehealth platforms extend healthcare capabili-
value-based payments require tracking and validating ties from facilities and urban centers to households
results, iterative learning and improvement through and rural areas. This combination of new devices and
performance management cycles, and administering communication platforms can contribute to value-
performance-based payments. While RBF has primarily based health systems in three ways. First, they repre-
employed volume-based reimbursement methods, the sent opportunities to shift care into primary care and
same infrastructure and capabilities established by RBF community settings that are cheaper and easier to
programs can be repurposed to enable value-based care access. Second, they place health information direct-
models. New investments, like the Strategic Purchasing ly into patients’ hands, increasing their engagement
Africa Resource Center, are emerging to implement with care. Third, real time data can prompt provid-
these approaches at scale. This movement can also be ers to make the highest value decisions throughout a
harnessed to support value-based care models. patient’s care pathway.
Technology Technological advances are also transforming the

Technology can be a powerful enabler of value-based financing and payment landscape and will make it
measurement, delivery, and payment. more efficient to administer value-based payments.
Insure-tech in LMICs is already surpassing high-in-
New technology has the potential to establish health come countries in developing more efficient ways to
data systems that can track value creation. Countries enroll and validate members, process and authenti-
recognize the long-term dangers of fragmented health cate claims, and administer payments. These tools
data systems, and are adopting open-source and will be critical in establishing networks from what

is currently a highly fragmented provider landscape. poor healthcare as the first or second top issue they
Establishing these networks of providers, with were mostly likely to take political action on.40 Public
common data standards, is a prerequisite to admin- interest in reform can generate political will to trans-
istering value-based payments. form health policy. This interest is coupled with a
growing middle class that will demand better health-
Society care. In India alone the middle class is projected to
Public demand for better healthcare can help moti- jump from 80 million to 580 million people by 2025.41
vate the deep health systems reforms necessary Leaders can tap these societal trends to generate the
to shift from volume to value. In a global 2018 Pew momentum to challenge the status quo and under-
survey, people in 13 of the 14 countries surveyed rank take transformative changes to the health system.
FIGURE 12
Tailwinds of Change
TAILWINDS HEADWINDS
• The move toward UHC and the rise of risk pooling give Policy
citizens the collective power to demand better care UHC systems continue to
• The primary and community care movement refocuses measure and reimburse
healthcare on the highest value care settings volume, with care
• The quality of care movement draws more centered in hospital
resources to ongoing efforts to strengthen how we settings
measure, deliver, and pay for quality
• The strategic purchasing movement pushes for
measurable impact for every dollar spent
• Open-source and modular systems allow for Technology

higher-quality, integrated, and real-time data
capture and storage Legacy data systems and
• A new class of ‘extension tech’ augments IT infrastructure continue to
health care workers’ ability to deliver care fragment care
outside the facility setting
• Mobile payments are transforming the
traditional payer ecosystem
• Economically active and civic-minded middle Society

class expects more from leaders
• Patient empowerment is upending the traditional Top-down decision-making
‘doctor knows best’ patient-provider dynamic in the healthcare system
slows uptake of innovation

STRATEGY:
A leapfrog to value-based care will
require a robust ecosystem for
experimentation and a coalition of
actors to scale
If LMICs are able to leapfrog to high value health systems, it will not be because
they followed a step by step roadmap. It is a path that requires discovery and
collaboration. Therefore, rather than detailed instructions, this reports offers a
compass: a strategic perspective that decision-makers can heed on their journey
to achieving a high value health system and that builds on compelling work that is
already underway. That perspective is informed by an understanding of how legacy
infrastructure has thwarted high-income countries aspiring to adopt value-based
care; by the role that risk-taking, innovation, and experimentation have played in
other leapfrog development stories; and by successes and failures in scaling other
health system reforms.
Governments and donors—in partnership with a value-lens to near-term decisions that have long-
patients, providers, and payers—can take three types term implications. Third, they can position countries
of actions that will help leapfrog to high value health to leapfrog to value, by establishing the enabling envi-
systems. First, they can cultivate experimentation ronment for value-based care models to scale.
with value-based care models. Second, they can apply
FIGURE 13
The path forward Leapfrog
Apply a value lens
Experiment
Scale what works
Integrate value into
digital health strategies
Build the enabling
environment
Define a focus
Balance provider infrastructure
and capabilities
Spark a global
Launch and support movement
experimentation
Communicate a
long-term vision
Generate evidence to
inform next steps
Activities
Leapfrog to Value : Strategy 44

Cultivate value-based experimentation Innovative models like ChenMed42 and
CareMore43 in the United States have
As a patient-centered approach, value-based care must
specialized serving these high-risk patient
be adapted to local realities. To develop homegrown
segments. They reduce their dependen-
models, health systems seeking to embrace value-
cy on hospital care by supporting patients
based care will need to pursue experimentation. This
well in the outpatient setting, addressing
involves launching pilots that integrate value-based
both biomedical and social determinants
measurement, delivery, and payment best practices.
of health and generating cost savings for
To cultivate a strong ecosystem for experimentation,
the system.
health systems will need to define a strategic focus,
launch and support experiments (figure 14), and
b. Feasibility. The second major consideration to
spread lessons from both successes and failures.
defining a strategic focus for experimentation
is feasibility. Within any health system, there is
Define a focus
significant heterogeneity in the readiness of actors
Scattered experimentation will not generate the to implement value-based care models. There are
evidence or momentum that is needed to achieve three dimensions of preparedness to consider.
broad health system transformation. Countries should
i. Data. Value-based care requires data systems to
develop a strategic focus for experimentation by
track outcomes and costs. Early experimenta-
identifying the tip-of-the-spear opportunities that
tion should locate geographic pockets and clin-
could lead to systems change. In setting priorities for
ical areas where there is better data available,
experimentation, two factors matter most: salience
whether paper-based or digital. This may mean
and feasibility.
focusing initial pilots in urban areas or states
a. Salience. Value-based experimentation should with a better track record of data collection. Or
focus on patient segments and care pathways with it may direct countries to focusing on a clinical
the most potential for impact on health outcomes area like TB where significant resources are
and costs. already dedicated to improving data systems.
i. Outcomes. Selecting experiments based on ii. Providers. Value-based care cannot make up
health ouctomes may (1) align with a country’s for severe deficiencies in provider capacity.
progress toward SDG targets, such as reducing Having essential staff, medicine, and equip-
maternal and neonatal mortality; (2) address ment is a prerequisite to value-based care.
high growth care pathways, such as diabetes Experimentation should therefore target care
or other NCDs; (3) or respond to persistent settings that are challenged by quality and
threats to public health, such as TB. cost-effectiveness, rather than access.
i. Costs. Countries may also direct experimen- iii. Provider and payer alignment. Experimen-
tation to address cost saving opportunities. tation offers the most potential in contexts
Hospital care has been a key driver of costs where providers are accountable to payers
in many countries that have pursued UHC. for delivering value. There are a few common
To address these costs, countries may direct archetypes of this situation: 1) A public delivery
experimentation toward patient segments system where the government (as a payer) has
who contribute most to hospital costs. the management capacity to motivate frontline
45 Leapfrog to Value : Strategy

workers and managers, through financial and Design of these pilots requires fluency not only in
non-financial means. 2) A dominant insurance public health and medicine, but also in business,
scheme (public or private) with enough scale to data science, and technology. A team of local
shape private providers’ behavior. 3) A private, experts with these interdisciplinary skills can
out-of-pocket healthcare market with enough partner with external experts who have experience
providers that could compete with each other with value-based care models, to collaboratively
on value. design locally relevant pilots. Once designed, the
success of pilots hinges on the operating team’s
Launch and support experimentation ability to digest and act on data in performance
The ecosystem for value-based care experimentation management cycles—this is the lifeblood of value-
in LMICs is nascent. Governments, with backing from based innovation. Therefore, it’s critical to train
donors, can jumpstart this ecosystem by providing and to directly support the workforce in evaluating
support to value-based pilots. data on outcomes and costs, identifying the most
important drivers of performance, and refining the
a. Financial support. Pilots require financial support care pathway to optimize value.
to design a value-based care pathway, upgrade data c. Partnerships. The most important success factor
systems to track patient-centered outcomes and for value-based care is the quality of collaboration
costs, train staff to administer new care models, between patients, providers, and payers. These
and develop reward systems for value. Pilots may stakeholders come together to share data, align
be able to leverage existing service delivery or on performance measures, and co-design deliv-
payment platforms funded by bilateral donors, ery models and reward systems. Disagreements
development banks, and foundations to incorpo- on these questions are bound to occur and
rate value-based innovation. USAID, for example, require strong and impartial brokers to mediate.
is exploring how to incorporate value-based care Governments and/or trusted civil society actors
pilots into a large program that is supporting the can play a leading role in building partnerships
roll out of Health and Wellness Centers in India. In among these stakeholders, advocating for the
addition, new funding mechanisms may be estab- shared value generated for patients and the over-
lished: the National Health Authority of India is all health system. In addition, these partnerships
adopting the “grand challenges” model and could should draw in scale partners who have the ability
focus one challenge on value-based care.44 In the to extend the reach of successful value-based care
private sector, traditional venture investors have pilots. The National Health Authority in India or
not invested in value-based care models in LMICs. the National Hospital Insurance Fund in Kenya are
Impact investors have an opportunity to fill this potential examples. These scale partners should
gap, particularly in countries where the private be involved early on, to help inform the design
sector will play a critical role in achieving UHC. of experiments, and to define conditions under
b. Technical assistance. The development of value- which they would mainstream a new value-based
based care pilots requires capabilities that are care model.
in short supply in the health systems of LMICs.

FIGURE 14
Example of care pathway re-engineering
1 Define success 2 Integrate care 3 Measure value in 4 Establish visibility

in a care around the terms of outcomes into performance
pathway patient and costs and incentivize
value creation
• Design interventions that
• Review individual
span relevant settings of
provider performance
care, i.e. home, primary
data regularly
care, hospital
• Give providers financial
• Include non-clinical
and non-financial
interventions that address
incentives for generat-
behavioral determinants
ing value for patients
of health • Use EMRs to track
• Identify highest-priority longitudinal, patient-lev-
care pathways by el data Primary care physi-
analyzing a system’s The health system cians, nutritionists, and
largest drivers of offers a new, compre- • Make this data readily wellness counsellors
outcomes and costs hensive diabetes available to patients, review these patient
management program providers, and payers outcomes on a month-
• Agree on outcomes that that teaches self-man- ly basis
matter most to clinicians agement for diet,
and patients exercise, and blood Health system
Higher performers
sugar monitoring updates old EMR
receive a professional
system to calculate
award, earning both a
A health system finds reduction in complica-
small salary bonus and
that diabetes is its tion rates and reduc-
recognition from
largest cost driver tion in costs for all
colleagues
patients that took part
After a town hall with in the diabetes
patients, providers management program
learn that controlling
diabetes without
medication is a key
outcome for patients
5 Continuously optimize value of care

Evaluate performance to inform next steps housed in the public sector. The Center for Medicare
and Medicaid Services in the United States, for exam-
A robust ecosystem for experimentation is one
ple, launched the Center for Medicare and Medicaid
that carefully evaluates pilots and learns from both
Innovation to test value-based care pilots (figure 15).
successes and failures. Value-based care pilots need
The Center has supported over 40 pilots to date, with
to engage independent evaluators at all phases—from
one of its pilots—the diabetes prevention program—
design to implementation. These evaluators will
becoming a required preventive benefit in insurance
inform decisions to scale or shut down pilots and
packages45. Other national insurance schemes, such
generate evidence that can enrich the overall field of
as India’s National Health Authority, have also estab-
value-based care.
lished innovation units to pilot concepts related to
Countries that seek to cultivate value-based experi- value-based care. These platforms support experimen-
mentation can consider leveraging innovation hubs tation and also provide a path to scale.
FIGURE 15
Successful innovation platforms
10B
The Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation
(CMMI) designs and tests new value-based care
pilots in the United States. It is funded and in funding
managed by the country’s national public insurance
scheme, and a clear example of how value-based
innovation can scale in the public sector 40+ pilots
launched
1 2 3
Define a strategic focus Launch and support experimentation Decide next steps
Invest in key focus areas Call for Grant period of ~3 Ongoing monitoring If pilot meets
• Value based payment applications via years for providers and evaluation from objective, secretary
models a competitive to test and refine CMS to determine if has power to scale
• Primary care tendering model pilot meets primary program nationally
transformation process for objective: decrease via Medicare
• Priority patient experiments in costs while
populations focus areas maintaining or If pilot is not
• Accelerating best improving health successful, it can
practices outcomes be discontinued or
extended for
Focus areas informed by… further testing
Congressional Public ‘listening
mandate to test sessions’ with
new payment thousands of
models innovators
Spotlight: Diabetes prevention program (DPP)

CMMI successfully scaled the DPP program nationally after early success in its pilot. Fitness
provider YMCA and provider groups partnered to help Medicare beneficiaries at higher risk for
type II diabetes make healthy lifestyle changes, saving USD 2,600+ per patient and improving
quality outcomes. It is now a mainstream preventative benefit in Medicare.

Apply a value lens financial services for health, especially for insur-
ance and savings, could be leveraged to begin
Many LMICs are currently making decisions with long-
tracking health outcomes and costs.
term implications. Countries as diverse as Ethiopia,
Nigeria, and Thailand have developed and are now e. Non-health data. Many high value health inter-
implementing national digital health strategies46. ventions are not exclusively biomedical; they
Countries like India, Ghana, and Kenya have launched address the social, behavioral, and environmen-
publicly financed health insurance schemes that will tal determinants of health. To better understand
structure their health systems for decades to come. and address these factors, it is critical to merge
Billions of dollars of private equity are being invested non-health data systems with health data. Estonia
in infrastructure47. There is tremendous opportunity is a source of inspiration for this kind of cross-sec-
and risk in these decisions, because they can become tor data integration, connecting its public data
grooves of path dependency, sending a health system sets, from health to housing, in its X-Road master
down a high- or low-value trajectory. We recommend database50. National digital health strategies can
applying a value-lens to each of these decisions. include an analogous approach to integration.
f. Design. As data systems mature and become more
Integrate value into digital health strategies sophisticated, there is risk that they become more
In May 2018, WHO Member States emphasized the difficult to use, draining the productivity of front-
importance of digital health and called for more line providers and distracting them from patient
resources to develop national digital health strate- care.51 Value-based care approaches are data inten-
gies48. The overarching goal is to corral diverse stake- sive and can contribute to complexity. Digital
holders around a common vision for how digital tools health strategies should anticipate this risk and
can advance a country’s public health goals for years to plan for investments in human-centered design in
come. Donors have committed to aligning their invest- digital solutions to minimize the administrative
ments around country-level plans49. data entry burden on providers.
Global players can help align country-level digital
Patient level data. Value-based care relies on having
health strategies with a value agenda. For example, the
insight into how health services generate outcomes at
Global Digital Health Index and the Digital Health Atlas
the patient level. Digital systems can make that data
each offer a rubric to assess the status of a country’s
collection and interpretation easier, faster, and cheap-
digital health ecosystem. Platforms like these have an
er. For digital systems to track patient-level data, they
opportunity to incorporate value-based care principles
must span full care pathways and operate across care
in their frameworks and usher in their adoption.
settings. This requires either the adoption of a single
EHR or interoperability of multiple systems. It also Balance provider infrastructure and capabilities
requires establishing an individual’s unique digital
Infrastructure and workforce investments have
identity, like India’s Aadhaar.
important implications for the value of a health system.
These decisions have long-lasting implications.
d. Patient-centered outcomes. The health data
Hospitals have a fifty-year lifespan. Medical doctors go
systems of most countries—whether high- or
through two decades of schooling. Once infrastructure
low-income—do not track health outcomes. To
is built and once a workforce is developed, it’s difficult
change this, countries need to adopt data stan-
to re-balance or steer in a new direction. It is therefore
dards for health outcomes, integrating and digi-
critical to apply a value-lens on these long-term deci-
tizing diagnostic results, clinical findings, and
sions. With this in mind, the list of strategies below
patient-reported outcomes. Advances in digital

highlights how governments can influence major strategy, governments can use a variety of policy
public and private sector allocation decisions. levers. The for-profit private sector has gener-
ally underinvested in primary care, because
a. Balance resources across care settings. The traditional volume-based business models do
health systems of countries that have strong prima- not generate attractive margins for preven-
ry and preventive services have achieved higher tive services. Public financing for primary care
value than those that have not.52 Many LMICs provision can attract more private capital to the
make resource allocation decisions between space. This approach has been pursued in coun-
different settings of care, often with separate tries like India and Brazil through public-private
budgets for primary care and community-based partnerships that mobilize private capital for
care. For example, to implement the Ayushman primary care.54 It is also an opportunity for coun-
Bharat scheme, the Indian government estab- tries to partner with donors to deploy blended
lished separate budgets for a hospital-insurance finance tools that attract private capital to meet
program PM-JAY and for its primary health care public health priorities around value-based care.55
program Health and Wellness Centers. In making
these allocation decisions, health ministries need While the private sector underinvests in prima-
a standard method of assessing their primary care ry care, it can sometimes overinvest in hospi-
spending and an ability to benchmark that spend- tal-based services. While this is not a real risk in
ing against best practice and peers. The adoption many low-income countries (which are severely
of tools like the Primary Care Spend Model, which supply constrained), it is an emerging challenge in
standardizes how to measure primary care spend- cities in middle-income countries. One regulato-
ing, may facilitate these important allocation deci- ry tool, a certificate of need, requires hospitals to
sions that can have lasting impact. demonstrate unmet need for care before building
b. Determine what’s in and what’s out. At a more more capacity in hospitals or specialty care.
granular level, countries choose what to include
Communicate a long-term vision
in health benefits packages and essential medi-
cine lists. These choices, in turn, influence what There is also a softer side to a health system’s path
infrastructure and capabilities are developed. dependency: political and market expectation. Social
Applying a value lens to this process requires a protection programs, whether in the public or private
set of analytic and administrative capabilities sector, are notoriously sticky. Patients and providers
that are often lacking in LMICs. Institutions like develop an expectation of a certain model of delivery
the International Decision Support Initiative and payment. Once entrenched, these expectations
are working to strengthen these decision-mak- are difficult to shift.
ing functions locally, empowering countries
to develop their own high value and equitable Communicating a long-term vision for design can help
benefit packages53. a health system prevent such path dependency. In the
United States, adoption of value-based care started
c. Shape private sector investments. In order to
slowly, with discrete payment innovations introduced
balance a health system’s provider infrastructure
by public and private payers. The communication by
and capabilities, governments cannot ignore the
the public sector of an alternate value-based vision
private sector, which invests billions of dollars in
prepared health care markets and voters for changes
LMIC health infrastructure. To align the private
in payment and delivery.
sector’s investments with a primary care-focused

While countries build systems to achieve UHC, feasi- b. Private sector. Value-based care can scale in the
bility considerations may lead them to first launch private sector, too.
traditional delivery and payment models, based on i. A single market-leading payer or provider can
volume. While this is a logical starting point, to avoid redefine market expectations, compelling other
getting anchored to these models, it important for private actors to follow suit. This has been the
governments to communicate a long-term vision case in other leapfrog development stories. For
around value that will prepare markets and the broad- example, disruptive mobile banking companies
er public for coming change. have pushed conventional banks to integrate
new financial mediums.
Leapfrog to value
The leap from experimentation to broader systems ii. Standardizing and providing transparency into
transformation is formidable. It is not the work of data on value can also lead to scale in private
a single champion, but one that requires an array of markets. When payers and patients have visibil-
stakeholders. The ultimate owners of systems change ity into providers’ performance on value, they
are government leaders and the people they serve, but choose the highest performers. In competitive
they must also bring along payers, providers, academ- markets, this transparency can push low-per-
ics, and donors to realize the aspiration of a high value forming providers to leave the market or adopt
health system. In collaboration, these stakeholders higher-value interventions.
can scale experimental pilots that work and build an
enabling ecosystem for value-based care. iii. Governments can use regulatory tools to push
the adoption of value-based care models among
Scale what works private sector payers and providers. In addition
Without a pathway to payer and provider adoption, to the payment lever, governments can achieve
even successful value-based care experiments may this by enforcing new clinical guidelines that
stay at the margins of a health system. Scale can be change the standard of care to prioritize value.
achieved through public sector reforms to payment
and delivery systems or through market-driven means Build the enabling environment
in the private sector. In either case, value-based care The success of value-based care models is depen-
experiments must be able to address the needs of dent on having a supportive ecosystem. There are
these scale actors. three enablers that can be established at local and
global levels.
a. Public sector. When public sector actors are
partners in value-based care experimentation, a. Data standards. The first prerequisite to scaling
they can scale new models through public delivery value-based care is having common data systems
systems and through payment reforms. This tran- adopted by all stakeholders in a health system.
sition from experimentation to scale is smoothest This includes defining outcomes that matter to
if decision-makers have the capabilities and regu- patients; a costing methodology; a way to bench-
latory freedom to spread new approaches. CMMI mark performance across payers and providers;
is an example of a public sector platform for value- a methodology for risk-adjusting performance
based care experimentation that has a mechanism to ensure equitable access to care, and a way
for scale. to continually update each of these elements.

Governments can play an important role in align- Conclusion
ing stakeholders around these data standards.
As the world advances toward its goal of achieving
b. Capabilities. To scale, health systems need a universal health coverage by 2030, it will commit
workforce capable of operating value-based care tremendous resources to the health sector. If we
models. Each level of a high value health system, begin to systematically measure and improve the
from senior ministry officials to operators at the value of our efforts, we have an opportunity to not
frontline of service delivery, needs the capabilities only improve access to care and financial protection,
of digesting and making decisions on outcomes but also improve wellbeing of generations to come.
and cost data. This requires a combination of Success will depend on building coalitions that extend
business analytics, management and leadership, beyond the health sector, embracing the social and
public health, and clinical medicine. To build environmental movements that influence our health
these capabilities locally, governments can invest outcomes. Governments, with support from donors,
in relevant educational programs. Institutions can lead the way by cultivating and learning from
like the University for Global Health Equity in value-based experimentation. Timely action will ready
Rwanda and the Aspen Management Partnership countries to leapfrog to value on their path to UHC.
for Health are already training public health
leaders in the range of skills needed to support
value-based care56. Further investments like this
can help establish the capabilities for a high value
health system.
c. Knowledge. Evidence on value-based care—
including both pilots and larger scale implemen-
tation—will be critical for growing the field. It
will help policymakers make decisions. It will
guide payers and providers on how to design and
implement value-based care models. It will shape
how the private sector invests in innovation. To
build a knowledge base, it is helpful to have local
academic capabilities to evaluate value-based care
models. Governments and donors can help estab-
lish these capabilities.

Endnotes
1 Officially known as the Lancet Global Health Commission on High Quality Health Systems in the SDG era.
2 Margaret Kruk et al., The Lancet Global Health Commission, “High-quality health systems in the Sustainable
Development Goals era: time for a revolution” 2018.
3 See Opportunity chapter for analysis.
4 Ibid.
5 Global Burden of Disease Health Financing Collaborator Network. Global Expected Health Spending 2017-
2050. Seattle, United States: Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation (IHME), 2019.
6 Priyanka Singh. High prevalence of cesarean section births in private sector health facilities- analysis of dis-
trict level household survey-4 of India. BMC Public Health. 2018.
7 IMS Institute for Healthcare Informatics. “Understanding Healthcare Access in India, What is the current state?”
2013.
8 Gavin Yamey & Alexander Gunn, Brookings Institute, “We need breakthrough technologies to reach the Sus-
tainable Development Goal targets for health” 2018.
9 Kruk et al., 2018.
10 Ibid.
11 Ibid.
12 Kruk et al., 2018.
13 Gro Brundtland, Lancet, “India’s health reforms: the need for balance” 2018.
14 Paul Delameter, et al., PLoS One, “Do more hospital beds lead to higher hospitalization rates? A spatial exam-
ination of Roemer’s Law” 2013.
15 Schulte & Fry, Kaiser Health News, “Death by 1,000 clicks: where electronic health records went wrong” 2019.
16 Atul Gawande, The New Yorker, “Why doctors hate their computers” 2018.
17 Di Blasi et al., Lancet, “Influence of context effects on health outcomes: a systematic review” 2001; Halpern J.
British Medical Journal, “From detached concern to empathy: humanizing medical practice” 2001; Larson et
al, PLoS One, ”Moving toward patient-centered care in Africa: a discrete choice experiment of preferences for
delivery care among 3,003 Tanzanian women” 2015.
18 PharmAccess website and newsroom; interviews.
19 Meso website and newsroom; interviews.
20 Artiga & Hinton, Kaiser Family Foundation, “Beyond health care: the role of social determinants in promoting
health and health equity” 2018.
21 Clinicas del Azucar website and newsroom; Center for Health Market Innovations profile; interviews.
22 Muso website and newsroom; interviews; Whidden et al., Journal of Global Health, “Improving Community
Health Worker performance by using a personalised feedback dashboard for supervision: a randomised con-
trolled trial” 2018.
23 Brownlee et al., Lancet, “Evidence for overuse of medical services around the world” 2017.
24 Doherty & Govender, Disease Control Priorities Project, “The cost-effectiveness of primary care services in
developing countries: a review of the international literature” 2004.
25 Sevamob website and newsroom; interviews; UNDP “Sevamob: using mobile technology to improve health”
2015.
26 Preker et al, The World Bank, “Public Ends, Private Means – Strategic Purchasing of Health Services” 2007.
27 Swasth website and newsroom; interviews.
53
28 Thaiprayoon & Wibulpoprasert, Observer Research Foundation, “Political and policy lessons from Thailand’s
UHC experience” 2017; Hanvoravongchai, World Bank, “Health financing reform in Thailand: toward universal
coverage under fiscal constraints” 2013.
29 Medtronic “Einstein hospital case study: aligning value.”
30 McClellan et al., World Innovation Summit for Health, “Implementing accountable care to achieve better
health at a lower cost” 2016; Brookings Center for Health Policy “Enhancing diabetes care through personal-
ized, high-touch case management” 2016.
31 Kruk et al., 2018.
32 IHME “Global burden of disease” 2017.
33 Xu et al., WHO, “Public spending on health: a closer look at global trends” 2018.
34 Augustina et al.; Lancet, “Universal health coverage in Indonesia: concept, progress, and challenges”; 2018.
35 WHO, “The world health report-health system financing the path to universal coverage” 2010.
36 Albejaidi et al, American International Journal of Research in Humanities, “Cost of waste and inefficiency – a
health system perspective” 2017.
37 Hostetter, The Commonwealth Fund, “Profile: Rio Grande Valley ACO Health Providers” 2014.
38 Business Wire, Texas ACO Generates $14 Million in Savings and Achieves Perfect Quality Score” 2017.
39 Global Expected Health Spending 2017-2050. IHME 2019.
40 Spring 2018 Global attitudes survey. Pew Research Center, 2018.
41 Constable, Financial Review, “India’s rapid rise and growing middle class creates hunger for commodities”
2018.
42 ChenMed: PatientCentered Care for Medicare Advantage Patients. Better Medicare Alliance spotlight, 2018.
43 CareMore: Improving Outcomes and Controlling. Health Care Spending for High-Needs Patients. Common-
wealth Fund, 2017.
44 Interview, National Health Authority, 2019. The grand challenge model is a call for proposals to solve major
social problems. See, for example, https://grandchallenges.org.
45 CMS Innovation Center 2018 Report to Congress. https://innovation.cms.gov/Files/reports/rtc-2018.pdf.
46 Global Digital Health Index. http://index.digitalhealthindex.org.
47 Prequin Private Equity in Healthcare report, 2015.
48 WHO Resolution on Digital Health, 2018 http://apps.who.int/gb/ebwha/pdf_files/WHA71/A71_R7-en.pdf.
49 The Principles of Donor Alignment for Digital Health: https://digitalinvestmentprinciples.org/.
50 E-Estonia Interoperability Services, 2019 https://e-estonia.com/solutions/interoperability-services/.
51 Ringel, Scientific American “Electronic Health Records and Doctor Burnout” 2019.
52 Starfield et al, Milbank Quarterly “Contribution of primary care to health systems and health” 2005.
53 Glassman et al, Center for Global Development “What’s in, What’s out” 2017.
54 Public Private Partnerships in Health, International Finance Corporation, 2019 www.ifc.org/wps/wcm/connect/
Industry_EXT_Content/IFC_External_Corporate_Site/PPP/Priorities/Health.
55 Lin, Sharma, USAID Center for Impact and Innovation “Greater than the Sum of its Parts. Blended Finance
Roadmap for Global Health” 2019.
56 Drobac et al. AMA Journal of Ethics, “Medical Education and Global Health Equity” 2016; https://amphealth.
org/.
54
Figures Sources
Figure 1
1. Macarayan et al, Lancet Global Health, “Assessment of quality of primary care with facility surveys: a
descriptive analysis in ten low-income and middle-income countries” 2018
2. Cazabon et al, International Jounral of Infectious Disease, “Quality of tuberculosis care in high burden
countries: the urgent need to address gaps in the care cascade” 2016
3. Manne-Goehler et al, PLoS Medicine, “Health system performance for people with diabetes in 28 low- and
middle-income countries: A cross-sectional study of nationally representative surveys” 2019
4. Manne-Goehler et al, Lancet Diabetes and Endricrinology, “Diabetes diagnosis and care in sub-Saharan
Africa: pooled analysis of individual data from 12 countries” 2016
5. Kruk et al., 2018
6. Kruk et al, Bulletin of World Health Organization, “Variation in quality of primary-care services in Kenya,
Malawi, Namibia, Rwanda, Senegal, Uganda and the United Republic of Tanzania” 2017
Figure 2
1. Luiz et al; UNICEF “Efficiency of Public Spending on Health and Education in Malawi” 2018
2. Amouzou et al, American Journal of Tropical Medicine and Hygeine, “Independent Evaluation of the
integrated Community Case Management of Childhood Illness Strategy in Malawi Using a National
Evaluation Platform” 2016
3. Nzwilli Health Policy Watch “Kenyan President Launches Benchmark Universal Health Coverage Pilot, To
Become Nationwide In 18 months” 2018
4. Martin et al, World Bank “Service Delivery Indicators, Kenya” 2013
5. World Health Organization “Primary Health Care Systems: case study from Kenya” 2017
6. Sharma, PLoS One, “Poor Quality for Poor Women? Inequities in the Quality of Antenatal and Delivery
Care in Kenya” 2017
7. Abdelwahid, Journal of Primary Health Care “Evaluation of the Level of Quality Health Care Accorded to
Patients in Selected Public and Private Hospitals in Kiambu and Nairobi Counties in Kenya”; 2013
8. Business Standard, ”India’s private hospitals saw 900k unnecessary c-sections in a year: study” 2018
9. Das et al, American Economic Review “Quality and Accountability in Health Care Delivery: Audit-Study
Evidence from Primary Care in India” 2016
10. Agustina et al, Lancet “Universal health coverage in Indonesia: concept, progress, and challenges” 2018
Figure 3
1. Iyer, Times of India, “Patients overcharged by billions each year” 2017
2. Rao, Quartz India, “Why India’s private hospitals can get away with overcharging patients” 2018
3. Business Standard 2018
55
Figure 4
1. WHO global health indicators 2016
2. World Bank development indicators 2016
Figure 15
1. Kaiser Family Foundation, “What is CMMI? And 11 other FAQs about the CMS innovation center” 2018
2. Innovation center website and portfolio; interviews
56
gorfpaeL
eulaV ot
no erac desab-eulav tpoda nac snoitan woH
egarevoc htlaeh lasrevinu ot htap eht
www.leapfrogtovalue.org

2019 LeapfrogToValue PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

2019 LeapfrogToValue PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

2019 LeapfrogToValue PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

What are some challenges facing health systems in low and middle income countries?

What are some challenges facing health systems in low and middle income countries?

What approach is proposed as an alternative to the current volume and profit based approaches?

What approach is proposed as an alternative to the current volume and profit based approaches?

Leapfrog

However, we are now at a turning point where these volume-based systems no

Value-based care offers a compelling framework to advance the quality agenda. It

PAY for value to incentivize continued improvement

High-income countries as diverse as the Netherlands, United States, and Japan

Cultivate experimentation. Governments and donors can offer the finan-

Leapfrog to value. In order to leapfrog to value, countries must scale success-

The time to seize this opportunity is now. If LMICs continue on a volume-based

Consequences of volume-based health systems................................................ 11

Risk of path dependency........................................................................................ 13

Core principles of value-based care..................................................................... 21

Case for transformation......................................................................................... 36

Cultivate value-based experimentation............................................................... 45

Apply a value lens.................................................................................................... 49

11 Leapfrog to Value : Challenge

Infectious disease: tuberculosis Non-communicable disease:

Leapfrog to Value : Challenge 12

The public sector’s volume orientation has had anoth-

The common observation across public and private

13 Leapfrog to Value : Challenge

LOW INCOME LOWER MIDDLE INCOME UPPER MIDDLE INCOME

Leapfrog to Value : Challenge 14

15 Leapfrog to Value : Challenge

Leapfrog to Value : Challenge 16

Germany United States

*Size of bubble correlates with population size

17 Leapfrog to Value : Challenge

Window of Provider • Center care in • Center care in primary

Financing and • Finance, budget, and • Reward stakeholders

19 Leapfrog to Value : Opportunity

VALUE DRIVES VOLUME VOLUME DRIVES VALUE

• Supply: Emphasis on cost-effectiveness

Leapfrog to Value : Opportunity 20

21 Leapfrog to Value : Opportunity

1 Track outcomes that matter to patients: clinical outcomes, quality

2 Aggregate data longitudinally, to understand how costs and

3 Make data insightful and actionable by standardizing,

4 Integrate medical and non-biomedical data (social, environmental,

Leapfrog to Value : Opportunity 22

PharmAccess operates a suite of technology-enabled solutions that improve

23 Leapfrog to Value : Opportunity

Watsi, Y-Combinator’s first nonprofit enterprise, is at the frontier of longitu-

Leapfrog to Value : Opportunity 24

Medic Mobile is an m-health platform that offers the Community Health

25 Leapfrog to Value : Opportunity

Leapfrog to Value : Opportunity 26

2 Establish iterative loops of learning and improvement that

3 Emphasize preventive care in community and primary care

27 Leapfrog to Value : Opportunity

Jacaranda Maternity is a low-cost, private maternity hospital in Kenya that has

Leapfrog to Value : Opportunity 28

Muso, a health systems design organization, has piloted a 360° Supervision

• Coverage rates (percentage of population reached in given catchment area)

29 Leapfrog to Value : Opportunity

Sevamob is transforming the clinical model by challenging the role of the