Population Health Management

Population Health Management (PHM) is a socially relevant topic both at the policy level and in practice. For PHM to be successfully implemented, we believe that three key elements are essential: (1) clear purpose, (2) relevant and qualitative data, and (3) stakeholder collaboration.

However, PHM operates within a complex multi-stakeholder landscape, where different players bring their own perspectives and objectives, have access to or require different data, and hold various views on how collaboration should function. This complexity makes the realization of PHM challenging, but certainly not impossible.

With these challenges and opportunities in mind, KPMG organized an event on 12 November 2024, bringing together a wide range of stakeholders to collectively reflect on the key principles of PHM. Below is a summary of some of the key messages from the dialogue that took place during the event.

Population Health Management Cycle

Key Takeaways

PHM starts from the health objectives and the Quintuple Aim, requiring strategic decisions and prioritization, as demonstrated by the COVID-19 vaccination campaign. Central to PHM is the ownership and accessibility of data, which ensures accurate, timely care. By having the right data at the right time, PHM allows healthcare providers to deliver targeted care to populations, ultimately improving health outcomes.

The data required for effective PHM extend beyond medication, prescriptions, and information in electronic health records, incorporating broader factors such as education, environment, and housing, which can also be found in Statbel. As mentioned during the event, the Antwerp fire brigade zone exemplifies this approach by collaborating with external partners like CAW to gather additional data and implement targeted actions. This underscores the need to integrate diverse data sources, including those outside the healthcare system, to build a more comprehensive and impactful PHM strategy.

What’s in it for them? Population Health Management could provide value for both citizens and healthcare providers by improving access to relevant data. Healthcare providers can use the aggregated data to refine care strategies and improve outcomes, ensuring that care remains personalized and effective. For citizens, seeing themselves reflected in aggregated data could boost engagement and strengthen their connection to individual health initiatives. However, there are concerns about the potential risks to privacy and the negative effects that data sharing could have on organizations and policies, such as undermining reputations, causing citizens to question proposed approaches, or creating competition between organizations. Striking the right balance seems to be crucial.

Starting from a population-based approach, the role of the individual citizen is often overlooked. Citizens should be integrated into collaborative models, aiming for meaningful involvement, where the information collected adds value. To build trust and encourage active participation, it is important to use and improve methods for engaging citizens at the policy level. Integrating citizens into these collaborative models can enhance public trust, much like the unquestioned acceptance of cancer registries, and should be considered standard practice.

The discussions around PHM highlight its complexity, with different stakeholders having varying purposes, yet ultimately sharing the same ultimate goal of impacting overall healthcare. While informal agreements seem easy to reach, challenges emerge when formalizing these ideas into policies and frameworks. It is important to consider the broader context and interdependencies, as some programs may already incorporate elements of the PHM cycle or contribute to PHM, even if they are not explicitly recognized as "Population Health Management".