The use of robotic surgery has experienced rapid growth across diverse medical conditions, with a notable emphasis on gastrointestinal cancers. The advanced technologies incorporated into robotic surgery platforms have played a pivotal role in enabling the safe performance of complex procedures, including gastrectomy and pancreatectomy, through a minimally invasive approach. However, there exists a noteworthy gap in high-level evidence demonstrating that robotic surgery for gastric and pancreatic cancers has substantial benefits compared to traditional open or laparoscopic methods. The primary impediment hindering the broader implementation of robotic surgery is its cost. The escalating healthcare expenses in the United States have prompted healthcare providers and payors to explore patient-centered, value-based healthcare models and reimbursement systems that embrace cost-effectiveness. Thus, it is important to determine what defines the value of robotic surgery. It must either maintain or enhance oncological quality and improve complication rates compared to open procedures. Moreover, its true value should be apparent in patients\' expedited recovery and improved quality of life. Another essential aspect of robotic surgery\'s value lies in minimizing or even eliminating opioid use, even after major operations, offering considerable benefits to the broader public health landscape. A quicker return to oncological therapy has the potential to improve overall oncological outcomes, while a speedier return to work not only alleviates individual financial distress but also positively impacts societal productivity. In this article, we comprehensively review and summarize the current landscape of health economics and value-based care, with a focus on robotic surgery for gastrointestinal cancers.

At present, there is no internationally accepted set of core outcomes or measurement methods for epilepsy clinical practice. The International Consortium for Health Outcomes Measurement (ICHOM) convened an international working group of experts in epilepsy, people with epilepsy, and their representatives to develop minimum sets of standardized outcomes and outcome measurement methods for clinical practice. Using modified Delphi consensus methods with consecutive rounds of online voting over 12 months, a core set of outcomes and corresponding measurement tool packages to capture the outcomes were identified for infants, children, and adolescents with epilepsy. Consensus methods identified 20 core outcomes. In addition to the outcomes identified for the ICHOM Epilepsy adult standard set, behavioral, motor, and cognitive/language development outcomes were voted as essential for all infants and children with epilepsy. The proposed set of outcomes and measurement methods will facilitate the implementation of the use of patient-centered outcomes in daily practice.

At present, there is no internationally accepted set of core outcomes or measurement methods for epilepsy clinical practice. Therefore, the International Consortium for Health Outcomes Measurement (ICHOM) convened an international working group of experts in epilepsy, people with epilepsy and their representatives to develop minimum sets of standardized outcomes and outcomes measurement methods for clinical practice that support patient-clinician decision-making and quality improvement. Consensus methods identified 20 core outcomes. Measurement tools were recommended based on their evidence of strong clinical measurement properties, feasibility, and cross-cultural applicability. The essential outcomes included many non-seizure outcomes: anxiety, depression, suicidality, memory and attention, sleep quality, functional status, and the social impact of epilepsy. The proposed set will facilitate the implementation of the use of patient-centered outcomes in daily practice, ensuring holistic care. They also encourage harmonization of outcome measurement, and if widely implemented should reduce the heterogeneity of outcome measurement, accelerate comparative research, and facilitate quality improvement efforts.

In this article we examine the fragmented interpretation and implementation of a remarkably popular concept, value-based health care (VBHC). By building on a case study of a project team working on the development of value-based primary care services for elderly patients, we shed new light on the way in which VBHC transitions from theory to practice. The concept of \'translation\' is used to theoretically frame our analysis. Between June 2021 and May 2022, we gathered data through participant observation (50 h), semi-structured interviews (n = 20) and document analysis (n = 16). Our findings show how VBHC inspired new ways of working, and that, in line with previous studies, parts of the original concept have been neglected, while others have been modified. We identified three reasons for VBHC\'s locally varied applications: VBHC transforms to enable a growing support base, the originally radical idea is applied conservatively and the concept tends to get mixed up with other policy objectives. In all, VBHC appears to be successful in catalysing cross-disciplinary interaction aimed at improving value for patients.

Background The lifetime journey of patients with single-ventricle congenital heart disease is characterized by long-term challenges that are incompletely understood and still unfolding. Health care redesign requires a thorough understanding of this journey to create and implement solutions that improve outcomes. This study maps the lifetime journey of individuals with single-ventricle congenital heart disease and their families, identifies the most meaningful outcomes to them, and defines significant challenges in the journey. Methods and Results This qualitative research study involved experience group sessions and 1:1 interviews of patients, parents, siblings, partners, and stakeholders. Journey maps were created. The most meaningful outcomes to patients and parents and significant gaps in care were identified across the life journey. A total of 142 participants from 79 families and 28 stakeholders were included. Lifelong and life-stage specific journey maps were created. The most meaningful outcomes to patients and parents were identified and categorized using a \"capability (doing the things in life you want to), comfort (experience of physical/emotional pain/distress), and calm (experiencing health care with the least impact on daily life)\" framework. Gaps in care were identified and classified into areas of ineffective communication, lack of seamless transitions, lack of comprehensive support, structural deficiencies, and insufficient education. Conclusions There are significant gaps in care during the lifelong journey of individuals with single-ventricle congenital heart disease and their families. A thorough understanding of this journey is a critical first step in developing initiatives to redesign care around their needs and priorities. This approach can be used for people with other forms of congenital heart disease and other chronic conditions. Registration URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT04613934.

The congenital heart care community faces a myriad of public health issues that act as barriers toward optimum patient outcomes. In this article, we attempt to define advocacy and policy initiatives meant to spotlight and potentially address these challenges. Issues are organized into the following 3 key facets of our community: patient population, health care delivery, and workforce. We discuss the social determinants of health and health care disparities that affect patients in the community that require the attention of policy makers. Furthermore, we highlight the many needs of the growing adults with congenital heart disease and those with comorbidities, highlighting concerns regarding the inequities in access to cardiac care and the need for multidisciplinary care. We also recognize the problems of transparency in outcomes reporting and the promising application of telehealth. Finally, we highlight the training of providers, measures of productivity, diversity in the workforce, and the importance of patient-family centered organizations in advocating for patients. Although all of these issues remain relevant to many subspecialties in medicine, this article attempts to illustrate the unique needs of this population and highlight ways in which to work together to address important opportunities for change in the cardiac care community and beyond. This article provides a framework for policy and advocacy efforts for the next decade.