What if we agreed that everyone needs help sometime? Would that change how we think about social?

I started my healthcare career in the mid-nineties building an Employee Assistance Programs (EAP) at PacifiCare in California (later acquired by United Healthcare). I really enjoyed working in mental health. At the time, I felt mental health needed to be elevated alongside clinical care and advocated passionately for that elevation.

I really appreciated EAPs as well. They serve as a connector to hyper-local supports and services. I was intrigued with the concept of curating a network of partners and paying them (often on a FFS basis) to support a client in a time of crisis.

Behavioral health with physical health has taken decades and there is still more room to truly synchronize care. The integration to this point required the design (and continuous refinement) of mental health / substance use diagnosis, treatment, desired outcomes, measurement and corresponding payment models. It has come from rigor, innovation, research, trial, hard lessons, and tenacity.

I see a similarity with social. Today, the healthcare industry recognizes social factors as a component of overall health (many thanks to the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation for its seminal work). Still in its infancy, healthcare leaders are advancing efforts to create common language, establish focused efforts to better understand the relationship of social factors with physical and behavioral health and so more. This is no less than a Herculean task.

What if we took a step back regarding social for a moment? Rather than forcing a model that singles out social determinants/social drivers and applying an economic and health equity lens, what if we were more systematic in our design and more inclusive in our population segmentation and engagement efforts?

What if we said: “Everyone needs help sometimes.” How would that change our thinking?