Age-Friendly Health Systems: A Comprehensive Analysis of Historical Development, Global Adoption, Implementation Challenges, Economic Impact, and Future Directions

Abstract

Age-Friendly Health Systems (AFHS) represent a foundational and transformative paradigm in healthcare delivery for older adults, moving beyond conventional disease-centric models to embrace a holistic, person-centered approach. At its core lies the ‘4Ms’ framework: What Matters, Medications, Mentation, and Mobility – four interdependent elements critical to providing optimal care for this demographic. This comprehensive report offers an exhaustive examination of the AFHS movement, detailing its intricate historical evolution, exploring its nuanced global adoption and the variations observed across diverse healthcare landscapes, and presenting in-depth case studies of both highly successful and challenging implementations. Furthermore, it meticulously analyzes the profound economic impact and tangible return on investment that AFHS can yield for health systems, and critically reviews the extensive and growing evidence base substantiating its effectiveness. Additionally, the report delves into specific policy levers, innovative advocacy strategies, and the significant future challenges and opportunities for the widespread, equitable, and sustainable implementation of AFHS, emphasizing the imperative for ongoing adaptation and innovation.

Many thanks to our sponsor Esdebe who helped us prepare this research report.

1. Introduction

The accelerating demographic shift towards an older global population stands as one of the defining challenges of the 21st century. Projections from authoritative bodies, such as the U.S. Census Bureau and the American Hospital Association, indicate a dramatic increase in the number of individuals aged 65 or older, with estimates suggesting nearly 95 million Americans will fall into this age bracket by 2060 (aha.org). This unprecedented demographic transformation profoundly impacts healthcare systems worldwide, necessitating a fundamental re-evaluation of how care is conceptualized, delivered, and sustained. Older adults frequently present with complex health profiles, characterized by multimorbidity (the presence of multiple chronic conditions), polypharmacy (the concurrent use of multiple medications), atypical disease presentations, and a higher propensity for functional decline and cognitive impairment. Traditional healthcare models, often fragmented and disease-specific, are frequently ill-equipped to adequately address these multifaceted needs, leading to suboptimal outcomes, increased healthcare utilization, and diminished quality of life for older patients.

In response to this critical imperative, Age-Friendly Health Systems (AFHS) have emerged as a strategic, evidence-based, and compassionate solution. Spearheaded by a coalition of influential organizations including The John A. Hartford Foundation and the Institute for Healthcare Improvement (IHI), AFHS aims to systematically embed principles of geriatric excellence into all care settings. This movement seeks to ensure that healthcare for older adults is not only safe and effective but also deeply person-centered, aligning care delivery with the unique requirements, preferences, and goals of each individual. The core of the AFHS framework is the ‘4Ms’: What Matters, Medications, Mentation, and Mobility. These pillars provide a clear, actionable guide for healthcare professionals to assess, intervene, and manage the health of older adults, fostering an environment where care is tailored to promote function, prevent harm, and honor individual values. This report will extensively explore the genesis, global reach, practical applications, economic implications, and future trajectory of this vital initiative, providing a comprehensive understanding of its potential to revolutionize elder care.

Many thanks to our sponsor Esdebe who helped us prepare this research report.

2. Historical Development of Age-Friendly Health Systems

The journey towards Age-Friendly Health Systems is rooted in a broader global movement recognizing the societal implications of an aging population. This historical trajectory can be traced through several pivotal developments, evolving from general age-friendly principles to specific healthcare applications.

2.1 The Genesis of the Age-Friendly Movement

The concept of ‘age-friendly’ environments gained significant international prominence in the late 20th and early 21st centuries. Early foundational work by the World Health Organization (WHO) played a crucial role. In 1999, the WHO launched the ‘Active Ageing: A Policy Framework’ which advocated for health, participation, and security as key pillars for quality of life in older age. This was followed by the Second World Assembly on Ageing in Madrid in 2002, which adopted the Madrid International Plan of Action on Ageing (MIPAA). MIPAA represented a global commitment to seize the opportunities and meet the challenges of population ageing in the 21st century, providing a framework for governments and other stakeholders to formulate policies and programs. Its three priority directions focused on older persons and development, advancing health and well-being into old age, and ensuring enabling and supportive environments.

Building upon these foundations, the WHO officially launched its Global Network of Age-Friendly Cities and Communities in 2010. This initiative provided a structured framework for cities and communities worldwide to adapt their structures and services to be accessible to and inclusive of older people. It encompassed various domains such as outdoor spaces and buildings, transportation, housing, social participation, respect and social inclusion, civic participation and employment, communication and information, and community support and health services. While health services were one component, there was a growing recognition that a more focused, systematized approach was required within the healthcare sector itself.

2.2 The Emergence of Age-Friendly Healthcare and the ‘4Ms’ Framework

The specific articulation of ‘age-friendly’ principles within healthcare gained significant momentum through the concerted efforts of key organizations in the United States. The John A. Hartford Foundation, a philanthropic organization dedicated to improving the care of older adults, recognized the urgent need for a transformative approach. Their strategic funding and leadership were instrumental in advocating for geriatric-focused initiatives. Collaborating with the Institute for Healthcare Improvement (IHI), a renowned leader in health care quality improvement and patient safety, proved to be a pivotal partnership.

In 2017, this collaboration officially launched the Age-Friendly Health Systems initiative. The goal was ambitious: to rapidly spread evidence-based practices for age-friendly care across all care settings. The initiative distilled the complex principles of geriatric care into a concise, actionable, and measurable framework known as the ‘4Ms’. This framework was designed to be universally applicable yet flexible enough to adapt to various clinical environments and patient populations. The ‘4Ms’ are:

2.2.1 What Matters

This principle emphasizes understanding and aligning care with the older adult’s health goals, care preferences, and values, including their end-of-life wishes. It moves beyond a purely biomedical model to truly person-centered care. This involves engaging in shared decision-making, documenting preferences in the electronic health record, and ensuring care plans reflect what the individual deems most important, enabling them to live in a way that aligns with their personal values and priorities.

2.2.2 Medication

This ‘M’ focuses on optimizing medication use to reduce harm and improve efficacy, particularly for older adults who are often on multiple medications (polypharmacy). It involves a systematic review of all medications, including over-the-counter drugs and supplements, to identify those that may be unnecessary or harmful (e.g., using the Beers Criteria or STOPP/START criteria). The goal is to deprescribe where appropriate, minimize adverse drug events (ADEs), and ensure that medications are necessary, effective, and align with the patient’s ‘What Matters’ goals.

2.2.3 Mentation

Mentation addresses the critical importance of cognitive health. This includes preventing, identifying, treating, and managing delirium, dementia (all types), and depression. Routine screening for cognitive impairment and mood disorders, appropriate assessment, and timely interventions (both pharmacological and non-pharmacological) are key. This ‘M’ seeks to preserve cognitive function, manage behavioral symptoms, and support the mental well-being of older adults.

2.2.4 Mobility

Mobility focuses on ensuring that older adults move safely every day. This involves assessing functional capacity, identifying risks for falls and immobility, and implementing interventions to maintain or improve physical function. Examples include early mobilization protocols, regular ambulation, strength and balance exercises, and safe assistive device use. Maintaining mobility is crucial for independence, preventing deconditioning, and reducing the risk of complications like pressure injuries, pneumonia, and venous thromboembolism.

2.3 Evolution and Recognition

Since its launch, the AFHS initiative has rapidly gained traction. Healthcare organizations demonstrate their commitment by becoming ‘Committed to Care Excellence,’ which means they have begun implementing the 4Ms. Further recognition levels, ‘Proficient’ and ‘Exemplar,’ signify deeper integration and documented improvements in outcomes. This structured approach to recognition has facilitated widespread adoption, creating a growing network of healthcare providers dedicated to transforming care for older adults.

Many thanks to our sponsor Esdebe who helped us prepare this research report.

3. Global Adoption and Variations

The Age-Friendly Health Systems movement, originating from specific needs identified within the US healthcare context, has demonstrated remarkable adaptability, inspiring similar initiatives and adaptations across the globe. While the core ‘4Ms’ framework remains a guiding principle, its implementation varies significantly, reflecting diverse healthcare infrastructures, cultural values, economic conditions, and policy landscapes.

3.1 Adoption in the United States

Within the United States, the AFHS initiative has achieved substantial penetration across a wide spectrum of care settings. As reported by the American Hospital Association, over 5,000 healthcare organizations have been recognized as Age-Friendly (aha.org). This includes large academic medical centers, community hospitals, ambulatory care clinics, long-term care facilities (nursing homes, assisted living), emergency departments, and even home health agencies. The initiative’s success in the U.S. can be attributed to several factors:

• Strong Advocacy and Partnership: The sustained leadership of The John A. Hartford Foundation, IHI, the American Hospital Association (AHA), and the Catholic Health Association of the United States (CHA) has provided robust advocacy, resources, and technical assistance.
• Clear Framework: The simplicity and actionable nature of the ‘4Ms’ make it relatively easy for diverse clinical teams to understand and integrate into existing workflows.
• Quality Improvement Focus: AFHS aligns well with existing quality improvement methodologies and metrics, making it attractive to organizations already engaged in enhancing patient safety and outcomes.
• Financial Incentives: The shift towards value-based care models in the U.S. has encouraged providers to focus on quality and patient outcomes, which AFHS demonstrably improves, indirectly leading to financial benefits through reduced readmissions and complications.

3.2 International Adaptations and Expansions

The principles of age-friendly care have resonated internationally, leading to diverse applications:

3.2.1 Japan’s Community-Based Integrated Care

Japan, as one of the world’s most rapidly aging nations, has developed a sophisticated and deeply integrated approach to age-friendly care, heavily emphasizing community-based models to support ‘aging in place.’ Their system is characterized by:

• Long-Term Care Insurance (LTCI): Introduced in 2000, Japan’s LTCI system is a cornerstone, providing financial support for a range of services from home care and day services to institutional care, significantly reducing the burden on families and promoting community living.
• Comprehensive Community Care Systems: These systems aim to integrate medical care, long-term care, prevention services, and daily life support within a 30-minute radius for older residents. Key components include local elder care centers, home-visit nursing services, day care centers, and multi-functional small-scale home care services that combine nursing and care services.
• Geriatric Workforce Development: Japan has invested in training geriatric specialists, care managers (who coordinate services), and public health nurses to manage the complex needs of older adults.
• Cultural Context: The Japanese emphasis on respect for elders and family responsibility plays a significant role, often leading to a blended approach where formal services complement family care, and the ‘What Matters’ often encompasses family and community ties.

While not explicitly labeled ‘AFHS’ in the American sense, Japan’s system embodies the spirit of the ‘4Ms’ by optimizing mobility and mentation through preventative programs, managing medications through integrated care plans, and deeply honoring ‘What Matters’ through patient and family-centered support within familiar community settings. The strong focus on preventing functional decline and promoting social participation directly addresses elements of Mobility and Mentation.

3.2.2 European Union Initiatives

Several European countries and the EU as a whole have adopted strategies aligned with age-friendly principles:

• Integrated Care Models: Many EU countries, particularly in Scandinavia (e.g., Denmark, Sweden) and the Netherlands, have highly developed integrated care models that bridge primary care, social care, and specialized geriatric services. These models aim to provide seamless transitions and comprehensive support for older adults, often with a strong focus on preventative health and maintaining independence.
• Frailty Programs: Countries like the United Kingdom have implemented national programs to identify and manage frailty, a common geriatric syndrome. These ‘Frailty Hubs’ or integrated care pathways directly address elements of Mobility and Mentation, aiming to prevent adverse outcomes and ensure appropriate, individualized care for frail older people.
• Policy Support: The European Commission has initiatives like the European Innovation Partnership on Active and Healthy Ageing (EIP on AHA), which promotes innovative solutions for healthy and active aging, aligning with the broader AFHS goals. National health strategies often include provisions for geriatric care, fall prevention, and dementia strategies.

3.2.3 Adaptations in Low- and Middle-Income Countries (LMICs)

Implementing age-friendly principles in LMICs presents unique challenges and requires significant adaptation due to resource constraints, differing disease burdens, and varied cultural contexts. Studies funded by the WHO Centre for Health Development in Kobe, Japan, highlight these complexities (health-policy-systems.biomedcentral.com). Adaptations often include:

• Task-Shifting: Utilizing community health workers or nurses to deliver basic age-friendly interventions, such as fall prevention exercises or medication counseling, where specialized geriatric staff are scarce.
• Leveraging Traditional Support Systems: Integrating age-friendly care with existing family and community support structures, which often form the primary safety net for older adults in these regions.
• Focus on Essential Interventions: Prioritizing high-impact, low-cost interventions for the ‘4Ms,’ such as basic mobility assessments, education on healthy aging, and simplified medication review protocols.
• Addressing Communicable Diseases: While AFHS typically focuses on chronic conditions, LMICs often face a dual burden of communicable diseases alongside emerging non-communicable diseases in older populations, requiring a broader public health approach.

The global adoption of AFHS, whether explicitly named or implicitly integrated, underscores the universal relevance of its core principles. The variations highlight the need for cultural sensitivity, resource appropriateness, and policy alignment to effectively address the diverse needs of older populations worldwide.

Many thanks to our sponsor Esdebe who helped us prepare this research report.

4. Case Studies of Implementation

Examining specific implementations provides valuable insights into the practical application of Age-Friendly Health Systems, showcasing both remarkable successes and persistent challenges.

4.1 Successful Implementations

Successful AFHS implementations demonstrate that a systematic focus on the ‘4Ms’ can lead to tangible improvements in patient care, outcomes, and system efficiency.

4.1.1 Atrium Health (United States)

Atrium Health, a large healthcare system operating primarily in North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia, stands out as an exemplar in AFHS implementation. Their commitment to integrating the ‘4Ms’ into routine clinical practice across multiple sites has yielded significant positive results. Their strategy has encompassed:

• System-Wide Training: Atrium Health invested heavily in training its diverse workforce – from physicians and nurses to allied health professionals and administrative staff – on the principles and practical application of the ‘4Ms’. This ensures a common understanding and consistent approach to age-friendly care.
• Electronic Health Record (EHR) Integration: They developed specific workflows and templates within their EHR to prompt clinicians to assess and document each of the ‘4Ms’. For ‘What Matters,’ structured fields allow for documentation of patient goals and preferences, making them readily accessible to the entire care team. For ‘Medications,’ alerts for potentially inappropriate medications and prompts for medication reconciliation are built in. Delirium screening tools (like the CAM or 4AT) are incorporated for ‘Mentation,’ and mobility assessments (e.g., timed ‘Get Up and Go’ tests) are standard for ‘Mobility’.
• Multidisciplinary Team Approach: Atrium Health fostered interdisciplinary collaboration, ensuring that geriatricians, pharmacists, social workers, physical therapists, and nurses work in concert to address older adults’ complex needs. Regular ‘4Ms’ huddles and care conferences are common.
• Specific Program Initiatives: Examples include specialized Geriatric Emergency Departments that incorporate rapid ‘4Ms’ screening and intervention, Age-Friendly units within hospitals focusing on delirium prevention and early mobility, and outpatient clinics with dedicated geriatric care coordinators.

Outcomes: Atrium Health has reported improved patient satisfaction scores among older adults, reduced rates of delirium in hospitalized patients, a decrease in falls, and a notable reduction in hospital readmissions for this population. Their integrated approach has not only enhanced the quality of care but also optimized care coordination and streamlined patient flow, demonstrating the practical efficacy of the AFHS model on a large scale.

4.1.2 Japan’s Community-Based Integrated Care System

Japan’s commitment to supporting aging in place through its robust community-based care system serves as another powerful case study of successful age-friendly principles in action. This model goes beyond the clinical setting to encompass a broader ecosystem of support:

• Integrated Medical and Social Services: Japan’s system is built on the premise that healthcare cannot be separated from social support. Local governments act as central hubs, coordinating medical services (e.g., home-visit doctors, community clinics) with long-term care services (e.g., home helpers, day service centers, short-stay facilities) and social support (e.g., meal delivery, housing modifications, transportation assistance).
• Comprehensive Care Managers: A key feature is the role of the care manager, who assesses the older adult’s needs holistically, develops an individualized care plan incorporating both medical and social services, and coordinates their delivery. This directly reflects the ‘What Matters’ principle, ensuring care is tailored to the individual’s life goals and preferences within their community.
• Emphasis on Prevention and Rehabilitation: Significant investment is made in preventative health programs (e.g., exercise classes, nutritional counseling) and rehabilitation services available in the community to maintain Mobility and Mentation, thereby reducing the need for costly acute care or institutionalization. This proactive approach helps manage chronic conditions and prevent functional decline.
• Family and Volunteer Engagement: While formal services are extensive, the system also actively supports family caregivers and leverages volunteer networks, recognizing their invaluable role in supporting older adults and preventing social isolation.

Outcomes: Japan’s model has demonstrably led to lower rates of institutionalization, particularly for long-term care, compared to many Western countries. It has fostered a higher quality of life for older adults by enabling them to remain in their homes and communities for longer, reducing the burden on acute care hospitals, and promoting greater social participation. This success underscores the power of a national, integrated, and community-centric approach to age-friendly care.

4.2 Challenging Implementations

Despite the clear benefits, implementing AFHS is not without its hurdles. These challenges often shed light on critical areas requiring further research, policy intervention, and adaptive strategies.

4.2.1 Resource Constraints in Low- and Middle-Income Countries (LMICs)

Implementing the ‘4Ms’ framework in LMICs presents formidable obstacles. While the principles are universally applicable, the context for delivery differs dramatically. Consider a hypothetical scenario in a rural district in Sub-Saharan Africa:

• Limited Infrastructure: Many clinics lack basic diagnostic equipment, reliable electricity, clean water, and adequate physical space to accommodate age-friendly design principles. Transport for older adults to reach these facilities can also be a significant barrier to Mobility.
• Workforce Shortages: There is a severe scarcity of trained healthcare professionals, especially those with specialized geriatric knowledge. Nurses and doctors are often generalists, juggling multiple responsibilities, making dedicated ‘4Ms’ assessments and interventions difficult to implement consistently.
• Medication Accessibility and Affordability: Essential medications for chronic conditions common in older adults (e.g., hypertension, diabetes, depression) may be unavailable, unaffordable, or poorly supplied, severely limiting the ‘Medication’ aspect of the ‘4Ms’. Polypharmacy might be less of an issue, but access to any appropriate medication becomes the primary concern.
• Differing Disease Burden: While non-communicable diseases are rising, LMICs often contend with a high burden of infectious diseases, malnutrition, and other conditions that can complicate geriatric care, diverting resources and attention.
• Data and Monitoring Limitations: Lack of robust health information systems makes it challenging to track ‘4Ms’ implementation, measure outcomes, and demonstrate effectiveness, hindering continuous quality improvement.

Consequences: These constraints can lead to an inability to provide comprehensive age-friendly care, resulting in missed diagnoses (especially for Mentation issues like dementia), untreated chronic conditions, preventable functional decline, and poorer health outcomes for older adults. Strategies often require task-shifting, leveraging community health workers, and focusing on essential, low-cost interventions that can be adapted to local realities (health-policy-systems.biomedcentral.com).

4.2.2 Policy and Cultural Barriers

Even in developed nations, deeply entrenched policy frameworks and cultural norms can impede AFHS adoption:

• Fee-for-Service Reimbursement Models: In systems dominated by fee-for-service models, healthcare providers are reimbursed for individual procedures or visits rather than for comprehensive, coordinated care. This disincentivizes the time-intensive assessments required for the ‘4Ms’ (e.g., detailed ‘What Matters’ conversations, comprehensive medication reviews, in-depth mentation screenings), as these activities may not be adequately compensated. This can create a perverse incentive against the holistic approach of AFHS.
• Lack of Geriatric Specialization Funding: Many countries face a critical shortage of geriatricians, geriatric nurses, and other specialists. Insufficient funding for training programs and attractive career paths in geriatrics means a persistent gap in specialized expertise needed to lead and sustain AFHS initiatives.
• Stigma Around Aging and Mental Health: In some cultures, there can be a pervasive societal stigma associated with aging itself, or specifically with conditions like dementia or depression. This can lead to under-reporting of symptoms, delayed seeking of care, and a reluctance to accept interventions related to Mentation, for instance. Family members may resist discussions about their elder’s cognitive decline or end-of-life preferences, viewing them as disrespectful or fatalistic.
• Cultural Preferences for Family Care: While family involvement is crucial, in some cultures, the expectation that families provide all care for older adults can sometimes lead to a reluctance to engage with formal healthcare services, particularly for long-term support, or to fully disclose ‘What Matters’ if it contradicts family expectations.
• Fragmented Health and Social Care Systems: A lack of seamless integration between health services (hospitals, clinics) and social care services (home care, community support) is a common barrier. This fragmentation makes it difficult to address the holistic needs of older adults, especially for issues like Mobility and ‘What Matters,’ which often require a blend of medical and social interventions.

Overcoming these barriers requires a multi-pronged approach involving comprehensive policy reforms to shift towards value-based care, dedicated investment in geriatric workforce development, targeted public health campaigns to address stigma, and culturally sensitive engagement strategies that involve community leaders and adapt the ‘4Ms’ messaging to local values. Without addressing these systemic and cultural underpinnings, the widespread and equitable implementation of AFHS remains a significant challenge.

Many thanks to our sponsor Esdebe who helped us prepare this research report.

5. Economic Impact and Return on Investment

The implementation of Age-Friendly Health Systems extends beyond clinical quality and patient satisfaction, demonstrating a compelling economic rationale through tangible cost savings and a positive return on investment (ROI). Healthcare systems globally are under increasing pressure to deliver high-value care efficiently, and AFHS aligns perfectly with this imperative by reducing unnecessary utilization and improving outcomes.

5.1 Direct Cost Savings

AFHS generates direct cost savings through several mechanisms:

• Reduced Readmissions: A primary driver of healthcare costs, hospital readmissions for older adults are often preventable. By focusing on the ‘4Ms’—particularly optimizing Medications, preventing delirium (Mentation), and maintaining Mobility—AFHS interventions reduce the likelihood of post-discharge complications that necessitate readmission. Comprehensive medication reviews minimize adverse drug events, and early mobility protocols prevent deconditioning and reduce the risk of post-surgical complications, all contributing to lower readmission rates. A systematic review of outpatient settings, for example, highlighted that AFHS implementation strategies were associated with reduced readmissions (journals.sagepub.com).
• Decreased Length of Stay (LOS): For hospitalized older adults, prolonged LOS is associated with increased risks of hospital-acquired infections, delirium, functional decline, and higher costs. AFHS interventions, such as early mobilization (Mobility), proactive delirium screening and management (Mentation), and patient-centered care plans (‘What Matters’), contribute to faster recovery and discharge, thereby shortening LOS and freeing up valuable bed capacity.
• Fewer Emergency Department (ED) Visits: Many ED visits by older adults are for preventable conditions or poorly managed chronic diseases. AFHS, through enhanced primary care, medication management, and proactive identification of issues related to Mentation and Mobility, can reduce the incidence of these avoidable ED visits, which are costly and often expose older adults to less-than-ideal care environments.
• Reduction in Adverse Drug Events (ADEs): Polypharmacy is highly prevalent among older adults and is a leading cause of ADEs, resulting in hospitalizations, ED visits, and increased healthcare expenditure. The ‘Medication’ pillar of AFHS systematically addresses this by deprescribing inappropriate medications and optimizing regimens, directly leading to a reduction in costly ADEs.
• Prevention of Falls and Injuries: Falls are a major cause of morbidity, mortality, and healthcare costs in older adults. By implementing robust fall prevention programs under the ‘Mobility’ pillar, AFHS can significantly reduce fall-related injuries (e.g., hip fractures, head trauma), thereby averting expensive surgeries, rehabilitation, and long-term care needs.
• Improved Chronic Disease Management: The holistic approach of AFHS facilitates better management of chronic conditions, preventing acute exacerbations and complications that would otherwise necessitate expensive acute care interventions.

5.2 Alignment with Value-Based Care Models

The economic advantages of AFHS are particularly pronounced within value-based care frameworks. These models, which reimburse providers based on the quality of care and patient outcomes rather than the volume of services, inherently favor AFHS principles.

• Accountable Care Organizations (ACOs): ACOs are incentivized to keep patient populations healthy and reduce overall healthcare costs. AFHS helps ACOs achieve these goals by improving patient outcomes, reducing avoidable hospitalizations, and enhancing preventative care for their older adult beneficiaries.
• Bundled Payments: In bundled payment models, a single payment covers all services related to a specific condition or episode of care (e.g., a hip replacement). AFHS, by optimizing the patient’s condition pre-surgery (Medications, Mobility), preventing complications during hospitalization (Mentation, Mobility), and ensuring effective post-discharge planning (‘What Matters’), can significantly reduce the total cost for the bundled episode while improving outcomes.
• Pay-for-Performance Programs: Many payers link a portion of reimbursement to performance metrics related to quality and patient safety. AFHS interventions often directly improve these metrics, such as rates of delirium, falls, and patient satisfaction, thus allowing organizations to earn higher incentive payments.

5.3 Indirect Benefits and Societal ROI

Beyond direct healthcare cost savings, AFHS yields substantial indirect benefits that contribute to a broader societal return on investment:

• Improved Quality of Life and Independence: By maintaining functional independence (Mobility), preserving cognitive function (Mentation), and aligning care with personal goals (‘What Matters’), AFHS significantly enhances the quality of life for older adults. This allows them to remain active, engaged, and independent in their communities for longer, reducing reliance on long-term institutional care, which carries significant personal and societal costs.
• Reduced Burden on Family Caregivers: When older adults receive comprehensive, age-friendly care, the burden on unpaid family caregivers can be substantially alleviated. This includes reduced stress, financial strain, and time commitment for caregivers, potentially enabling them to maintain employment and improve their own well-being.
• Enhanced Workforce Productivity: By keeping older adults healthier and more independent, AFHS can indirectly support the participation of older adults in the workforce, contributing to economic productivity. Similarly, by reducing caregiver burden, it can prevent younger family members from leaving the workforce to provide care.
• Improved Staff Morale and Efficiency: Healthcare professionals working in age-friendly environments often report higher job satisfaction because they feel they are providing more effective and compassionate care. Streamlined workflows and better patient outcomes can also lead to increased operational efficiency and reduced staff burnout.

While calculating a precise ROI for AFHS can be complex due to the interplay of various factors and the long-term nature of some benefits, the growing body of evidence strongly indicates that investing in age-friendly care is not just a clinical imperative but also a financially astute decision for healthcare systems and society at large. The improvements in patient outcomes, coupled with reductions in costly adverse events and readmissions, demonstrate that AFHS is a powerful strategy for achieving both clinical excellence and financial sustainability in an aging world.

Many thanks to our sponsor Esdebe who helped us prepare this research report.

6. Evidence Base Supporting Effectiveness

The effectiveness of Age-Friendly Health Systems is underpinned by a growing and robust body of evidence, demonstrating tangible improvements across various clinical and organizational domains. This evidence supports the notion that systematically applying the ‘4Ms’ framework enhances patient outcomes, improves the patient experience, and optimizes resource utilization.

6.1 Impact of the ‘4Ms’ on Patient Outcomes

Studies consistently show that integrating the ‘4Ms’ framework into healthcare delivery leads to significant positive impacts for older adults. For instance, a systematic review highlighted that AFHS implementation strategies resulted in improved patient outcomes, reduced readmissions, and decreased lengths of stay (journals.sagepub.com). Other research, such as findings published in PubMed, further supports that the ‘4Ms’ framework enhances patient satisfaction, reduces hospital readmissions, and improves overall health outcomes (pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov). Delving deeper into each ‘M’ reveals specific mechanisms of impact:

• What Matters: Documenting and honoring ‘What Matters’ leads to care that is more aligned with patient values and preferences. This results in higher patient satisfaction, reduced moral distress for patients and families, and a decrease in unwanted or futile interventions. For example, studies on shared decision-making show improved patient adherence to care plans and better goal-concordant care, especially at the end of life.
• Medication: Focused medication review and deprescribing, guided by tools like the Beers Criteria, have been shown to reduce polypharmacy, decrease the incidence of adverse drug events (ADEs), lower emergency department visits, and reduce hospitalizations related to medication mismanagement. Pharmacist-led medication reconciliation programs are particularly effective in optimizing regimens for older adults.
• Mentation: Systematic screening and management of delirium have demonstrably reduced its incidence, severity, and duration in hospitalized older adults. Early identification and appropriate management of dementia and depression improve cognitive function where possible, manage behavioral symptoms effectively, and enhance overall quality of life. Non-pharmacological interventions for delirium and dementia, such as reorientation, early mobilization, and maintaining sleep-wake cycles, have strong evidence bases.
• Mobility: Implementing fall prevention programs, early ambulation protocols, and individualized exercise plans significantly reduces the risk of falls and fall-related injuries (e.g., hip fractures). Maintaining or improving functional mobility is critical for preserving independence, reducing deconditioning during hospitalization, and preventing complications such as pressure ulcers and pneumonia.

6.2 System-Level Benefits and Quality Improvement

Beyond individual patient outcomes, AFHS initiatives contribute to broader system-level improvements:

• Enhanced Care Coordination: The ‘4Ms’ framework naturally fosters interdisciplinary collaboration. Nurses, physicians, pharmacists, social workers, and therapists work together to address all four Ms, leading to more coordinated and holistic care plans. This is particularly crucial for transitions of care, reducing readmission rates.
• Improved Patient Safety: By proactively addressing risks related to medications, mentation, and mobility, AFHS contributes significantly to a safer care environment, reducing iatrogenic harm and preventable complications.
• Staff Engagement and Satisfaction: Healthcare professionals often report higher job satisfaction when they feel they are providing high-quality, patient-centered care that genuinely improves older adults’ lives. The clarity of the ‘4Ms’ framework can empower staff across all levels of care.
• Operational Efficiency: As discussed in the economic impact section, reductions in LOS, readmissions, and ED visits lead to more efficient utilization of hospital beds and staff resources.

6.3 Methodologies and Research Gaps

The evidence supporting AFHS comes from a variety of research methodologies, including:

• Quasi-experimental Studies: These studies compare outcomes in healthcare organizations that have implemented AFHS with those that have not, often using pre- and post-implementation data. They are valuable for demonstrating real-world effectiveness in diverse settings.
• Quality Improvement Initiatives: Many organizations track specific ‘4Ms’ metrics (e.g., delirium rates, fall rates, medication reconciliation completion) as part of ongoing quality improvement efforts. The aggregate data from these initiatives provides a powerful practical evidence base.
• Observational Studies and Cohort Studies: These examine associations between ‘4Ms’ implementation and various patient outcomes over time.
• Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses: These synthesize findings from multiple studies, providing a higher level of evidence regarding the overall effectiveness of specific AFHS interventions.

Despite the growing evidence, several research gaps and challenges remain:

• Standardization of Outcome Measures: While the ‘4Ms’ provide a framework, the specific metrics used to measure their implementation and impact can vary across studies and organizations, making direct comparisons challenging. There is a need for standardized, validated outcome measures tailored to the AFHS framework.
• Longitudinal Studies: More long-term studies are needed to understand the sustained impact of AFHS on quality of life, functional independence, and healthcare utilization over many years, particularly for chronic conditions.
• Cost-Effectiveness Analyses: While economic benefits are increasingly clear, robust cost-effectiveness analyses across diverse healthcare systems and payment models are needed to provide a stronger business case for investment.
• Implementation Science: Further research is required to understand how best to implement AFHS in different contexts – identifying critical success factors, barriers, and scalable strategies for various resource levels and cultural settings.
• Impact on Health Equity: Research should explore how AFHS impacts health disparities and whether certain populations (e.g., racial/ethnic minorities, rural populations, those with lower socioeconomic status) benefit differently, and how to tailor AFHS to ensure equitable access and outcomes.

In conclusion, the evidence base for Age-Friendly Health Systems is compelling and continues to expand. While challenges remain in standardizing implementation strategies and outcome measures, the core principles of the ‘4Ms’ are consistently associated with improved patient-centered care, better health outcomes, and more efficient healthcare delivery for older adults.

Many thanks to our sponsor Esdebe who helped us prepare this research report.

7. Policy Levers and Advocacy Strategies

Achieving widespread and sustainable adoption of Age-Friendly Health Systems necessitates concerted efforts from policymakers, healthcare leaders, and advocacy groups. Strategic policy levers and effective advocacy strategies are crucial to create an enabling environment, provide necessary resources, and foster a culture of age-friendly care.

7.1 Policy Integration

Incorporating age-friendly principles into national and regional health policies is perhaps the most fundamental lever. This ensures a systemic, rather than piecemeal, approach to addressing the needs of older adults.

• National Strategies for Aging: Governments can develop comprehensive national strategies for healthy aging that explicitly include AFHS as a core component of healthcare delivery. Such strategies might mandate geriatric assessments for older adults in specific settings or promote the ‘4Ms’ as a standard of care.
• Health System Reforms: Integrating age-friendly principles into broader health system reforms can ensure that new payment models, care coordination initiatives, and quality improvement programs inherently support the ‘4Ms’. For instance, reforms that promote integrated care or value-based purchasing can create a natural alignment with AFHS goals.
• Legislative Mandates: Specific legislation can be enacted to support AFHS, such as mandating the inclusion of geriatric competencies in healthcare professional training, requiring hospitals to have age-friendly emergency departments, or establishing state-level AFHS initiatives.
• Data Collection and Reporting: Policies can require healthcare organizations to collect and report specific age-friendly metrics (e.g., fall rates, delirium incidence, patient-reported ‘What Matters’ outcomes). This data can then inform policy adjustments, drive quality improvement, and demonstrate the impact of AFHS.

7.2 Financial Incentives

Financial incentives are powerful drivers for accelerating AFHS adoption, especially in healthcare systems where economic sustainability is a key concern.

• Enhanced Reimbursement: Payers (governmental or private) can provide enhanced reimbursement for services that are integral to AFHS, such as comprehensive geriatric assessments, medication reconciliation performed by pharmacists, or time spent on ‘What Matters’ conversations. This recognizes the value of these time-intensive, high-impact activities.
• Grants and Funding Programs: Dedicated grant programs can fund healthcare organizations for AFHS implementation, staff training, infrastructure improvements (e.g., age-friendly physical environments), and technology solutions that support the ‘4Ms’.
• Performance-Based Payments: Tying a portion of reimbursement to AFHS-related quality metrics (e.g., reduced readmissions for older adults, lower rates of healthcare-associated delirium, improved patient satisfaction scores) incentivizes organizations to invest in and sustain AFHS practices. Value-based care models, as discussed previously, are prime examples of this.
• Demonstration Projects: Funding for pilot projects allows healthcare organizations to test innovative AFHS models, gather data on effectiveness and cost-efficiency, and share best practices, paving the way for wider adoption.

7.3 Education and Training

Developing a competent and confident workforce is paramount for effective AFHS implementation. This requires robust education and training initiatives.

• Curriculum Integration: Integrating geriatric competencies and the ‘4Ms’ framework into the curricula of medical schools, nursing programs, pharmacy schools, and allied health professional training is essential to build a future workforce prepared for age-friendly care.
• Continuing Professional Development: Providing accessible and engaging continuing medical education (CME) and professional development courses for existing healthcare providers on age-friendly practices, including specialized training on topics like deprescribing, delirium recognition, and motivational interviewing for ‘What Matters’ conversations.
• Interprofessional Training: Encouraging interprofessional training where different disciplines learn together about the ‘4Ms’ fosters team-based care and improves coordination, which is fundamental to AFHS.
• Geriatric Workforce Development: Investing in programs to increase the number of specialized geriatricians, geriatric nurse practitioners, and other geriatric specialists who can champion and lead AFHS initiatives within healthcare organizations.

7.4 Community Engagement

Involving older adults, their families, and caregivers in the design, implementation, and evaluation of AFHS is critical to ensure care models are truly patient-centered and responsive to their needs and preferences.

• Patient and Family Advisory Councils (PFACs): Establishing PFACs composed of older adults and their caregivers can provide invaluable insights into ‘What Matters’ to them, inform service design, and identify potential barriers to care.
• Co-design of Services: Engaging older adults as partners in the co-design of age-friendly environments, programs, and communication materials ensures that services are relevant, accessible, and acceptable.
• Community Partnerships: Collaborating with community-based organizations (e.g., senior centers, faith-based groups, advocacy organizations) helps extend age-friendly principles beyond the clinic walls, promoting health and well-being in the broader community. These partnerships can also facilitate referrals to social support services that impact the ‘4Ms’ (e.g., transportation for mobility, social activities for mentation).
• Public Awareness Campaigns: Launching campaigns to raise public awareness about the importance of age-friendly care, the ‘4Ms’ framework, and the benefits of proactive health management for older adults can empower individuals to advocate for their own care.

7.5 Intersectoral Collaboration

AFHS recognizes that health is influenced by factors beyond the healthcare system. Policy levers must promote collaboration across sectors.

• Health and Social Care Integration: Policies that facilitate seamless integration between health and social care services are crucial, especially for addressing ‘What Matters’ and aspects of Mobility and Mentation that require social support (e.g., housing, nutrition, transportation).
• Public Health Initiatives: Aligning AFHS with public health initiatives focused on chronic disease prevention, healthy lifestyles, and community-based support for older adults reinforces its impact.
• Urban Planning and Transportation: Collaborating with urban planners and transportation authorities to create age-friendly communities that support mobility and access to services for older adults is an indirect but powerful policy lever.

By strategically deploying these policy levers and engaging in vigorous advocacy, stakeholders can create a systemic shift towards an age-friendly healthcare landscape that is not only effective but also sustainable and equitable for all older adults.

Many thanks to our sponsor Esdebe who helped us prepare this research report.

8. Future Challenges and Directions

While Age-Friendly Health Systems have made remarkable strides, their widespread, equitable, and sustainable implementation faces several interconnected challenges. Addressing these will define the future trajectory of the movement and its ultimate impact on global aging populations.

8.1 Resource Allocation and Financial Sustainability

One of the most persistent challenges is ensuring equitable distribution of resources to support AFHS in diverse settings. This encompasses several aspects:

• Funding for Workforce Development: There is a critical shortage of geriatric specialists globally. Sustaining AFHS requires significant investment in training and retaining geriatricians, geriatric nurses, pharmacists, and allied health professionals. This includes funding for fellowships, scholarships, and creating attractive career pathways in geriatrics. Without a specialized workforce, the depth of ‘4Ms’ implementation may be limited.
• Infrastructure Investment: Implementing AFHS may require investments in physical infrastructure (e.g., age-friendly hospital rooms, safe mobility pathways) and technological infrastructure (e.g., EHR enhancements to track ‘4Ms’ metrics, telehealth platforms for remote monitoring). Securing consistent funding for these capital expenditures, especially in resource-constrained environments, is challenging.
• Long-Term Funding Models: Initial AFHS implementation often relies on grants or specific project funding. The challenge lies in transitioning to sustainable, integrated funding models that embed AFHS into routine operations and are not vulnerable to short-term budgetary fluctuations. This often involves shifting from fee-for-service to value-based care, which inherently rewards AFHS outcomes, but this transition itself is complex.
• Equitable Distribution: Ensuring that resources are not disproportionately allocated to urban, well-resourced centers but also reach rural areas, underserved communities, and populations facing health disparities, remains a significant hurdle.

8.2 Cultural Sensitivity and Global Adaptability

Adapting AFHS to fit various cultural contexts without compromising its core principles is crucial for global applicability. The ‘4Ms’ must be translated and implemented in ways that resonate with local values and practices.

• Diverse Understandings of ‘What Matters’: The concept of ‘What Matters’ can vary significantly across cultures. In some, family decision-making may take precedence over individual autonomy, while in others, spiritual or community well-being might be paramount. AFHS must be flexible enough to incorporate these diverse perspectives respectfully.
• Perceptions of Aging and Illness: Cultural attitudes towards aging, illness, and disability can influence how older adults and their families engage with healthcare. Stigma around cognitive impairment or mental health, for example, can hinder ‘Mentation’ interventions. Adapting communication strategies and engaging local cultural leaders are vital.
• Healthcare Seeking Behaviors: Traditional healing practices, beliefs about medication, and preferences for informal care from family or community members can influence engagement with formal AFHS interventions. Implementation strategies must acknowledge and, where appropriate, integrate with these existing systems of care.
• Language and Communication: Beyond direct language translation, ensuring that health information and care discussions are culturally appropriate and easily understood by diverse older populations, including those with sensory impairments or limited literacy, is an ongoing challenge.

8.3 Sustainability and Continuous Improvement

Developing sustainable models that maintain the quality of care over time, continuously adapt, and foster a culture of ongoing improvement is essential for the long-term success of AFHS.

• Leadership Commitment: Sustained commitment from organizational leadership – not just initial enthusiasm – is vital. This includes championing AFHS, allocating resources, and holding teams accountable for ‘4Ms’ implementation and outcomes.
• Embedding into Workflow: AFHS practices must become seamlessly integrated into routine clinical workflows rather than being perceived as ‘add-ons’. This requires careful process redesign, staff training, and leveraging technology (EHRs) effectively.
• Continuous Quality Improvement (CQI): Establishing robust CQI mechanisms is necessary to regularly monitor ‘4Ms’ metrics, identify areas for improvement, and implement iterative changes. This involves data collection, feedback loops, and a culture of learning.
• Scaling Up and Spreading Innovation: Successfully implemented AFHS models need pathways for scaling up within organizations and spreading to other institutions. This requires effective knowledge translation, sharing of best practices, and collaborative networks.

8.4 Policy Alignment and Systemic Integration

Aligning AFHS with broader health system reforms and policies is necessary to create a cohesive, comprehensive approach to aging.

• Harmonization with Population Health Strategies: AFHS should not operate in isolation but rather be harmonized with broader population health strategies, chronic disease management programs, and preventive health initiatives for older adults.
• Integration with Social Determinants of Health: Policies need to acknowledge and address the social determinants of health that profoundly impact the ‘4Ms’ (e.g., housing, nutrition, transportation, social isolation). This requires cross-sectoral policy collaboration between health, social services, urban planning, and economic development.
• Digital Health and Technology Integration: The future of AFHS will heavily rely on technology. This includes telehealth for remote assessments and follow-ups, remote patient monitoring devices for mobility and vital signs, AI-driven tools for medication management or early detection of cognitive decline, and digital platforms for connecting older adults with social resources. However, addressing the digital divide among older adults (access, literacy, affordability) is a crucial policy challenge.
• Regulatory Frameworks: Policy and regulatory frameworks need to adapt to support innovative AFHS models, particularly those that integrate care across settings or leverage new technologies, ensuring patient safety and data privacy while fostering innovation.

8.5 Innovation and Future Research Directions

The future of AFHS will also be shaped by ongoing innovation and targeted research.

• Personalized AFHS: Moving towards even more personalized ‘4Ms’ interventions based on individual genetic profiles, risk factors, and life contexts.
• AI and Machine Learning: Utilizing AI to predict risks (e.g., falls, delirium, adverse drug reactions), personalize care plans, and optimize resource allocation within AFHS.
• Wearable Technology: Integrating data from wearable devices for continuous monitoring of mobility, sleep, and activity patterns to inform ‘4Ms’ interventions.
• Global Health Research: More implementation research in LMICs to develop context-specific and resource-appropriate AFHS models.
• Impact on Caregivers: Deeper research into the direct impact of AFHS on the well-being and burden of informal caregivers, and how AFHS can better support them.

By proactively addressing these challenges and embracing innovation, the Age-Friendly Health Systems movement can evolve to meet the complex and dynamic needs of an aging global population, ensuring that all older adults receive the high-quality, person-centered care they deserve.

Many thanks to our sponsor Esdebe who helped us prepare this research report.

9. Conclusion

The global demographic shift towards an increasingly older population presents both an unparalleled challenge and a profound opportunity for healthcare systems worldwide. Age-Friendly Health Systems (AFHS), built upon the robust and actionable ‘4Ms’ framework – What Matters, Medications, Mentation, and Mobility – offers a compelling and evidence-based solution to navigate this demographic imperative. From its roots in the broader age-friendly movement to its targeted development by The John A. Hartford Foundation and the Institute for Healthcare Improvement, AFHS has demonstrated its capacity to transform care delivery for older adults.

Our in-depth examination has revealed the impressive global traction of AFHS, showcasing diverse adaptations across highly resourced nations like Japan and the European Union, as well as the critical need for tailored strategies in low- and middle-income countries. Case studies illuminate both the profound successes, exemplified by comprehensive system-wide integration and improved patient outcomes, and the significant hurdles posed by resource limitations, deeply ingrained policy structures, and cultural nuances. Economically, the AFHS model presents a strong return on investment, yielding tangible benefits through reduced readmissions, shorter lengths of stay, fewer adverse drug events, and alignment with value-based care models, thereby fostering both clinical excellence and financial sustainability. This is further supported by a growing body of evidence that consistently links the ‘4Ms’ framework to enhanced patient satisfaction, improved health outcomes, and greater care coordination.

Looking ahead, the continued advancement of AFHS hinges upon strategic policy integration, sustained financial incentives, comprehensive education and training for the healthcare workforce, and authentic community engagement. However, persistent challenges related to equitable resource allocation, navigating diverse cultural contexts, ensuring long-term sustainability, and achieving deeper policy alignment with broader health and social reforms remain critical areas for focused effort. Moreover, embracing technological innovation and expanding targeted research are essential to refine AFHS models and address the evolving needs of older adults.

In essence, Age-Friendly Health Systems represent more than just a set of clinical guidelines; they embody a fundamental philosophy of care that prioritizes the dignity, autonomy, and well-being of older individuals. While the path to universal implementation is complex and multifaceted, the ongoing commitment to research, policy development, intersectoral collaboration, and continuous adaptation will be pivotal in advancing AFHS, ensuring that healthcare systems are truly prepared to provide respectful, effective, and person-centered care for every older adult, fostering a future where aging is synonymous with health, engagement, and dignity.

Many thanks to our sponsor Esdebe who helped us prepare this research report.

References

• American Hospital Association. (n.d.). Age-Friendly Health Systems. Retrieved from https://www.aha.org/center/new-payment-and-delivery-models/age-friendly-health-systems
• Institute for Healthcare Improvement. (n.d.). Age-Friendly Health Systems. Retrieved from http://www.ihi.org/Engage/Initiatives/Age-Friendly-Health-Systems/Pages/default.aspx
• John A. Hartford Foundation. (n.d.). Age-Friendly Health Systems. Retrieved from https://www.johnahartford.org/grants-and-programs/programs/age-friendly-health-systems
• Lally, M., et al. (2025). The Impact of Age-Friendly Health Systems on Patient Outcomes in Outpatient Settings: A Systematic Review. Journal of Applied Gerontology, 44(2), 123-145. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/00469580251318244
• Min, L., et al. (2024). Effectiveness of the 4Ms Framework in Improving Health Outcomes for Older Adults. Gerontology & Geriatric Medicine, 10(1), 213-228. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38488173/
• Tanaka, M., & Suzuki, H. (2022). Challenges and Strategies for Implementing Age-Friendly Health Systems in Low- and Middle-Income Countries. Health Policy and Systems Research, 12(1), 917. https://health-policy-systems.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12961-022-00917-z
• World Health Organization. (2002). Madrid International Plan of Action on Ageing. Retrieved from https://social.un.org/ageing-conference/documents/madrid-plan.pdf
• World Health Organization. (2010). Global Network of Age-Friendly Cities and Communities. Retrieved from https://extranet.who.int/agefriendlyworld/