Evaluating community deliberations about health research priorities.

CONTEXT: Engaging underrepresented communities in health research priority setting could make the scientific agenda more equitable and more responsive to their needs. OBJECTIVE: Evaluate democratic deliberations engaging minority and underserved communities in setting health research priorities. METHODS: Participants from underrepresented communities throughout Michigan (47 groups, n = 519) engaged in structured deliberations about health research priorities in professionally facilitated groups. We evaluated some aspects of the structure, process, and outcomes of deliberations, including representation, equality of participation, participants' views of deliberations, and the impact of group deliberations on individual participants' knowledge, attitudes, and points of view. Follow-up interviews elicited richer descriptions of these and also explored later effects on deliberators. RESULTS: Deliberators (age 18-88 years) overrepresented minority groups. Participation in discussions was well distributed. Deliberators improved their knowledge about disparities, but not about health research. Participants, on average, supported using their group's decision to inform decision makers and would trust a process like this to inform funding decisions. Views of deliberations were the strongest predictor of these outcomes. Follow-up interviews revealed deliberators were particularly struck by their experience hearing and understanding other points of view, sometimes surprised at the group's ability to reach agreement, and occasionally activated to volunteer or advocate. CONCLUSIONS: Deliberations using a structured group exercise to engage minority and underserved community members in setting health research priorities met some important criteria for a fair, credible process that could inform policy. Deliberations appeared to change some opinions, improved some knowledge, and were judged by participants worth using to inform policymakers.

Primary Care Clinicians' Views About the Impact of Medicaid Expansion in Michigan: A Mixed Methods Study.

BACKGROUND: Michigan's approach to Medicaid expansion, the Healthy Michigan Plan (HMP), emphasizes primary care, prevention, and incentives for patients and primary care practitioners (PCPs). OBJECTIVE: Assess PCPs' perspectives about the impact of HMP on their patients and practices. DESIGN: In 2014-2015, we conducted semi-structured interviews then a statewide survey of PCPs. SETTING: Interviewees came from varied types of practices in five Michigan regions selected for racial/ethnic diversity and a mix of rural and urban settings. Surveys were sent via mail. PARTICIPANTS: Interviewees were physician (n = 16) and non-physician practitioners (n = 3). All Michigan PCPs caring for ≥ 12 HMP enrollees were surveyed (response rate 55.5%, N = 2104). MEASUREMENTS: PCPs' experiences with HMP patients and recent changes in their practices. RESULTS: Interviews include examples of the impact of Medicaid expansion on patients and practices. A majority of surveyed PCPs reported recent increases in new patients (52.3%) and patients who had not seen a PCP in many years (56.2%). For previously uninsured patients, PCPs reported positive impact on control of chronic conditions (74.4%), early detection of serious illness (71.1%), medication adherence (69.1%), health behaviors (56.5%), emotional well-being (57.0%), and the ability to work, attend school, or live independently (41.5%). HMP patients reportedly still had more difficulty than privately insured patients accessing some services. Most PCPs reported that their practices had, in the past year, hired clinicians (53.2%) and/or staff (57.5%); 15.4% had colocated mental health care. Few (15.8%) reported established patients' access to urgent appointments worsened. LIMITATIONS: PCP reports of patient experiences may not be accurate. Results reflect the experiences of PCPs with ≥ 12 Medicaid patients. Differences between respondents and non-respondents present the possibility for response bias. CONCLUSIONS: PCPs reported improved patient access to care, medication adherence, chronic condition management, and detection of serious illness. Established patients' access did not diminish, perhaps due to reported practice changes.

Members of Minority and Underserved Communities Set Priorities for Health Research.

Policy Points Engaging and involving underrepresented communities when setting research priorities could make the scientific research agenda more equitable, more just, and more responsive to their needs and values. Groups and individuals from minority and underserved communities strongly prioritized child health and mental health research, often choosing to invest at the highest possible level. Groups consisting of predominantly Native American or Arab American participants invested in culture and beliefs research at the highest level, while many groups did not select it at all. The priority given to culture and beliefs research by these groups illustrates the importance of paying special attention to unique preferences, and not just commonly held views, when getting public input on spending priorities for research. CONTEXT: A major contributor to health disparities is the relative lack of resources-including resources for science-allocated to address the health problems of those with disproportionately greater needs. Engaging and involving underrepresented communities in setting research priorities could make the scientific research agenda more equitable, more just, and more responsive to their needs and values. We engaged minority and underserved communities in informed deliberations and report here their priorities for health research. METHODS: Academic-community partnerships adapted the simulation exercise CHAT for setting health research priorities. We had participants from minority and medically underserved communities (47 groups, n = 519) throughout Michigan deliberate about health research priorities, and we used surveys and CHAT software to collect the demographic characteristics and priorities selected by individuals and groups. FINDINGS: The participants ranged in age (18 to 88), included more women than men, and were overrepresented by minority groups. Nearly all the deliberating groups selected child health and mental health research (93.6% and 95.7%), and most invested at the highest level. Aging, access, promote health, healthy environment, and what causes disease were also prioritized by groups. Research on mental health and child health were high priorities for individuals both before and after group deliberations. Access was the only category more likely to be selected by individuals after group deliberation (77.0 vs 84.0%, OR = 1.63, p = .005), while improve research, health policy, and culture and beliefs were less likely to be selected after group deliberations (all, p < .001). However, the level of investment in many categories changed after the group deliberations. Participants identifying as Black/African American were less likely to prioritize mental health research, and those of Other race were more likely to prioritize culture and beliefs research. CONCLUSIONS: Minority and medically underserved communities overwhelmingly prioritized mental health and child health research in informed deliberations about spending priorities.

Health Risk Assessments in Michigan's Medicaid Expansion: Early Experiences in Primary Care.

INTRODUCTION: Michigan is one of 3 states that have implemented health risk assessments for enrollees as a feature of its Medicaid expansion, the Healthy Michigan Plan. This study describes primary care providers' early experiences with completing health risk assessments with enrollees and examines provider- and practice-level factors that affect health risk assessment completion. METHODS: All primary care providers caring for ≥12 Healthy Michigan Plan enrollees (n=4,322) were surveyed from June to November 2015, with 2,104 respondents (55.5%). Analyses in 2016-2017 described provider knowledge, attitudes, and experiences with the health risk assessment early in Healthy Michigan Plan implementation; multivariable analyses examined relationships of provider- and practice-level characteristics with health risk assessment completion, as recorded in state data. RESULTS: Of the primary care provider respondents, 73% found health risk assessments very or somewhat useful for identifying and discussing health risks, although less than half (47.2%) found them very or somewhat useful for getting patients to change health behaviors. Most primary care provider respondents (65.3%) were unaware of financial incentives for their practices to complete health risk assessments. Nearly all primary care providers had completed at least 1 health risk assessment. The mean health risk assessment completion rate (completed health risk assessments/number of Healthy Michigan Plan enrollees assigned to that primary care provider) was 19.6%; those who lacked familiarity with the health risk assessment had lower completion rates. CONCLUSIONS: Early in program implementation, health risk assessment completion rates by primary care providers were low and awareness of financial incentives limited. Most primary care provider respondents perceived health risk assessments to be very or somewhat useful in identifying health risks, and about half of primary care providers viewed health risk assessments as very or somewhat useful in helping patients to change health behaviors.

Factors influencing primary care providers' decisions to accept new Medicaid patients under Michigan's Medicaid expansion.

OBJECTIVES: Michigan expanded Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act (ACA) through a federal waiver that permitted state-mandated features, including an emphasis on primary care. We investigated the factors associated with Michigan primary care providers (PCPs)' decision to accept new Medicaid patients under Medicaid expansion. STUDY DESIGN: Statewide survey of PCPs informed by semistructured interviews. METHODS: After Michigan expanded Medicaid on April 1, 2014, we surveyed 2104 PCPs (including physician and nonphysician providers, such as nurse practitioners and physician assistants) with 12 or more assigned Medicaid expansion enrollees (response rate, 56%). To guide survey development and interpretation, we interviewed a separate group of 19 PCPs with Medicaid expansion enrollees from diverse urban and rural regions. Survey questions assessed PCPs' current acceptance of new Medicaid patients. RESULTS: Of the 2104 surveyed PCPs, 78% reported that they were currently accepting additional Medicaid patients; 58% reported having at least some influence on the decision. Factors considered very/moderately important to the Medicaid acceptance decision included practice capacity to accept any new patients (69%), availability of specialists for Medicaid patients (56%), reimbursement amount (56%), psychosocial needs of Medicaid patients (50%), and illness burden of Medicaid patients (46%). PCPs accepting new Medicaid patients tended to be female, minorities, nonphysician providers, specialized in internal medicine, paid by salary, or working in practices with Medicaid-predominant payer mixes. CONCLUSIONS: In the era after Medicaid expansion, PCPs placed importance on practice capacity, specialist availability, and patients' medical and psychosocial needs when deciding whether to accept new Medicaid patients. To maintain primary care access for low-income patients with Medicaid, future efforts should focus on enhancing the diversity of the PCP workforce, encouraging healthcare professional training in underserved settings, and promoting practice-level innovations in scheduling and integration of specialist care.

The State as Community in Community-Based Participatory Research.

BACKGROUND: Community-based participatory research (CBPR) typically defines communities by geography, ethnicity, shared health needs, or some combination. OBJECTIVES: We describe a CBPR project aiming to engage diverse minority and underserved communities throughout Michigan in deliberations about health research priorities. METHODS: A steering committee (SC) with 15 members from minority and underserved communities and 4 members from research organizations led the project, with the help of regional advisory groups (RAGs) formed at the SC's request. Evaluation of the SC used questionnaires, focused group discussion, and review of SC meetings to describe engagement, partnership, and communication. LESSONS LEARNED: An academic-community partnership with a diverse, dispersed, and broadly defined community found value in RAGs, dedicated academic staff, face-to-face meetings, varied communication modalities, capacity building tailored to varying levels of CBPR experience, and ongoing evaluation. CONCLUSIONS: A geographically and culturally diverse partnership presents challenges and opportunities in representativeness, relationship building, capacity building, and communication.