Erratum: Building the foundation for equitable and inclusive research: Seed grant programs to facilitate development of diverse CBPR community-academic research partnerships - CORRIGENDUM.

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.1017/cts.2022.495.].

Building the foundation for equitable and inclusive research: Seed grant programs to facilitate development of diverse CBPR community-academic research partnerships.

Introduction: The effectiveness of community-based participatory research (CBPR) partnerships to address health inequities is well documented. CBPR integrates knowledge and perspectives of diverse communities throughout the research process, following principles that emphasize trust, power sharing, co-learning, and mutual benefits. However, institutions and funders seldom provide the time and resources needed for the critical stage of equitable partnership formation and development. Methods: Since 2011, the Detroit Urban Research Center, collaborating with other entities, has promoted the development of new community-academic research partnerships through two grant programs that combine seed funding with capacity building support from community and academic instructors/mentors experienced in CBPR. Process and outcomes were evaluated using mixed methods. Results: From 2011 to 2021, 50 partnerships received grants ranging from $2,500 to $30,000, totaling $605,000. Outcomes included equitable partnership infrastructure and processes, innovative pilot research, translation of findings to interventions and policy change, dissemination to multiple audiences, new proposals and projects, and sustained community-academic research partnerships. All partnerships continued beyond the program; over half secured additional funding. Conclusions: Keys to success included participation as community-academic teams, dedicated time for partnership/relationship development, workshops to develop equity-based skills, relationships, and projects, expert community-academic instructor guidance, and connection to additional resources. Findings demonstrate that small amounts of seed funding for newly forming community-academic partnerships, paired with capacity building support, can provide essential time and resources needed to develop diverse, inclusive, equity-focused CBPR partnerships. Building such support into funding initiatives and through academic institutions can enhance impact and sustainability of translational research toward advancing health equity.

Geographic Variation in Medicaid Acceptance Across Michigan Primary Care Practices in the Era of the Affordable Care Act.

Coverage and access have improved under the Affordable Care Act, yet it is unclear whether recent gains have reached those regions within states that were most in need of improved access to care. We examined geographic variation in Medicaid acceptance among Michigan primary care practices before and after Medicaid expansion in the state, using data from a simulated patient study of primary care practices. We used logistic regression analysis with time indicators to assess regional changes in Medicaid acceptance over time. Geographic regions with lower baseline (<50%) Medicaid acceptance had significant increases in Medicaid acceptance at 4 and 8 months post-expansion, while regions with higher baseline (≥50%) Medicaid acceptance did not experience significant changes in Medicaid acceptance. As state Medicaid expansions continue to be implemented across the country, policy makers should consider the local dynamics of incentives for provider participation in Medicaid.

Primary care appointment availability and nonphysician providers one year after Medicaid expansion.

OBJECTIVES: With insurance enrollment greater than expected under the Affordable Care Act, uncertainty about the availability and timeliness of healthcare services for newly insured individuals has increased. We examined primary care appointment availability and wait times for new Medicaid and privately insured patients before and after Medicaid expansion in Michigan. STUDY DESIGN: Simulated patient ("secret shopper") study. METHODS: Extended follow-up of a previously reported simulated patient ("secret shopper") study assessing accessibility of routine new patient appointments in a stratified proportionate random sample of Michigan primary care practices before versus 4, 8, and 12 months after Medicaid expansion. RESULTS: During the study period, approximately 600,000 adults enrolled in Michigan's Medicaid expansion program, representing 57% of the previously uninsured nonelderly adult population. One year after expansion, we found that appointment availability remained increased by 6 percentage points for new Medicaid patients (95% CI, 1.6-11.1) and decreased by 2 percentage points for new privately insured patients (95% CI, -0.5 to -3.8). Over the same period, the proportion of appointments scheduled with nonphysician providers (nurse practitioners or physician assistants) increased from 8% to 21% of Medicaid appointments (95% CI, 5.6-20.2) and from 11% to 19% of private-insurance appointments (95% CI, 1.3-14.1). Median wait times remained stable for new Medicaid patients and increased slightly for new privately insured patients, both remaining within 2 weeks. CONCLUSIONS: During the first year following Medicaid expansion in Michigan, appointment availability for new Medicaid patients increased, a greater proportion of appointments could be obtained with nonphysician providers, and wait times remained within 2 weeks.

Primary care appointment availability for new Medicaid patients increased after Medicaid expansion in Michigan.

The Affordable Care Act expands health insurance coverage to millions of Americans, but the availability of health care services for the newly insured population remains uncertain. We conducted a simulated patient (or "secret shopper") study to assess primary care appointment availability and wait times for new patients with Medicaid or private insurance before and after implementation of Michigan's Medicaid expansion in 2014. The expansion, which was made possible through a section 1115 waiver, has a unique requirement that new beneficiaries must be seen by a primary care provider within 60-90 days of enrollment. During a period of rapid coverage expansion in Michigan, we found that appointment availability increased 6 percentage points for new Medicaid patients and decreased 2 percentage points for new privately insured patients, compared to availability before the expansion. Wait times remained stable, at 1-2 weeks for both groups. Further research is needed to determine whether access to primary care for newly insured patients will endure over time.

The one-pager: a practical policy advocacy tool for translating community-based participatory research into action.

The multiple and diverse perspectives, skills, and experiences inherent in community-academic partnerships make them uniquely positioned to educate policy makers and advocate for health equity. Effective communication tools are critical to successfully engage in the policy-making process. Yet few resources emphasize the development and use of practical tools for translating community-based participatory research (CBPR) findings into action. The purpose of this article is to describe a CBPR process for developing and using a one-page summary, or "one-pager," of research findings and their policy implications. This article draws on the experience of the Healthy Environments Partnership (HEP), a community-academic partnership in Detroit, Michigan. In addition to describing these processes, this article includes a template for a one-pager and an example of a one-pager that was written for and presented to federal policy makers.

Health policy approaches to population health: the limits of medicalization.

Because of a strong tendency to "medicalize" health status problems and to assume that their primary solution involves medical care, policymakers often focus on increased financial and geographic access to personal health services in policies aimed at populations that are vulnerable to poor health. This approach has produced real public health gains, but it has neglected key social and economic causes of health vulnerability and disparities. Although access to care is a necessary component of population health, concerted policy action in income security, education, housing, nutrition/food security, and the environment is also critical in efforts to improve health among socially disadvantaged populations.