February 1, 2011
autism sepsis obesity bariatric surgery intensive behavioral therapy mental health aca affordable care act access sympsoium obamacare narrow networks reference pricing contraceptive exchange health reform health insurance exchanges marketplace fqhc safety net decision making patient engagement electronic health records cms electronic medical records health care cost medicaid michigan small business oregon depression readmissions aco health care costs costs medicare health policy exchanges politics wellness programs rules election courts coverage dual-eligible funding cheboygan memorial communication scotus employers poverty variation cost use quality research policy health insurance acos hmos essential benefits reform sgr congress drugs class long term care va e-prescribing emrs patient safety states for-profit nonprofit block grant tanf welfare reform hospice end of life non-profit evidence-based care waste washtenaw county uninsured population health managed care cancer end-of-life care individual mandate ryan proposal pharmaceutical industry r & d comparative effectiveness research evidence based care quality improvement collaborative quality initiatives cqi pharmaceuticals regulations prematurity heath reform antibiotics overuse geographic variation medical appropriateness health websites imrt radiation therapy medical errors constitutionality translate health care economics rationing insurance regulation incentives cardiology pcmh health disparities british health care system guidelines radiology pain early childhood physician employment dartmouth atlas cover michigan health care coverage insurance preventive care public health
Research Team Lead
Center for Healthcare Research & Transformation
In my role at CHRT, I work daily with the best research minds in the country and I work with communities and “grass roots” groups. I often describe what I do as bridging two worlds and helping to translate and balance between them. The work engages solid research design but in ways that are practical and able to be translated into community settings.
The two most gratifying aspects of this are when I get to see research put into action (as when results are used to improve a program, a policy or the way services are delivered) and when through the research process, we are able to pair human faces and stories to the conclusions we draw. Research is a scientific and logical process but it is also very much a human, creative enterprise. It can provide data and generate important conclusions, but it can also put a human face to the issues we are trying to address.
An excellent example involves some recent work in Genesee County. The Genesee Health Plan (GHP) is a community-based health care program for low-income individuals. In order to delve into the growing health and social service needs of families in the county, GHP received a planning grant from the Community Foundation of Greater Flint to engage the community in the research and planning process.
The research design was qualitative and included focus groups with community members, interviews with front-line health and social service intake workers and a series of community partner engagement sessions with representatives from all the major health care and social service organizations in the county. This triangulation of methods provided us with three very important but different perspectives on what gaps exist for families in Genesee County and how best to address them.
From the most conventional research perspective, this kind of work can be messy and has its known limitations. The research had to be done quickly—over the course of a few months—and within a very small budget. There were limited opportunities for creating comparison groups. One could argue that the participants were a self-selected group, and therefore may not be fully representative of the population and issues about which we are trying to learn, but nonetheless, the data—the stories—generated from this work say a lot about the needs of the community:
The next steps of the process in Flint will involve taking the data – and these compelling stories – and working with the community to develop a viable plan for addressing the gaps they reveal. This process will carry the human element forward, and translate this research into the kind of action that can truly improve lives.
Melissa Riba is a health policy consultant at CHRT, responsible for the research and evaluation design components of CHRT projects and identifying researchers and research partners in both major project categories: care delivery/financing systems and population health/access to care.