Health Affairs, 25, no. 4 (2006): 1172-1174 doi: 10.1377/hlthaff.25.4.1172 © 2006 by Project HOPE	New Online   McAllen, TX & Beyond: An Expert Roundtable   Geography & Reform   Medicaid or Insurance Exchange?   Siren Song of New GME   Public Plan Option: Pro & Con

This Article Full Text Submit a response to this article Services E-mail this article to a friend Alert me to new issues of the journal

GrantWatch

EDITOR’S NOTE: Some parts of the GrantWatch section are published on the Web only. The online-only material includes selective coverage of recently announced grants and publications about or funded by foundations. (Reporting of selected grant outcomes and key personnel changes as well as GrantWatch essays, reports, and interviews continue to be published in both print and online form.)

Online GrantWatch material is posted twice a month. Click here to sign up to receive an e-mail alert when new content is posted.

GrantWatch is funded in part by The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation and The California Wellness Foundation.

Bioethics

Recent report:

Ethical Considerations for Research Involving Prisoners, ed. Lawrence O. Gostin, Cori Vanchieri, and Andrew Pope, July 2006, 300 pp., including appendices, http://www.nap.edu/catalog/11692.html#toc. Funded by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and the Greenwall Foundation. (This Institute of Medicine [IOM] report may be read online at no cost; the book can also be purchased in various formats.) Gostin chaired the IOM committee that wrote the report; members included Brad Gray. “Most research with prisoners now takes place outside the scope of federal regulations and often without the scrutiny of institutional review boards (IRBs),” an IOM press release pointed out. “More comprehensive safeguards and oversight measures are needed to ensure” that the “research meets the highest ethical standards and aims to improve the well-being of prisoners.” For example, the report text calls for a congressionally mandated “uniform set of guidelines for human research participant protection programs for all research involving prisoners,” as well as a detailed “public database” that would track all studies on prisoners and would be maintained by the federal government. The report says that the “definition of ‘prisoner’” should be expanded to include all people whose “liberty is restricted,” such as those on parole and on probation; “informed consent must be obtained” from prisoners before they can be in a study; and research should only be done on prisoners “to provide a benefit” to them, “not because they are a convenient source of subjects.” An example of beneficial research would be “an analysis of an HIV prevention program, the results of which would be used to improve existing programs that reduce risk of HIV transmission among prisoners,” an IOM staffer explained. Also, the term “research” in the report refers to any research, including medical, social, and behavioral.

Related resource:

“Panel Suggests Using Inmates in Drug Trials,” Ian Urbina, New York Times, 13 August 2006, http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/13/us/13inmates.html?_r=1&oref=slogin.

Book received:

Hard Science, Hard Choices: Facts, Ethics, and Policies Guiding Brain Science Today, Sandra J. Ackerman (Washington: Dana Press, May 2006), 152 pp., list price: $12.95, http://www.dana.org/books/press/danabook/hardscience. This paperback is part of the Dana Foundation Series on Neuroethics. The book’s Foreword says, “The overarching neuroethical concern is that, with all the hype as well as the hope, we must at the same time be circumspect about emergent technologies.” It continues, “Many advances may—and indeed undoubtedly will—have unintended consequences that we must manage.”

California Health Policy

Recent report:

Children’s Health Insurance Programs: Facts and Figures, California HealthCare Foundation (CHCF), June 2006, 25 pp., http://www.chcf.org/topics/view.cfm?itemid=122730. “The number of children enrolled in California’s public insurance programs” increased by “nearly 43 percent” from 2000 to 2005, says the CHCF’s Web site. However, some 800,000 children still lacked coverage in 2003 (the most recent figure available at the time of publication). Thorny issues that could affect the number of uninsured children in the state include uncertainty about “reauthorization of federal funding” of the State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) in 2007 and “controversy about providing public health services for undocumented residents.” In addition, the report mentions that the outcome of an upcoming 2006 ballot initiative, the Tobacco Tax Act of 2006, will affect children’s coverage. “Overview of Insurance Programs by Launch Date,” a table, will be useful for those who confuse Healthy Families (the SCHIP program) and Healthy Kids (“county-specific plans covering low- and moderate-income children not eligible for Medi-Cal or Healthy Families”); eligibility requirements for various programs are in another handy table. The report also contains information on private health insurance programs for children in California.

Other resources received:

“Can We Trust Population Surveys to Count Medicaid Enrollees and the Uninsured?” Jennifer Kincheloe of the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA), and colleagues, Health Affairs, July/August 2006, http://content.healthaffairs.org/cgi/content/abstract/25/4/1163. This paper in the current issue of Health Affairs reports the results of a project “to estimate the extent of underreporting of Medicaid in the California Health Interview Survey (CHIS) and its effect on estimates of uninsurance.” The focus here is on nonelderly adult Medi-Cal (California Medicaid) enrollees. This research was funded by the RWJF and the University of California.

“Spotlight on Health Grantmaking in California,” Foundation Center (FC)—San Francisco office, May 2006, 4 pp., http://foundationcenter.org/gainknowledge/research/pdf/health06_sf.pdf. This document is based on the FC’s 2004 grants sample. A “Mini-Directory of California Foundations That Fund Health Programs” is included. (Steven Lawrence of the Foundation Center told Health Affairs why two foundations that are well-known in health policy circles were not included in that directory: The CHCF is a public charity, and the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation, an operating foundation, makes few grants.) Based on “dollar amount,” the California Endowment and TCWF were the top two private and community foundations in California awarding health grants to grantees in the state. The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and the RWJF were the top two “non-California foundations awarding health grants in California.” Among the top fifteen “California recipients of health grants from all foundations” were Institute for One World Health (ranked no. 1), University of California, San Francisco (UCSF) (2), UCLA (5), Children’s Hospital Los Angeles (6), the Public Health Institute (7), and Children Now, in Oakland (15).

“$10 Million Gift from UnitedHealth Group Will Fund Feasibility Studies and Development Activities for New Medical and Health Science Programs at UC Merced and UC Riverside,” UnitedHealth Group press release, 27 July 2006, http://www.unitedhealthgroup.com/news/rel2006/0727UC.htm. The release explained that the funding is targeted for these two campuses because they are “in regions facing acute shortages of doctors and nurses” and are considered “medically underserved,” according to a 2005 UC study. The Los Angeles Times reported on 27 July 2006 that “both universities have proposals for medical schools pending with UC officials.” If approved, they would be “the first new UC medical schools since the 1960s.” UnitedHealth Group is “a diversified health and well-being company dedicated to making health care work better,” the release said.

Health Information Technology

Recent grants:

HealthInfoNet, Manchester, ME. By 2010 this grantee aims to implement “a cutting-edge, statewide network giving authorized health care professionals and treatment centers immediate, secure access to a patient’s health records,” according to a press release from the Maine Health Information Center, which houses the HealthInfoNet project. This challenge grant will help to fund the grantee’s first pilot project, which is slated to begin in late 2007. HealthInfoNet is an independent nonprofit that was formerly known as the Maine Health Information Network Technology project. Maine’s goal, the release said, is to become “one of the first states . . . to develop a comprehensive, coordinated statewide [health information] system.” The Maine Health Access Foundation (MeHAF) noted that this is one of the largest grants it has ever awarded. Since MeHAF awarded its grant, KeyBank has contributed $50,000 in matching funds. That contribution, plus other donations, brings the total amount of matching funds to $405,527 as of 15 August 2006, Dev Culver, HealthInfoNet executive director, told Health Affairs. As for other funders, the “project raised $1.5 million in two years [2004–2006] from private foundations, state and federal government agencies, hospital systems, a health insurer, a nonprofit health data organization and a financial services organization,” the press release commented.
Up to $1 million over twenty months. Funded by the Maine Health Access Foundation.

Lehigh Valley Hospital and Health Network (LVHHN), Allentown, PA. This grant was awarded “to support the development of telehealth services in eastern Pennsylvania,” according to a July 2006 press release. The release reminds readers of the definition of “telehealth” by quoting the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA). This federal agency says that such services use “electronic information and telecommunications technologies to support long-distance clinical health care, patient and professional health-related education, public health and health administration.” The Pool grant will be used to design telehealth services and develop the infrastructure for them “within and across” the three main LVHHN clinical campuses, the release added. Joe Tracy of the LVHHN, who directs this project, explained to Health Affairs that the grant will also “support services for distant facilities [and] patients as a mechanism to improve access to different levels of care.” (Tracy is also board president for the Center for Telehealth and E-Health Law, a national group.)
$500,000 over two years. Funded by the Dorothy Rider Pool Health Care Trust.
The LVHHN is providing “operational funding for telehealth,” Tracy said.

Western North Carolina Health Network, Asheville, NC.This grant supports the expansion of a regional health information network in western North Carolina and is part of a larger Duke Endowment (TDE) Health Information Technology (HIT) initiative for hospitals in North and South Carolina. That initiative awarded $7.1 million to twenty-seven projects in 2006. By the end of 2006 the Asheville-based project expects to have completed linking the sixteen nonprofit hospitals in that region through an Internet portal. At that point, hospitals will be able “to share basic information on individual patients,” including their demographics “and prior utilization of health care services,” according to TDE materials. The grantee received initial funding from HRSA for this effort. TDE’s grant will “expand the functionality of the network,” Lin Hollowell of the endowment explained. Thus, the network will enable health care “providers to electronically access comprehensive, real-time clinical information from any health care provider in the network,” TDE materials said. Authorized physicians will be able to “concurrently access” such information as complete medical histories, digital diagnostic images, and notes from physicians and nurses in real time, through computers or personal digital assistants (PDAs).

Hollowell pointed out in a 1 August 2006 presentation, shared with Health Affairs, that reasons for the broader TDE initiative on HIT include improvement of patient safety and quality of care by having access to “integrated, real-time clinical information at the point of care.” He mentioned that among the barriers to investing in HIT are the cost and “resistance to change.”
$1 million over one year. Funded by the Duke Endowment.
Hospitals participating in the Western North Carolina Health Network are also helping fund it.

Report received:

Summary Roadmap: Final Report, Kansas Health Information Technology/Health Information Exchange Policy Initiative (which was commissioned by the Kansas Health Care Cost Containment Commission—a panel established by Gov. Kathleen Sebelius [D]), April 2006, 31 pp., including appendices, http://www.governor.ks.gov/LtGov/healthcare/items/Roadmap.pdf. Funded by the United Methodist Health Ministry Fund and the Sunflower and Kansas Health Foundations. This initiative “was managed and staffed by the [state’s] Division of Health Policy and Finance” in consultation with the eHealth Initiative and its foundation.

Related resource:

“New Regulations to Facilitate Adoption of Health Information Technology,” HHS, 1 August 2006, press release, http://www.hhs.gov/news/press/2006pres/20060801.html.

HIV/AIDS

Online coverage of the International AIDS Conference, 13–18 August 2006, in Toronto, is available at http://www.kaisernetwork.org/aids2006. Webcasts, podcasts, and a “Daily Roundup” of conference highlights are included. To learn about how to share the conference information with your constituency, at no cost, go to http://www.kaisernetwork.org/aids2006/syndication.cfm. In partnership with the International AIDS Society, kaisernetwork.org—a free service of the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation—is “the official webcaster” of the conference.

The Uninsured

Report received:

The State of Kids’ Coverage, University of Minnesota’s State Health Access Data Assistance Center (SHADAC), 9 August 2006, 23 pp., http://coveringkidsandfamilies.org/press/docs/2006StateofKidsCoverage.pdf. This report is from Covering Kids and Families, a national program of the RWJF, and was prepared for that funder. Among the results reported is some good news about health insurance: “Nationally, the proportion of uninsured children declined 2.9 percentage points” from 1997–98 to 2003–04. In that same time period, however, the proportion of children across the United States with private insurance “declined 3.5 percentage points.” The report uses data from the National Center for Health Statistics and the U.S. Census Bureau.