WHERE HAVE ALL THE FLOWERS GONE?

 The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation (RWJ) is the nation's largest philanthropy devoted solely to the public's health.  Their efforts focus upon improving both the health of everyone in America, and their health care – how it's delivered, how it's paid for, and how well it does for patients and their families.  By investing in improving systems through which individuals receive health care and in fostering environments that promote health and prevent disease and injury, RWJ expects to achieve comprehensive, meaningful, and timely change.  Creating leverage for change is RWJ's greatest asset.  Annually RWJ issues its Anthology, which this year focused upon Improving the Health and Health Care of Vulnerable Populations.  For those colleagues interested in learning about the gradual evolution of our nation's health policy, these publications provide a fascinating glimpse into the vision of the foundation world, where only a few psychologists have ever been involved.  Ruby Takanishi, President of the Foundation for Child Development; Judith Rodin, President of the Rockefeller Foundation; and Anne Peterson, formally of the W.K. Kellogg Foundation, being notable exceptions.

            The Vulnerable Populations portfolio was created in 2003 and has developed a special niche by identifying and supporting innovative programs at the intersection of health and the social factors that influence health – factors such as education, housing, race, class, and income.  As such, it provides a unique opportunity to dramatically change how services are delivered, while at the same time helping individuals, families, and communities make progress towards better health and a healthier society.  Helping real people and moving towards a healthier society are laudable goals which are "possible, but not always easy."

            A concerted effort has been made by RWJ to go beyond supporting creative individual efforts which address national needs, by also nurturing the most promising among them with the hope and expectation that they can become strong enough to "enter the mainstream" of society's expectations.  One example would be RWJ's commitment since the 1970s to fund a range of projects advancing Nurse Practitioners.  The Nurse-Family Partnership program, in which public health nurses visit young, low-income, first-time mothers in their homes, is a RWJ-funded initiative that may be ready to enter the mainstream.  Starting in 1979, support was provided for a new approach to improving the health of babies and their mothers.  In the 31 years since its first grant, RWJ has provided nearly $27 million to build evidence about the effectiveness of this approach and to support its replication.  In 2002, the Edna McConnell Clark Foundation, along with other foundations and corporate funders, supported a major expansion of the program.  President Obama's Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) authorized $1.5 billion for states that adopt home-visitation programs that serve young, low-income mothers.

RWJ's initial nurse practitioner efforts focused upon increasing the access of people living in rural areas and inner cities to non-hospital based care.  These became the forefront of a movement that lead to the widespread acceptance of nurse practitioners as recognized health care professionals.  One might say that the Foundation supported a "disruptive innovations" approach by sponsoring a less costly group of health professionals who could carry out many of the functions performed by a more costly, and often inaccessible group, namely physicians.  The underlying philosophical question remains, however: Why do some initiatives evolve into mainstream concepts while others do not?  Perhaps it is because they are picked up initially by change agents who influence the rest of society until a critical mass of individuals find it is in their best interest to adopt an innovation.  Are there "take-off points" when the accretion of small advances reach the point where change becomes unstoppable?  Or, as APA convention speaker Malcolm Gladwell proposed, by taking one step at a time, does an innovation affect enough people to reach a "tipping point," from which it then naturally races through the population?

            Four elements were highlighted in theAnthology which are seen as necessary to move foundation-funded ideas into the mainstream.  1.) The idea is seen by a substantial portion – or at least an influential portion – of the population as a potential solution to a pressing problem.  2.) The political system is receptive to the adoption of new ideas – especially when legislation is the means of spreading them.  3.) The evidence is strong that an idea is workable and perhaps cost-effective.  And, 4.) Committed advocates keep the idea in the forefront and fight for its widespread adoption.  The RWJ President enumerated five key tools available to philanthropy: Communicating, Convening, Coordinating, Connecting, and Counting (plus a sixth, Cash) – her "Five Cs."  From our experience within the public policy arena over the years, we would especially agree with the view that those who wish to implement significant change must: "Stick with good ideas for a long time.  An inhospitable political climate can suddenly become inviting, as the passage of health care reform in 2010 demonstrates."

            Each of the Vulnerable Population projects has direct application to psychology and the behavioral sciences.  Caring Across Communities explored the need for mental health services among probably the most vulnerable population in our nation, children with mental health problems born to refugees or immigrants.  Generally, this population is not welcome in the medical care system.  If undocumented, they are pretty much precluded from getting care except in public hospitals, free clinics, and community health centers.  They are more likely to live in poverty, be poorly educated, and lack health insurance coverage.  "Despite laws and regulations requiring parity in coverage of mental and physical health services under employer-sponsored health plans, such parity does not in fact exist.  Not to mention the stigma associated with mental illness, which would discourage many people from seeking services for themselves and their children.  Moreover there are all of the cultural barriers, of which language is the most obvious and perhaps the easiest to resolve."

Studies show that one out of every five school children in America is now either the child of an immigrant or an immigrant him or her self.  Problems such as post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) appear to be particularly prevalent in this population, close to 20% for those immigrants who experienced violence before arriving.  School officials begin to see the effects of PTSD in problems that range from rising individual disciplinary cases to a 25% high school dropout rate for foreign-born pupils nationwide.  North Carolina officials reported 59% of their immigrant children are suffering from symptoms of anxiety, about one-third are dealing with PTSD, and 9% have had thoughts of suicide – while the rates of treatment are appallingly low.  Many refugees and their children have witnessed horrors unimaginable to most Americans.  The parents resettled in the U.S. primarily for their children and yet they face a school system with little understanding of what they or their children have gone through.

            Another impressive initiative, the Alaskan Native Dental Health Aide and Therapist program, is, in our judgment, highly analogous to psychology's prescriptive authority (RxP) quest.  "How to deliver health care services to individuals residing in extremely remote areas?" has long been a challenge for health policy experts.  Professional (and at times social) isolation remains a major challenge for rural America. Alaska is a huge and highly isolated region with what can be considered extraordinary inhospitable weather.  The model proposed by RWJ and others (most notably the Rasmuson and Kellogg Foundations) to address the pressing dental needs of rural Alaska was to provide a limited amount of training to members of the local communities who then could provide basic necessary services to their neighbors (akin to China's barefoot doctors).  The oral health crisis in Alaska has sparked numerous comparisons with the TB epidemic of the 1950s.  Nationwide, tooth decay is the most common chronic childhood disease, interfering with daily activities for an estimated 4 to 5 million children and adolescents annually.  The Indian Health Service (IHS) estimates that untreated lesions exist in 68% of American Indian and Alaskan Native adolescents, compared with 24% of other children in the nation.  One-third of Alaskan Native children report missing some days of school each year due to dental pain.

In 2001 the Alaska Native Tribal Health Corporation, the nation's largest tribal health organization, proposed it's Dental Health Aide Program, based upon the principles underlying community health aides.  At the time there was no appropriate training program in the U.S. since every attempt to introduce such a program had been steadfastly resisted for nearly a century by organized American dentistry.  The World Health Organization (WHO) 2003 report indicated that by that time 42 countries around the world – including Canada, Great Britain, Australia, and New Zealand – had relied for years on such midlevel providers to educate patients, apply sealants, and perform basic dental procedures, from fillings to extractions, and even root canals.  The training for the Alaskan Native providers was conducted in New Zealand.  As the graduates began providing services, the ADA and the Alaska Dental Society filed a joint lawsuit in the state court, accusing the dental therapists of practicing dentistry without a license and mounted a major public relations campaign proclaiming "second class dental care."  In June, 2007 the Alaska Superior Court ruled that the dental health therapists were legal under a federal statue, although we understand that even today there are strict limitations on where they can, in fact, practice.  Organized dentistry's opposition to alternative providers has continued, notwithstanding the dental extender provisions contained in PPACA, as well as increasing financial support from the foundation world.  The underlying policy arguments are: Whether these providers represent an alleged public health hazard?  Or, Are they providing access to quality care?  Not surprisingly, all of the objective evidence supports their continued contribution to the health and well being of the Alaskan Native population and as a result, their probable expansion into the federally qualified community health center network which also continues to report significant difficulty in accessing dental care for their patients.

Throughout the RWJ's impressive history of "making a real difference" there have been at least four reoccurring themes: 1.) Supporting independent quality research to provide an evidence-base that will be widely accepted.  2.) Communications are a key to making research relevant to policy makers and the public.  3.) Answering issues of concern to policy makers.  And, 4.) Policy impact definitely requires a long-term vision.

            This Spring, AARP and RWJ facilitated an impressive Congressional briefing by the House and Senate Nursing Caucuses following up on the Institute of Medicine (IOM) report The Future of Nursing: Leading Change, Advancing Health.  A campaign for action was described with the goal of having Regional Action Coalitions functioning in all 50 states by 2012.  RWJ has already committed $10 million for the campaign which will systematically focus upon building a 21^st century nursing workforce with the skills and knowledge Americans need; increasing the influence of nurses in high levels of health care, policy, business, and community decision making; and removing artificial barriers to nursing being allowed to clinically function to the fullest extent of its training.  Former HHS Secretary Donna Shalala has been actively involved.  Perhaps the most interesting development at the briefing was the public recognition by the President and CEO of the Association of American Medical Colleagues that the time for such change has arrived.  Subsequently, Major General Patricia Horoho was nominated by DoD Secretary Robert Gates to serve as the Surgeon General of the U.S. Army.  When confirmed, she will be the first nurse and first female to serve in that position since the establishment of the Army Medical Corps in 1775.  Times are a-changing.  "When will we ever learn?  When will we ever learn?"  Aloha,

Pat DeLeon, former APA President – Division 42 – June, 2011