Development of the FlagIt Report and Response System for Concerning or Harassing Messages Related to Public Health Work.

In response to growing reports of concerning/harassing messages and backlash related to public health work, the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health established the FlagIt report and response system. The system uses a dedicated FlagIt email inbox for faculty and staff to report harassing or concerning messages related to public-facing work and has an autoreply message sharing available institutional resources. The Johns Hopkins University public safety investigators review, inventory, and investigate the reported messages and share their findings with the reporter within 2 business days. In addition, the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health faculty FlagIt team volunteers reach out to the reporter to check in on how they are doing and offer additional supports if needed The FlagIt system was developed with existing institutional resources and did not require additional funding. Given the continued backlash against public health, other public health institutions and agencies may consider implementing similar report and response systems.

The State of the US Public Health Workforce: Ongoing Challenges and Future Directions.

Between the 2009 Great Recession and the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, the US state and local governmental public health workforce lost 40,000 jobs. Tens of thousands of workers also left during the pandemic and continue to leave. As governmental health departments are now receiving multimillion-dollar, temporary federal investments to replenish their workforce, this review synthesizes the evidence regarding major challenges that preceded the pandemic and remain now. These include the lack of the field's ability to readily enumerate and define the governmental public health workforce as well as challenges with the recruitment and retention of public health workers. This review finds that many workforce-related challenges identified more than 20 years ago persist in the field today. Thus, it is critical that we look back to be able to then move forward to successfully rebuild the workforce and assure adequate capacity to protect the public's health and respond to public health emergencies.

Trends in Degree Conferrals, Degree-Associated Debt, and Employment Outcomes Among Undergraduate Public Health Degree Graduates, 2001‒2020.

Objectives. To characterize the trends in degree conferrals, degree-associated debt, and employment outcomes among undergraduate public health degree (UGPHD) graduates. Methods. We reported administrative data on degree conferrals from 2001 to 2020 from the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES). For alumni graduating from 2015 to 2019, we also reported degree-associated debt and earnings 1 year after graduation compiled by NCES. Finally, we utilized a data set on 1-year postgraduation employment outcomes for graduates from 2015 to 2020 from the Association of Schools and Programs of Public Health. Results. As of 2020, more than 18 000 UGPHDs were awarded each year, more than 140 000 in total over the past 20 years. UGPHD graduates are highly diverse, with more than 80% being women and 55% being individuals from communities of color. We find alumni worked mostly in for-profit organizations (34%), health care (28%), nonprofits (11%), academic organizations (10%), government (10%), and other (6%). Degree-associated debt was $24 000, and the median first-year earnings were $34 000. Conclusions. While growth in UGPHD conferrals has slowed, it remains among the fastest-growing degree in the nation. However, the limited pathways into government remains a significant challenge. (Am J Public Health. 2023;113(1):115-123. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2022.307113).

Pandemic-Related Workplace Violence and Its Impact on Public Health Officials, March 2020‒January 2021.

Objectives. To characterize the experience and impact of pandemic-related workplace violence in the form of harassment and threats against public health officials. Methods. We used a mixed methods approach, combining media content and a national survey of local health departments (LHDs) in the United States, to identify harassment against public health officials from March 2020 to January 2021. We compared media-portrayed experiences, survey-reported experiences, and publicly reported position departures. Results. At least 1499 harassment experiences were identified by LHD survey respondents, representing 57% of responding departments. We also identified 222 position departures by public health officials nationally, 36% alongside reports of harassment. Public health officials described experiencing structural and political undermining of their professional duties, marginalization of their expertise, social villainization, and disillusionment. Many affected leaders remain in their positions. Conclusions. Interventions to reduce undermining, ostracizing, and intimidating acts against health officials are needed for a sustainable public health system. We recommend training leaders to respond to political conflict, improving colleague support networks, providing trauma-informed worker support, investing in long-term public health staffing and infrastructure, and establishing workplace violence reporting systems and legal protections. (Am J Public Health. 2022;112(5):736-746. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2021.306649).

Regarding Investment in a Healthier Future: Impact of the 2012 Institute of Medicine Finance Report.

CONTEXT: Governments at all levels work to ensure a healthy public, yet financing, organization, and delivery of public health services differ across the United States. A 2012 Institute of Medicine Finance report provided a series of recommendations to ensure a high-performing and adequately funded public health infrastructure. OBJECTIVES: This review examines the influence of the Finance report's 10 recommendations on public health policy and practice. DESIGN: This review utilized peer-reviewed and gray literature published since 2012. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Documents that address at least one of the Finance report's 10 recommendations and contain information on either official actions taken in response to the Finance report or evidence of the report's influence on the practice community. RESULTS: Of 2394 unique documents found, a total of 56 documents met the eligibility criteria. Review of these 56 documents indicated that the most substantial activity related to the recommendations was focused on the "minimum package of public health services" concept and establishment of a uniform chart of accounts. DISCUSSION: Progress has been mixed on the Finance report recommendations. Improved tracking and auditing of public health activity appears to be advancing, yet financial benchmarks remain unmet. Challenges remain in determining actual investment in public health and equitable resource allocation approaches. State and local health department use of cost estimation methodology and a uniform chart of accounts tool has contributed to an increase in understanding and improvement in public health spending. CONCLUSIONS: The Finance report has served as a strong impetus for advocating for an increased investment in governmental public health. Efforts are bolstered by informed public health practitioners and stakeholders but often stymied by policy makers who must balance complex competing issues and priorities. Although many successes have occurred, further work is needed toward improving investment in the nation's public health.

Funding Public Health: Achievements and Challenges in Public Health Financing Since the Institute of Medicine's 2012 Report.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to review changes in public health finance since the 2012 Institute of Medicine (IOM) report "For the Public's Health: Investing in a Healthier Future." DESIGN: Qualitative study involving key informant interviews. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Purposive sample of US public health practitioners, leaders, and academics expected to be knowledgeable about the report recommendations, public health practice, and changes in public health finance since the report. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Qualitative feedback about changes to public health finance since the report. RESULTS: Thirty-two interviews were conducted between April and May 2019. The greatest momentum toward the report recommendations has occurred predominantly at the state and local levels, with recommendations requiring federal action making less progress. In addition, much of the progress identified is consensus building and preparation for change rather than clear changes. Overall, progress toward the recommendations has been slow. CONCLUSIONS: Many of the achievements reported by respondents were characterized as increased dialogue and individual state or local progress rather than widespread, identifiable policy or practice changes. Participants suggested that public health as a field needs to achieve further consensus and a uniform voice in order to advocate for changes at a federal level. IMPLICATIONS FOR POLICY AND PRACTICE: Slow progress in achieving 2012 IOM Finance Report recommendations and lack of a cohesive voice pose threats to the public's health, as can be seen in the context of COVID-19 emergency response activities. The pandemic and the nation's inadequate response have highlighted deficiencies in our current system and emphasize the need for coordinated and sustained core public health infrastructure funding at the federal level.

Monetary and Nonmonetary Costs and Benefits of a Public Health Master's Degree in the 21st Century.

As postsecondary tuition and debt levels continue to rise, the value proposition of higher education has been increasingly called into question by the popular media and the general public. Recent data from the National Center for Education Statistics now show early career earnings and debt, by program, for thousands of institutions across the United States. This comes at an inflection point for public health education-master's degrees have seen 20 years of growth, but forecasts now call for, at best, stagnation.Forces inside and outside the field of public health are shifting supply and demand for public health master's degrees. We discuss these forces and identify potential monetary and nonmonetary costs and benefits of these degrees.Overall, we found a net benefit in career outcomes associated with a public health master's degree, although it is clear that some other master's degrees likely offer greater lifetime earning potentials or lower lifetime debt associated with degree attainment. We outline the issues academic public health must engage in to successfully attract and train the next generation of public health graduates.

Aligning US Spending Priorities Using the Health Impact Pyramid Lens.

Thomas Frieden's "health impact pyramid" presents a hierarchy in which the wide base of the pyramid of socioeconomic factors at a population level has more impact on the health of the public than do individually focused interventions at the pyramid's top.From this pyramid perspective, the US spending priorities are misaligned, as expenses targeted at public health and socioeconomic factors are far outstripped by spending on individual health care services at the top of the pyramid. The nation's ongoing debate on health care reform continues to focus on access to individual health care services, despite evidence demonstrating the health impacts of population-level efforts at the base of the pyramid and the synergistic health impacts of health and social service collaboration.We examine the need for improved systems alignment through the lens of the health impact pyramid. We catalog the types of misalignments and their social, political, and systems genesis. We identify promising opportunities to realign US health spending toward the socioeconomic factor base of the health impact pyramid and emphasize the need to integrate and align public health, social services, and medical care in the United States.

Inaccuracy of Official Estimates of Public Health Spending in the United States, 2000-2018.

Objectives. To examine the accuracy of official estimates of governmental health spending in the United States.Methods. We coded approximately 2.7 million administrative spending records from 2000 to 2018 for public health activities according to a standardized Uniform Chart of Accounts produced by the Public Health Activities and Services Tracking project. The official US Public Health Activity estimate was recalculated using updated estimates from the data coding.Results. Although official estimates place governmental public health spending at more than $93 billion (2.5% of total spending on health), detailed examination of spending records from state governments shows that official estimates include substantial spending on individual health care services (e.g., behavioral health) and that actual spending on population-level public health activities is more likely between $35 billion and $64 billion (approximately 1.5% of total health spending).Conclusions. Clarity in understanding of public health spending is critical for characterizing its value proposition. Official estimates are likely tens of billions of dollars greater than actual spending.Public Health Implications. Precise and clear spending estimates are material for policymakers to accurately understand the effect of their resource allocation decisions.

The State of Rural Public Health: Enduring Needs in a New Decade.

Public health in the rural United States is a complex and underfunded enterprise. While urban-rural disparities have been a focus for researchers and policymakers alike for decades, inequalities continue to grow. Life expectancy at birth is now 1 to 2 years greater between wealthier urban and rural counties, and is as much as 5 years, on average, between wealthy and poor counties.This article explores the growth in these disparities over the past 40 years, with roots in structural, economic, and social spending differentials that have emerged or persisted over the same time period. Importantly, a focus on place-based disparities recognizes that the rural United States is not a monolith, with important geographic and cultural differences present regionally. We also focus on the challenges the rural governmental public health enterprise faces, the so-called "double disparity" of worse health outcomes and behaviors alongside modest investment in health departments compared with their nonrural peers.Finally, we offer 5 population-based "prescriptions" for supporting rural public health in the United States. These relate to greater investment and supporting rural advocacy to better address the needs of the rural United States in this new decade.

How Much Do We Spend? Creating Historical Estimates of Public Health Expenditures in the United States at the Federal, State, and Local Levels.

The United States has a complex governmental public health system. Agencies at the federal, state, and local levels all contribute to the protection and promotion of the population's health. Whether the modern public health system is well situated to deliver essential public health services, however, is an open question. In some part, its readiness relates to how agencies are funded and to what ends. A mix of Federalism, home rule, and happenstance has contributed to a siloed funding system in the United States, whereby health agencies are given particular dollars for particular tasks. Little discretionary funding remains. Furthermore, tracking how much is spent, by whom, and on what is notoriously challenging. This review both outlines the challenges associated with estimating public health spending and explains the known sources of funding that are used to estimate and demonstrate the value of public health spending.

Decision Processes and Determinants of Hospital Evacuation and Shelter-in-Place During Hurricane Sandy.

CONTEXT: Evacuation and shelter-in-place decision making for hospitals is complex, and existing literature contains little information about how these decisions are made in practice. OBJECTIVE: To describe decision-making processes and identify determinants of acute care hospital evacuation and shelter-in-place during Hurricane Sandy. DESIGN: Semistructured interviews were conducted from March 2014 to February 2015 with key informants who had authority and responsibility for evacuation and shelter-in-place decisions for hospitals during Hurricane Sandy in 2012. Interviews were recorded, transcribed, and thematically analyzed. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Interviewees included hospital executives and state and local public health, emergency management, and emergency medical service officials from Delaware, Maryland, New Jersey, and New York. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): Interviewees identified decision processes and determinants of acute care hospital evacuation and shelter-in-place during Hurricane Sandy. RESULTS: We interviewed 42 individuals from 32 organizations. Decisions makers reported relying on their instincts rather than employing guides or tools to make evacuation and shelter-in-place decisions during Hurricane Sandy. Risk to patient health from evacuation, prior experience, cost, and ability to maintain continuity of operations were the most influential factors in decision making. Flooding and utility outages, which were predicted to or actually impacted continuity of operations, were the primary determinants of evacuation. CONCLUSION: Evacuation and shelter-in-place decision making for hospitals can be improved by ensuring hospital emergency plans address flooding and include explicit thresholds that, if exceeded, would trigger evacuation. Comparative risk assessments that inform decision making would be enhanced by improved collection, analysis, and communication of data on morbidity and mortality associated with evacuation versus sheltering-in-place of hospitals. In addition, administrators and public officials can improve their preparedness to make evacuation and shelter-in-place decisions by practicing the use of decision-making tools during training and exercises.

Building the Future of Environmental Public Health Tracking: Proceedings and Recommendations of an Expert Panel Workshop.

Since 2002, the national Environmental Health Tracking Program of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has provided vital support to state environmental public health efforts while simultaneously building a nationwide network of state, local, and academic partners to improve our nation's capacity to understand and respond to environmental threats to public health. As part of program review and strategic planning, national thought leaders in environmental public health were convened to assess progress, identify gaps and challenges, and provide recommendations for enhancing the utility and impact of the Tracking Program. Several opportunities were identified. Chief among these was the need for continued and expanded CDC leadership to develop a coordinated Tracking Program agenda identifying specific scientific goals, data needs, and initiatives. Recommendations for future growth included expanded data availability and program coverage: i.e., making data available at the community scale and establishing tracking programs in all 50 states. Finally, a set of recommendations emphasizing communication to decision makers and the public was made that will be integral to the future utility and success of the Tracking Program.

Setting budgets and priorities at state health agencies.

CONTEXT: State health departments across the country are responsible for assuring and improving the health of the public, and yet financial constraints grow only more acute, and resource allocation decisions become even more challenging. Little empirical evidence exists regarding how officials working in state health departments make these tough allocation decisions. DESIGN: Through a mixed-methods process, we attempted to address this gap in knowledge and characterize issues of resource allocation at state health agencies (SHAs). First, we conducted 45 semistructured interviews across 6 states. Next, a Web-based survey was sent to 355 public health leaders within all states and District of Columbia. In total, 207 leaders responded to the survey (66% response rate). PARTICIPANTS: Leaders of SHAs. RESULTS: The data suggest that state public health leaders are highly consultative internally while making resource allocation decisions, but they also frequently engage with the governor's office and the legislature-much more so at the executive level than at the division director level. Respondents reported that increasing and decreasing funding for certain activities occur frequently and have a moderate impact on the agency or division budget. Agencies continue to "thin the soup," or prefer cutting broadly to cutting deeply. CONCLUSIONS: Public health leaders report facing significant tradeoffs in the course of priority-setting. The authorizing environment continues to force public health leaders to make challenging tradeoffs between unmet need and political considerations, and among vulnerable groups.

Stop and listen to the people: an enhanced approach to cancer cluster investigations.

Cancer cluster investigations need to address the disconnect between traditional public health approaches and human needs. Cancer cluster investigations often magnify fear and uncertainty because they rarely find a definitive environmental cause. Traditional approaches emphasize population-level data analysis and undervalue active listening. Because few studies have explored active listening in cancer cluster investigations, we conducted a descriptive oral history case study of a Frederick, Maryland, investigation. We interviewed 12 community members and 9 public health professionals about the investigation of a perceived cancer cluster. Many believed it was linked to environmental contamination at Fort Detrick, a local US Army base. We propose enhanced active listening that seeks out peoples' perspectives, validates their concerns, and engages them in the investigative process.

Budget- and priority-setting criteria at state health agencies in times of austerity: a mixed-methods study.

OBJECTIVES: We examined critical budget and priority criteria for state health agencies to identify likely decision-making factors, pressures, and opportunities in times of austerity. METHODS: We have presented findings from a 2-stage, mixed-methods study with state public health leaders regarding public health budget- and priority-setting processes. In stage 1, we conducted hour-long interviews in 2011 with 45 health agency executive and division or bureau leaders from 6 states. Stage 2 was an online survey of 207 executive and division or bureau leaders from all state health agencies (66% response rate). RESULTS: Respondents identified 5 key criteria: whether a program was viewed as "mission critical," the seriousness of the consequences of not funding the program, financing considerations, external directives and mandates, and the magnitude of the problem the program addressed. CONCLUSIONS: We have presented empirical findings on criteria used in state health agency budgetary decision-making. These criteria suggested a focus and interest on core public health and the largest public health problems with the most serious ramifications.

Tradeoffs in resource allocation at state health agencies.

BACKGROUND: Priority setting is at the core of resource allocation. In recent years, priority setting in public health has occurred in the context of a difficult authorizing environment, one in which politicians have shown increasing interest in reducing the footprint of government, even during times of increased demand for social services. In this context of austerity, tradeoffs abound. These tradeoffs may occur not only within a single programmatic area in public health (e.g., cutting an infant mortality program vs a "Children With Special Health Care Needs" program) but also at a broader, more abstract level (e.g., favoring programs that are relatively more efficient for one population vs less efficient for programs serving a population in greater need of services). OBJECTIVES: This project was undertaken to provide more insight into tradeoffs within state health agencies with regard to what types of tradeoffs exist and how often they occur. METHODS: To characterize these tradeoffs, we engaged in a mixed-methods project where we first conducted 45 semistructured interviews with public health leaders across 6 state health agencies. Tradeoffs were elicited through open-ended questions and probes and qualitatively coded and analyzed. Next, we conducted a national survey across all state health agencies, receiving 207 responses (66% response rate). Survey respondents were asked to rate how frequently they encountered particular tradeoffs and how difficult they were to resolve. RESULTS: The most frequently encountered tradeoffs were "insufficient funding for a program versus no funding for a program" (84% rating as frequently/very frequently encountered) and prioritizing "current versus future need" (80% rating as frequently/very frequently). More than 50% of respondents said that they encountered 7 of the 11 tradeoffs frequently or very frequently and found 10 of the 11 difficult or very difficult to resolve. Forty-two percent of respondents rated "services for younger groups versus services for older groups" as difficult/very difficult to resolve.