New insights about community benefit evaluation: Using the Community Health Implementation Evaluation Framework to assess what hospitals are measuring.

BACKGROUND: Nonprofit hospitals are required to conduct community health needs assessments (CHNA) every 3 years and develop corresponding implementation plans. Implemented strategies must address the identified community needs and be evaluated for impact. PURPOSE: Using the Community Health Implementation Evaluation Framework (CHIEF), we assessed whether and how nonprofit hospitals are evaluating the impact of their CHNA-informed community benefit initiatives. METHODOLOGY: We conducted a content analysis of 83 hospital CHNAs that reported evaluation outcomes drawn from a previously identified 20% random sample ( n = 613) of nonprofit hospitals in the United States. Through qualitative review guided by the CHIEF, we identified and categorized the most common evaluation outcomes reported. RESULTS: A total of 485 strategies were identified from the 83 hospitals' CHNAs. Evaluated strategies most frequently targeted behavioral health ( n = 124, 26%), access ( n = 83, 17%), and obesity/nutrition/inactivity ( n = 68, 14%). The most common type of evaluation outcomes reported by CHIEF category included system utilization ( n = 342, 71%), system implementation ( n = 170, 35%), project management ( n = 164, 34%), and social outcomes ( n = 163, 34%). PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: CHNA evaluation strategies focus on utilization (the number of individuals served), with few focusing on social or health outcomes. This represents a missed opportunity to (a) assess the social and health impacts across individual strategies and (b) provide insight that can be used to inform the allocation of limited resources to maximize the impact of community benefit strategies.

Estimating the Cost of the COVID-19 Response for Local Health Departments: Evidence From Ohio.

This study assessed the staffing allocations and associated costs incurred by Ohio local health departments (LHDs) in response to the challenges posed by the COVID-19 pandemic. Data were extracted from the annual financial reports of Ohio LHDs for 2020 and 2021, encompassing a sample of 38 LHDs in 2020 and 60 LHDs in 2021. Descriptive analysis showed that Ohio LHDs committed substantial resources to responding to the COVID-19 pandemic. Although there was considerable variability across LHDs, median staffing and compensation collectively constituted 22% of total staffing and compensation. Multivariate regression analysis found minimal associations between the examined agency and community-level variables and the differences in staffing allocations and associated costs incurred by LHDs in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. After decades of underfunding and understaffing, securing sustainable funding will be crucial to equip LHDs across the country with the necessary resources to deliver comprehensive public health services in their communities.

Trends in the Provision of Community-Building Activities by Nonprofit Hospitals, 2010-2019.

As part of their annual tax report, nonprofit hospitals are asked to report their community-building activities (CBAs); yet, little is known to date about hospitals' spending on such activities. CBAs are activities that improve community health by addressing the upstream factors and social determinants that impact health. Using data from Internal Revenue Service Form 990 Schedule H, this study used descriptive statistics to examine trends in the provision of CBAs by nonprofit hospitals between 2010 and 2019. While the number of hospitals reporting any CBA spending remained relatively stable at around 60%, the share of total operating expenditures that hospitals contributed to CBAs decreased from 0.04% in 2010 to 0.02% in 2019. Despite the increasing attention paid by policy makers and the public to the contributions that hospitals make to the health of their communities, nonprofit hospitals have not made corresponding efforts to increase their spending on CBAs.

Evaluation of Community Benefit Activities Among Nonprofit Hospitals, 2018-2021.

OBJECTIVE: This study examined approaches that nonprofit hospitals use to evaluate community benefit activities in the Community Health Needs Assessment/Implementation Plan (CHNA/IP) process. DESIGN: Content analysis of CHNAs/IPs completed between 2018 and 2021 from a 20% stratified random sample (n = 503) of US nonprofit hospitals. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: A coding sheet was used to record details about the evaluation content reported by hospitals in their CHNAs/IPs. Evaluation was coded into 4 categories: (1) no mention of evaluation; (2) description of evaluation without reporting any measures; (3) reporting reach (number of people served) only; and (4) reporting social/health outcomes. For logistic regression analyses, categories 1 and 2 were grouped together into "no evaluation measures" and categories 3 and 4 were grouped into "evaluation measures" for binary comparison. Multinomial logistic regression was also used to individually examine categories 3 and 4 compared with no evaluation measures. RESULTS: While a majority of nonprofit hospitals (71.4%, n = 359) mentioned evaluation in their CHNAs, almost half (49.7%, n = 250) did not report any evaluation measures. Among the 50.3% (n = 253) of hospitals that reported evaluation measures, 67.2% (n = 170) only reported reach. Fewer than 1 in 5 hospitals (16.5%, n = 83) reported social/health outcomes. Hospitals that hired a consultant (adjusted odds ratio [AOR] = 1.61; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.08-2.43) and system members (AOR = 1.76; 95% CI, 1.12-2.75) had higher odds of reporting evaluation measures. Using hospitals that reported no measures as the base category, system members (AOR = 7.71; 95% CI, 2.97-20.00) also had significantly higher odds of reporting social/health outcomes, while rural locations had lower odds (AOR = 0.43; 95% CI, 0.20-0.94). CONCLUSIONS: Although hospitals are required to evaluate the impact of actions taken to address the health needs identified in their CHNAs, few hospitals are reporting social/health outcomes of such activities. This represents a missed opportunity, as health/social outcomes could be used to inform the allocation of resources to maximize community benefits and the expansion of successful community initiatives.

Hospital Community Benefit Reporting: How Group Reporting Practices Limit Accountability.

OBJECTIVE: To identify the prevalence of group reporting of hospital community benefit efforts to the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) and understand hospital and community characteristics associated with this practice. DESIGN: The study was based on data collected from publicly available community benefit reports from 2010 to 2019, as well as secondary data from the 2020 American Hospital Association (AHA) Annual Survey. The sample was drawn from the entire nonprofit US hospital population reporting community benefit activities. The analytic plan employed descriptive statistics and bivariate analysis. SETTING: The United States. PARTICIPANTS: All data are self-reported by US hospitals, either through the publication of community benefit reports (IRS Form 990 Schedule H) or a response to the AHA Annual Survey. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Analyzed variables include whether a hospital reported its community benefit expenditures individually or as a group member; community benefit spending as a percentage of hospital operating expenses; and whether the hospital was part of a multihospital system, with consideration of hospital and community characteristics. RESULTS: Between 2010 and 2019, more than 40% of hospitals participated in group reporting, with most doing so consistently. System membership and hospital size were significantly and positively tied to group reporting, with state community benefit policy tied to the lower prevalence of group reporting. CONCLUSIONS: The high prevalence of group reporting limits accountability to communities and restricts an accurate assessment of community benefit expenditures, counter to policy intentions. Stakeholders should consider what modifications to reporting rules could be made to promote transparency and to ensure that the effects of community benefit policies align with intentions.

A Uniform Chart of Accounts: Strengthening Public Health Practice and Research Through Standardized Financial Data.

CONTEXT: The COVID-19 pandemic made the long-standing need for a national uniform financial reporting standard for governmental public health agencies clear, as little information was available to quantify state and local public health agencies' financial needs during the pandemic response. Such a uniform system would also inform resource allocation to underresourced communities and for specific services, while filling other gaps in practice, research, and policy making. This article describes lessons learned and recommendations for ensuring broad adoption of a national Uniform Chart of Accounts (UCOA) for public health departments. PROGRAM: Leveraging previous efforts, the UCOA for public health systems was developed through collaboration with public health leaders. The UCOA allows state and local public health agencies to report spending on activities and funding sources, along with practice-defined program areas and capabilities. IMPLEMENTATION: To date, 78 jurisdictions have utilized the UCOA to crosswalk financial information at the program level, enabling comparisons with peers. EVALUATION: Jurisdictions participating in the UCOA report perceptions of substantial up-front time investment to crosswalk their charts of accounts to the UCOA standard but derive a sense of valuable potential for benchmarking against peers, ability to engage in resource allocation, use of data for accountability, and general net positive value of engagement with the UCOA. IMPLICATIONS FOR POLICY AND PRACTICE: The UCOA is considered a need among practice partners. Implementing the UCOA at scale will require government involvement, a reporting requirement and/or incentives, technical assistance, financial support for agencies to participate, and a means of visualizing the data.

Staffing Up and Sustaining the Public Health Workforce.

OBJECTIVES: Estimate the number of full-time equivalents (FTEs) needed to fully implement Foundational Public Health Services (FPHS) at the state and local levels in the United States. METHODS: Current and full implementation cost estimation data from 168 local health departments (LHDs), as well as data from the Association of State and Territorial Health Officials and the National Association of County and City Health Officials, were utilized to estimate current and "full implementation" staffing modes to estimate the workforce gap. RESULTS: The US state and local governmental public health workforce needs at least 80 000 additional FTEs to deliver core FPHS in a post-COVID-19 landscape. LHDs require approximately 54 000 more FTEs, and states health agency central offices require approximately 26 000 more. CONCLUSIONS: Governmental public health needs tens of thousands of more FTEs, on top of replacements for those leaving or retiring, to fully implement core FPHS. IMPLICATIONS FOR POLICY AND PRACTICE: Transitioning a COVID-related surge in staffing to a permanent workforce requires substantial and sustained investment from federal and state governments to deliver even the bare minimum of public health services.

The impact of Maryland's payment reforms on hospital community benefit efforts.

BACKGROUND: In 2014, Maryland established a global budget policy for all hospitals in the state. Under this policy, hospitals are incentivized to not only provide clinical care services to individual patients but also address the health needs of their broader patient population through prevention efforts and investment in the upstream social and economic factors that determine health. PURPOSE: To better understand the incentives created for hospitals under this policy, our study assessed whether the implementation of global budgets changed the levels and patterns of Maryland hospitals' investments in community benefits. APPROACH: Data on hospital community benefit spending from the Internal Revenue Service Form 990 Schedule H for the years 2010-2016 were utilized for this study. RESULTS: We found that Maryland hospitals' total spending on community benefits decreased under the global budget policy. Unlike hospitals in similar states without a global budget policy, Maryland hospitals did not experience any increases in Medicaid shortfalls between 2014 and 2016. Although Maryland hospitals provided more subsidized health services, their investment in broader community health improvement activities remained unchanged. CONCLUSION: Our analysis suggests that Maryland hospitals have shifted strategies because of the implementation of the global budget policy. The ability to report community benefit in a way that accurately considers the context and constraints of a state's policies would provide hospitals better means of communicating these efforts to stakeholders. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Our results suggest that global budgets impact the levels and patterns of hospitals' community benefit investments.

Funding Community Health Activities: An Experiment Comparing Health Foundation's Priorities to Those of Public Health Agencies, Hospitals, and Nonprofit Organizations.

CONTEXT: Health foundations provide significant financial resources for community health. Foundation priorities, therefore, can play a key role in setting community agenda, but little is known about the criteria foundations use to prioritize projects. OBJECTIVE: To understand the priorities that guide decision makers in health foundations and compare those priorities with what is known about nonprofit hospitals, public health, and community-based nonprofits. DESIGN: An online survey with a discrete choice experiment and open-ended questions, asking respondents to choose between different types of community health projects based on project characteristics. SETTING: Survey respondents were employed by health foundations located in the United States. PARTICIPANTS: Respondents were leaders at health foundations (n = 173), the majority of which (56.2%) worked at foundations with assets greater than $50 million. These respondents were compared with an earlier survey (n = 561) from nonprofit hospitals, public health, and community-based nonprofits. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: A conditional logit model was used to estimate how various project characteristics led to greater or lesser support of a given health project. Open-ended questions aided interpretation. A two sample t test was used to compare groups. RESULTS: Foundation decision makers placed the greatest value on programs with coalitions of community partners, programs with a growing or existing base of evidence for effectiveness, and programs that focus on social determinants of health. These priorities are similar to those of community nonprofits, public health departments, and health systems. However, foundation leaders are more willing to fund interventions with longer time horizons and interventions that are not yet fully evidence-based. Foundations are also less interested in clinical care and more interested in advocacy programs. CONCLUSION: Cooperation in funding and implementation is essential to community health improvement, and major organizations could benefit from everyone clearly articulating their priorities. There are good reasons to intentionally foster both similarities and differences in priorities across organizations.

The Role of Local Health Departments in Strengthening the Alignment Between Nonprofit Hospitals' Community Health Needs Assessments and Their Implementation Strategies.

Nonprofit hospitals frequently partner with their local health department on developing community health needs assessments (CHNAs); yet, little is known about the role that such partnerships play in strengthening the alignment between needs identified in hospitals' assessments and the strategies adopted by hospitals to address identified needs. Using data for 486 hospitals from the third round of CHNAs (spanning the years 2018-2021), this study showed strong alignment between the health needs identified in the CHNAs and those addressed in hospitals' implementation strategies, independent of collaboration with the local health department. One noteworthy exception to this finding was that hospital-public health collaboration remained important for improved alignment of needs related to substance use. Involvement of the local health department may strengthen hospitals' capacity to address needs outside their traditional areas of expertise, such as substance use.

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.

Evidence that collaborative action between local health departments and nonprofit hospitals helps foster healthy behaviors in communities: a multilevel study.

BACKGROUND: The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010 (ACA) encouraged nonprofit hospitals to collaborate with local public health experts in the conduct of community health needs assessments (CHNAs) for the larger goal of improving community health. Yet, little is known about whether collaborations between local health departments and hospitals may be beneficial to community health. In this study, we investigated whether individuals residing in communities with stronger collaboration between nonprofit hospitals and local public health departments (LHDs) reported healthier behaviors. We further explored whether social capital acts as a moderating factor of these relationships. METHODS: We used multilevel cross-sectional models, controlling for both individual and community-level factors to explore LHD-hospital collaboration (measured in the National Association of County and City Health Officials (NACCHO) Forces of Change Survey), in relation to individual-level health behaviors in 56,826 adults living in 32 metropolitan and micropolitan statistical areas, captured through the 2015 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS) SMART dataset. Nine health behaviors were examined including vigorous exercise, eating fruits and vegetables, smoking and binge drinking. Social capital, measured using an index developed by the Northeast Regional Center for Rural Development, was also explored as an effect modifier of these relationships. RESULTS: Stronger collaboration between nonprofit hospitals and LHDs was associated with not smoking (odds ratio, OR 1.32, 95% CI 1.11 to 1.58), eating vegetables daily (OR 1.29; 95% CI 1.06 to 1.57), and vigorous exercise (OR 1.17; 95% CI 1.05 to 1.30). The presence of higher social capital also strengthened the relationships between LHD-hospital collaborations and wearing a seatbelt (p for interaction = 0.01) and general exercise (p for interaction = 0.03). CONCLUSIONS: Stronger collaboration between nonprofit hospitals and LHDs was positively associated with healthier individual-level behaviors. Social capital may also play a moderating role in improving individual and population health.

Are Nonprofit Hospitals Addressing the Most Critical Community Health Needs That They Identify in Their Community Health Needs Assessments?

CONTEXT: Virtually all nonprofit hospitals are in compliance with the Affordable Care Act's new Community Health Needs Assessments requirements. OBJECTIVE: To assess what needs have emerged in the Community Health Needs Assessments hospitals complete nationally, the degree to which identified needs reflect the most pressing community health issues, and the extent to which hospitals address identified needs. DESIGN: Using both bivariate and logistic regressions, we analyzed the Community Health Needs Assessments and implementation strategies of nonprofit hospitals to determine whether identified needs overlapped with county health-ranking indicators of need and whether institutional or community-level factors predicted hospital willingness to address identified needs. PARTICIPANTS: We included a 20% random sample of US nonprofit hospitals (n = 496). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Our main outcome measures were whether nonprofit hospitals addressed each of the most common needs. RESULTS: Mental health, access to care, obesity, substance abuse, diabetes, cancer, and the social determinants of health were the most commonly identified needs across the sample. The rate at which hospitals chose to address each of these needs in their implementation strategies, however, varied considerably, ranging from 56% (cancer) to 85% (obesity). We found that several institutional and community characteristics predicted hospital willingness to address each need; whether the community ranked a need as number 1 was a better predictor of hospital investment than the severity of the need, as measured by county health-rankings data. CONCLUSIONS: These findings may help inform local, state, and federal policy makers as they consider interventions aimed at encouraging hospitals to invest in improving the health of their communities.

The Cost of Providing the Foundational Public Health Services in Ohio.

OBJECTIVES: To examine levels of expenditure and needed investment in public health at the local level in the state of Ohio pre-COVID-19. DESIGN: Using detailed financial reporting from fiscal year (FY) 2018 from Ohio's local health departments (LHDs), we characterize spending by Foundational Public Health Services (FPHS). We also constructed estimates of the gap in public health spending in the state using self-reported gaps in service provision and a microsimulation approach. Data were collected between January and June 2019 and analyzed between June and September 2019. PARTICIPANTS: Eighty-four of the 113 LHDs in the state of Ohio covering a population of almost 9 million Ohioans. RESULTS: In FY2018, Ohio LHDs spent an average of $37 per capita on protecting and promoting the public's health. Approximately one-third of this investment supported the Foundational Areas (communicable disease control; chronic disease and injury prevention; environmental public health; maternal, child, and family health; and access to and linkages with health care). Another third supported the Foundational Capabilities, that is, the crosscutting skills and capacities needed to support all LHD activities. The remaining third supported programs and activities that are responsive to local needs and vary from community to community. To fully meet identified LHD needs in the state pre-COVID-19, Ohio would require an additional annual investment of $20 per capita on top of the current $37 spent per capita, or approximately $240 million for the state. CONCLUSIONS: A better understanding of the cost and value of public health services can educate policy makers so that they can make informed trade-offs when balancing health care, public health, and social services investments. The current environment of COVID-19 may dramatically increase need, making understanding and growing public health investment critical.

Nonprofit Hospitals' Response to the Opioid Epidemic in Urban Communities: A Content Analysis of Hospitals' Community Health Needs Assessments and Implementation Strategies.

CONTEXT: Addressing the opioid epidemic requires a coordinated community response; yet, the role that nonprofit hospitals play in these efforts has not been systematically examined. OBJECTIVE: To explore hospital-initiated strategies to address opioid use in urban communities most affected by the opioid epidemic. DESIGN: We conducted content analysis of publicly available community health needs assessments (CHNAs) and accompanying implementation strategies of 140 nonprofit hospitals. We employed a qualitative approach using open coding methods to explore the extent to which hospitals identified opioid use as a community health need and engaged in interventions to address opioid use in their communities. We also conducted bivariate analysis to compare organizational and community characteristics of hospitals that did and did not engage in strategies to address opioid use. SETTING: One hundred forty nonprofit hospitals in urban areas with high opioid death rates across 25 states. RESULTS: Almost 70% of CHNAs identified opioid use as a community health need, and 63% of implementation strategies included at least 1 hospital-initiated activity to address this need. More than 90% of these implementation strategies involved providing additional capacity for and access to treatment. Bivariate analysis showed that hospitals that engaged in activities to address opioid use did not differ meaningfully from hospitals that did not engage in such activities, with 2 exceptions. Hospitals that relied on consultants to prepare the CHNA were more likely to engage in activities to address opioid use as were hospitals located in Medicaid expansion states. CONCLUSIONS: Nonprofit hospitals are taking action to address the opioid epidemic in their communities, most commonly by providing additional treatment capacity for patients with opioid use. While an important contribution, hospitals need incentives to develop a more comprehensive response to the opioid epidemic that extends beyond medical care to include the social and economic determinants of this crisis.

Local Health Departments' Spending on the Foundational Capabilities.

Improving our nation's public health system requires a detailed understanding of public health expenditures and related revenue sources, yet no comprehensive data source exists that contains such information for governmental health agencies at all levels. Using pilot study data of a standardized financial accounting framework for public health agencies-in the form of a uniform chart of accounts crosswalk-this article presents local health departments' (LHDs') expenditures on the foundational capabilities, that is, crosscutting skills and capacities needed to support all of an LHD's programs and activities. Among 16 sample LHDs from 4 states, per capita foundational capabilities spending ranged from $1.10 to $26.19, with a median of $7.67. Larger LHDs and LHDs with greater financial resources spent more per capita, as did accredited LHDs. Future work using data from a larger sample of LHDs is needed to examine agency and community-level characteristics associated with adequate funding for the foundational capabilities.

Impact of ACA Medicaid Expansion on Hospitals' Financial Status.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act's insurance reforms were expected to have significant and positive implications for hospital finances. In particular, state expansion of Medicaid programs held the promise of reducing hospitals' uncompensated care costs as a result of expanding health insurance to many previously uninsured individuals. Recent research indicates that in the early phases of Medicaid expansion, many hospitals did experience a substantial decline in uncompensated care costs. However, studies to date have not considered whether Medicaid expansion resulted in payment shortfalls that offset some of what hospitals saved from lower uncompensated care costs. We examined filings submitted by hospitals to the Internal Revenue Service (IRS)-one of the few publicly available sources of national data on both uncompensated care costs and Medicaid payment shortfalls. We also compared changes in uncompensated care costs and Medicaid payment shortfalls for hospitals in expansion states with those in nonexpansion states. Our findings indicate that state expansion of Medicaid led to substantial reductions in hospitals' uncompensated care costs, but the savings were offset somewhat by increased Medicaid payment shortfalls. Therefore, studies that focus only on reductions in uncompensated care costs can overstate the benefits of Medicaid expansion on hospitals finances.

The Importance of Governmental and Nongovernmental Investments in Public Health and Social Services for Improving Community Health Outcomes.

OBJECTIVE: To explore whether health outcomes are influenced by both governmental social services spending and hospital provision of community health services. DESIGN: We combined hospital provision of community health services data from the American Hospital Association with local governmental spending data from the US Census Bureau. Longitudinal models regressed community health outcomes for 2012-2016 on local government spending on health, social services, and education from 5 years previously, controlling for sociodemographic and hospital marketplace characteristics, spatial autocorrelation, and state-level random effects. For counties with hospitals, models also included county-level data on hospitals' provision of community health services. SETTING: All analyses were performed at the county level for US counties between 2012 and 2016. PARTICIPANTS: Complete spending, hospital, and health outcomes data were available for a total of 2379 counties. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: We examined relationships between governmental spending, hospital service provision, and 5 population health outcome measures: years of potential life lost prior to age 75 years per 100 000 population, percentage of population in fair or poor health, percentage of adults who are physically inactive, deaths due to injury per 100 000 population, and percentage of births that are of low birth weight. RESULTS: Governmental investments in health, social services, and education positively impacted key health outcomes but mainly in counties with 1 or more hospitals present. Hospitals' provision of community health services also had a significant positive impact on health outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Hospital provision of community health services and increases in local governmental health and social services spending were both associated with improved health. Collaboration between local governments and hospitals may help ensure that public and private community health resources synergistically contribute to the public's health. Local policy makers should consider service provision by the private sector to leverage the public investments in health and social services.

Priorities for Investing in Community Health Improvement: A Comparison of Decision Makers in Public Health, Nonprofit Hospitals, and Community Nonprofits.

CONTEXT: As a result of additional requirements for tax exemption, many nonprofit hospitals have become more actively involved in community health improvement. There is an open question, however, as to how decision makers in hospitals decide which kind of improvement projects should receive priority and how hospital managers' priorities compare with those of decision makers in public health agencies and community-based nonprofits. OBJECTIVE: To understand the priorities that guide decision makers in public health, nonprofit hospitals, and community nonprofits when allocating resources to community health projects. DESIGN: We conducted an online survey with a discrete choice experiment, asking respondents to choose between different types of community health projects, which varied along several project characteristics. Respondents included managers of community health and community benefit at nonprofit hospitals (n = 225), managers at local public health departments (n = 200), and leaders of community nonprofits (n = 136). Respondents were located in 47 of 50 US states. A conditional logit model was used to estimate how various project characteristics led to greater or lesser support of a given health project. Open-ended questions aided in interpretation of results. RESULTS: Respondents from all 3 groups showed strong agreement on community health priorities. Projects were more likely to be selected when they addressed a health issue identified on community health needs assessment, involved cross-sector collaboration, or were supported by evidence. Project characteristics that mattered less included the time needed to measure the project's impact and the project's target population. CONCLUSION: Elements often considered central to community health, such as long-term investment and prioritizing vulnerable populations, may not be considered by decision makers as important as other aspects of resource allocation. If we want greater priority for ideas such as health equity and social determinants of health, it will take a concerted effort from practitioners and policy makers to reshape expectations.