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.

Inclusion of Health Equity Initiatives in Hospitals' Strategic Plans.

Objective: This study examined the health equity initiatives included in US hospitals' strategic plans. Methods: Using data from the American Hospital Association (AHA) 2021 Annual Survey, the study described the types of health equity initiatives that US hospitals included in their strategic plans. The analysis focused on the following seven initiatives: (1) equitable and inclusive organizational policies; (2) systematic and shared accountability for health equity; (3) diverse representation in hospital and health care system leadership; (4) diverse representation in hospital and health care system governance; (5) community engagement; (6) collection and use of segmented data to drive action; and (7) culturally appropriate patient care. Logit and zero-truncated Poisson regression analysis was used to examine organizational and community-level characteristics of hospitals with the most comprehensive health equity strategic plans. Results: Of the 4359 general medical and surgical hospitals that completed the AHA's 2021 survey, 45.1% provided complete information on their health equity strategies. The comprehensiveness of hospitals' health equity efforts varied across organizations. Regression analysis showed that larger hospitals, nonprofit hospitals, and hospitals affiliated with health systems tended to have more comprehensive health equity initiatives as did hospitals located in urban areas, hospitals in communities with higher household incomes, and hospitals in communities with greater proportions of Hispanic residents. Conclusions: While improving health and health equity is a key aspect of many hospitals' missions, the extent to which hospitals include health equity initiatives into their strategic plans varied noticeably. Committing to a comprehensive set of efforts aimed at improving health equity requires human and financial resources as well as dedicated leadership.

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.

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.

Overview of the Most Commonly Identified Public Health Needs and Strategies in a Nationally Representative Sample of Nonprofit Hospitals.

Nonprofit hospitals have been required to conduct Community Health Needs Assessments and develop implementation strategies for almost a decade, yet little is known about this process on the national level. Using a nationally representative dataset of 2019 to 2021 nonprofit hospital community benefit reports, we assessed patterns in hospital identification of community health needs and investments in corresponding programs. The five most common needs identified by hospitals were mental health (identified by 87% of hospitals), substance use (76%), access (73%), social determinants of health (69%), and chronic disease (67%). The five most common needs addressed were: mental health (87%), access (81%), substance use (77%), chronic disease (72%), and obesity (71%). Institutional and community-level factors were associated with whether hospitals identified and addressed health needs. Hospitals often addressed needs that they did not identify, particularly related to the provision of medical services-which has important implications for population health improvement.

Equity as a Guiding Theme in Hospitals' Community Health Needs Assessments.

INTRODUCTION: This study explores the relationship between nonprofit hospitals' use of equity as a guiding theme in the development of their community health needs assessments and the level of alignment between the health needs identified in the community health needs assessment and those addressed in hospitals' implementation strategy. METHODS: Using data from a nationally representative data set of 485 nonprofit hospital community health needs assessments for the years 2018-2021, this study employed a multivariate logistic regression model to examine the association between hospitals' use of equity as a guiding theme in the community health needs assessment and binary indicators of alignment for 6 common community health needs: access to care, chronic illness, obesity, mental health, substance use, and social determinants of health. RESULTS: Hospitals using equity as a guiding theme in their community health needs assessment reported significantly greater alignment for 3 needs: access to care (OR=3.40), substance use (OR=2.75), and social determinants of health (OR=3.60). CONCLUSIONS: Using equity as a guiding theme in the needs assessment process can help to align hospitals' community health initiatives with the most pressing health needs, thus contributing to public health improvement.

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.

Exploring the Relationship Between Local Governmental Spending on the Social Determinants of Health and Health Care Costs of Privately Insured Adults.

Greater investment in the social determinants of health (SDOH) is positively associated with improved health outcomes of both individuals and their communities, which in turn may help to bend the health care cost curve and reduce health care spending. The purpose of this study was to examine the relationship between local governments' spending on the SDOH and the health care costs of privately insured nonelderly adults. Annual spending by local governments on the SDOH for the years 2007-2017 was obtained from the Census of Governments. Annual health care costs for privately insured nonelderly adults for the years 2013-2017 was obtained from the Health Care Cost Institute. Bivariate and multivariate regression analyses were performed to examine the association between county-level local governments' per capita spending on the SDOH and the per member health care costs of privately insured adults living in these counties controlling for community characteristics. All analyses were conducted in 2021. For near-elderly adults ages 55-64, health care costs were significantly higher in counties with the lowest levels of local governmental spending on the SDOH. For adults ages 18-54, in contrast, health care costs were unrelated to local governmental spending. Investments of local governments in the SDOH may have rather limited potential to yield meaningful savings in health care costs for privately insured nonelderly adults at the population level, especially once such investments exceed a minimum threshold.

Individualized Out-of-Pocket Price Estimators for "Shoppable" Surgical Procedures: A Nationwide Cross-Sectional Study of US Hospitals.

To estimate the nationwide prevalence of individualized out-of-pocket (OOP) price estimators at US hospitals, characterize patterns of inclusion of 14 specified "shoppable" surgical procedures, and determine hospital-level characteristics associated with estimators that include surgical procedures. Background: Price transparency for shoppable surgical services is a key requirement of several recent federal policies, yet the extent to which hospitals provide online OOP price estimators remains unknown. Methods: We reviewed a stratified random sample of 485 U.S. hospitals for the presence of a tool to allow patients to estimate individualized OOP expenses for healthcare services. We compared characteristics of hospitals that did and did not offer online price estimators and performed multivariable modeling to identify facility-level predictors of hospitals offering price estimator with and without surgical procedures. Results: Nearly two-thirds (66.0%) of hospitals in the final sample (95% confidence interval 61.6%-70.1%) offered an online tool for estimating OOP healthcare expenses. Approximately 58.5% of hospitals included at least one shoppable surgical procedure while around 6.6% of hospitals included all 14 surgical procedures. The most common price reported was laparoscopic cholecystectomy (55.1%), and the least common was recurrent cataract removal (20.0%). Inclusion of surgical procedures varied by total annual surgical volume and health system membership. Only 26.9% of estimators explicitly included professional fees. Conclusions: Our findings highlight an ongoing progress in price transparency, as well as key areas for improvement in future policies to help patients make more financially informed decisions about their surgical care.

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.

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 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.

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.

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.

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.

State-Level Community Benefit Regulation and Nonprofit Hospitals' Provision of Community Benefits.

Do nonprofit hospitals provide enough community benefits to justify their tax exemptions? States have sought to enhance nonprofit hospitals' accountability and oversight through regulation, including requirements to report community benefits, conduct community health needs assessments, provide minimum levels of community benefits, and adhere to minimum income eligibility standards for charity care. However, little research has assessed these regulations' impact on community benefits. Using 2009-11 Internal Revenue Service data on community benefit spending for more than eighteen hundred hospitals and the Hilltop Institute's data on community benefit regulation, we investigated the relationship between these four types of regulation and the level and types of hospital-provided community benefits. Our multivariate regression analyses showed that only community health needs assessments were consistently associated with greater community benefit spending. The results for reporting and minimum spending requirements were mixed, while minimum income eligibility standards for charity care were unrelated to community benefit spending. State adoption of multiple types of regulation was consistently associated with higher levels of hospital-provided community benefits, possibly because regulatory intensity conveys a strong signal to the hospital community that more spending is expected. This study can inform efforts to design regulations that will encourage hospitals to provide community benefits consistent with policy makers' goals.

The Magnitude of a Community's Health Needs and Nonprofit Hospitals' Progress in Meeting Those Needs: Are We Faced With a Paradox?

OBJECTIVES: Although most nonprofit hospitals are required to conduct periodic community health needs assessments (CHNAs), such assessments arguably are most critical for communities with substantial health needs. The objective of this study was to describe differences in progress in conducting CHNAs between hospitals located in communities with the greatest compared with the fewest health needs. METHODS: We used data on CHNA activity from the 2013 tax filings of 1331 US hospitals combined with data on community health needs from the County Health Rankings. We used bivariate and multivariate analyses to examine differences in hospitals' progress in implementing comprehensive CHNAs using 4 activities: (1) strategies to address identified needs, (2) participation in developing community-wide plans, (3) including CHNA into a hospital's operational plan, and (4) developing a budget to address identified needs. We compared progress in communities with the greatest and the fewest health needs using a comprehensive indicator comprising a community's socioeconomic factors, health behaviors, access to medical care, and physical environment. RESULTS: In 2013, nonprofit hospitals serving communities with the greatest health needs conducted an average of 2.5 of the 4 CHNA activities, whereas hospitals serving communities with the fewest health needs conducted an average of 2.7 activities. Multivariate analysis, however, showed a negative but not significant relationship between the magnitude of a community's health needs and a hospital's progress in implementing comprehensive CHNAs. CONCLUSIONS: Hospitals serving communities with the greatest health needs face high demand for free and reduced-cost care, which may limit their ability to invest more of their community benefit dollars in initiatives aimed at improving the health of the community.

Tax-Exempt Hospitals' Investments in Community Health and Local Public Health Spending: Patterns and Relationships.

OBJECTIVES: To investigate whether tax-exempt hospitals' investments in community health are associated with patterns of governmental public health spending focusing specifically on the relationship between hospitals' community benefit expenditures and the spending patterns of local health departments (LHDs). STUDY DESIGN: We combined data on tax-exempt hospitals' community benefit spending with data on spending by the corresponding LHD that served the county in which a hospital was located. Data were available for 2 years, 2009 and 2013. Generalized linear regressions were estimated with indicators of hospital community benefit spending as the dependent variable and LHD spending as the key independent variable. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Hospital community benefit spending was unrelated to how much local public health agencies spent, per capita, on public health in their communities. CONCLUSIONS: Patterns of local public health spending do not appear to impact the investments of tax-exempt hospitals in community health activities. Opportunities may, however, exist for a more active engagement between the public and private sector to ensure that the expenditures of all stakeholders involved in community health improvement efforts complement one another.

Exploring Costing Methods for Environmental Health Services in North Carolina.

All local health departments in North Carolina are mandated to provide a defined set of environmental health services, yet few have the tools to understand the costs incurred in delivering these services. The objectives of this study were to (1) derive cost estimates for 2 commonly provided environmental health services-food and lodging inspections and on-site water services-and (2) explore factors that drive variations in costs, focusing on the roles of economies of scale and scope. Using data from 15 local health departments in North Carolina, we found that costs varied substantially. A bivariate analysis found evidence of economies of scale: higher volumes of services were associated with lower costs per service. Providing a greater scope of services, however, was not consistently associated with reduced costs. In-depth cost data provide public health officials with key information when deciding how to best serve their communities.