Funding and Service Delivery in Rural and Urban Local US Health Departments in 2010 and 2016.

Objectives. To investigate differences in funding and service delivery between rural and urban local health departments (LHDs) in the United States.Methods. In this repeated cross-sectional study, we examined rural-urban differences in funding and service provision among LHDs over time using 2010 and 2016 National Association of County and City Health Officials data.Results. Local revenue among urban LHDs (41.2%) was higher than that in large rural (31.3%) and small rural LHDs (31.2%; P < .05). Small (20.9%) and large rural LHDs (19.8%) reported greater reliance on revenue from Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services than urban LHDs (11.5%; P < .05). All experienced decreases in clinical revenue between 2010 and 2016. Urban LHDs provided less primary care services in 2016; rural LHDs provided more mental health and substance abuse services (P < .05).Conclusions. Urban LHDs generated more revenues from local sources, and rural LHDs generated more from the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services and clinical services. Rural LHDs tended to provide more clinical services. Given rural LHDs' reliance on clinical revenue, decreases in clinical services could have disproportionate effects on them.Public Health Implications. Differences in financing and service delivery by rurality have an impact on the communities. Rural LHDs rely more heavily on state and federal dollars, which are vulnerable to changes in state and national health policy.

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.

Developing a Financing System to Support Public Health Infrastructure.

All people in the United States deserve the same level of public health protection, making it crucial that every health department across the country has a core set of foundational capabilities. Current research indicates an annual cost of $32 per person to support the foundational public health capabilities needed to promote and protect health for everyone across the nation. Yet national investment in public health capabilities is currently about $19 per person, leaving a $13-per-person gap in annual spending.To "create the conditions in which people can be as healthy as possible" and to protect national security, this gap must be filled. The Public Health Leadership Forum convened national experts in the public health, public policy, and other partner sectors to develop options for long-term, sustainable financing. The group aligned around core principles and criteria necessary to establish a sustainable financing structure.Informed by the work of the expert panel, the authors recommend a Public Health Infrastructure Fund for state, territorial, local, and tribal governmental public health, that would provide $4.5 billion of new, permanent resources needed to fully support core public health foundational capabilities.

A cross-country study of mis-implementation in public health practice.

BACKGROUND: Mis-implementation (i.e., the premature termination or inappropriate continuation of public health programs) contributes to the misallocation of limited public health resources and the sub-optimal response to the growing global burden of chronic disease. This study seeks to describe the occurrence of mis-implementation in four countries of differing sizes, wealth, and experience with evidence-based chronic disease prevention (EBCDP). METHODS: A cross-sectional study of 400 local public health practitioners in Australia, Brazil, China, and the United States was conducted from November 2015 to April 2016. Online survey questions focused on how often mis-termination and mis-continuation occur and the most common reasons programs end and continue. RESULTS: We found significant differences in knowledge of EBCDP across countries with upwards of 75% of participants from Australia (n = 91/121) and the United States (n = 83/101) reporting being moderately to extremely knowledgeable compared with roughly 60% (n = 47/76) from Brazil and 20% (n = 21/102) from China (p < 0.05). Far greater proportions of participants from China thought effective programs were never mis-terminated (12.2% (n = 12/102) vs. 1% (n = 2/121) in Australia, 2.6% (n = 2/76) in Brazil, and 1.0% (n = 1/101) in the United States; p < 0.05) or were unable to estimate how frequently this happened (45.9% (n = 47/102) vs. 7.1% (n = 7/101) in the United States, 10.5% (n = 8/76) in Brazil, and 1.7% (n = 2/121) in Australia; p < 0.05). The plurality of participants from Australia (58.0%, n = 70/121) and the United States (36.8%, n = 37/101) reported that programs often mis-continued whereas most participants from Brazil (60.5%, n = 46/76) and one third (n = 37/102) of participants from China believed this happened only sometimes (p < 0.05). The availability of funding and support from political authorities, agency leadership, and the general public were common reasons programs continued and ended across all countries. A program's effectiveness or evidence-base-or lack thereof-were rarely reasons for program continuation and termination. CONCLUSIONS: Decisions about continuing or ending a program were often seen as a function of program popularity and funding availability as opposed to effectiveness. Policies and practices pertaining to programmatic decision-making should be improved in light of these findings. Future studies are needed to understand and minimize the individual, organizational, and political-level drivers of mis-implementation.

State Health Agency and Local Health Department Workforce: Identifying Top Development Needs.

OBJECTIVES: To identify occupations with high-priority workforce development needs at public health departments in the United States. METHODS: We surveyed 46 state health agencies (SHAs) and 112 local health departments (LHDs). We asked respondents to prioritize workforce needs for 29 occupations and identify whether more positions, more qualified candidates, more competitive salaries for recruitment or retention, or new or different staff skills were needed. RESULTS: Forty-one SHAs (89%) and 36 LHDs (32%) participated. The SHAs reported having high-priority workforce needs for epidemiologists and laboratory workers; LHDs for disease intervention specialists, nurses, and administrative support, management, and leadership positions. Overall, the most frequently reported SHA workforce needs were more qualified candidates and more competitive salaries. The LHDs most frequently reported a need for more positions across occupations and more competitive salaries. Workforce priorities for respondents included strengthening epidemiology workforce capacity, adding administrative positions, and improving compensation to recruit and retain qualified employees. CONCLUSIONS: Strategies for addressing workforce development concerns of health agencies include providing additional training and workforce development resources, and identifying best practices for recruitment and retention of qualified candidates.

Environmental Public Health Tracking: a cost-effective system for characterizing the sources, distribution and public health impacts of environmental hazards.

Background: The contemporary environment is a complex of interactions between physical, biological, socio-economic systems with major impacts on public health. However, gaps in our understanding of the causes, extent and distribution of these effects remain. The public health community in Sandwell West Midlands has collaborated to successfully develop, pilot and establish the first Environmental Public Health Tracking (EPHT) programme in Europe to address this 'environmental health gap' through systematically linking data on environmental hazards, exposures and diseases. Methods: Existing networks of environmental, health and regulatory agencies developed a suite of innovative methods to routinely share, integrate and analyse data on hazards, exposures and health outcomes to inform interventions. Results: Effective data sharing and horizon scanning systems have been established, novel statistical methods piloted, plausible associations framed and tested, and targeted interventions informed by local concerns applied. These have influenced changes in public health practice. Conclusion: EPHT is a powerful tool for identifying and addressing the key environmental public health impacts at a local level. Sandwell's experience demonstrates that it can be established and operated at virtually no cost. The transfer of National Health Service epidemiological skills to local authorities in 2013 provides an opportunity to expand the programme to fully exploit its potential.

Strategic Methodologies in Public Health Cost Analyses.

CONTEXT: The National Research Agenda for Public Health Services and Systems Research states the need for research to determine the cost of delivering public health services in order to assist the public health system in communicating financial needs to decision makers, partners, and health reform leaders. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this analysis is to compare 2 cost estimation methodologies, public health manager estimates of employee time spent and activity logs completed by public health workers, to understand to what degree manager surveys could be used in lieu of more time-consuming and burdensome activity logs. DESIGN: Employees recorded their time spent on communicable disease surveillance for a 2-week period using an activity log. Managers then estimated time spent by each employee on a manager survey. Robust and ordinary least squares regression was used to measure the agreement between the time estimated by the manager and the time recorded by the employee. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The 2 outcomes for this study included time recorded by the employee on the activity log and time estimated by the manager on the manager survey. SETTING: This study was conducted in local health departments in Colorado. PARTICIPANTS: Forty-one Colorado local health departments (82%) agreed to participate. RESULTS: Seven of the 8 models showed that managers underestimate their employees' time, especially for activities on which an employee spent little time. Manager surveys can best estimate time for time-intensive activities, such as total time spent on a core service or broad public health activity, and yet are less precise when estimating discrete activities. CONCLUSIONS: When Public Health Services and Systems Research researchers and health departments are conducting studies to determine the cost of public health services, there are many situations in which managers can closely approximate the time required and produce a relatively precise approximation of cost without as much time investment by practitioners.

Sexually Transmitted Disease Program Evolution in Response to Changes in the Public Health Environment: A Massachusetts Example.

BACKGROUND: In 2008, the line item supporting sexually transmitted disease (STD) services in the Massachusetts state budget was cut as a result of budget shortfalls. Shortly thereafter, direct provision of STD clinical services supported by the Massachusetts Department of Public Health (MDPH) was suspended. Massachusetts Department of Public Health requested an initial assessment of its internal response and impact in 2010. A follow-up assessment occurred in September 2013. METHODS: In 2010 and 2013, 39 and 46 staff, respectively, from MDPH and from clinical partner agencies, were interviewed about changes in the role of the MDPH, partnerships, STD services, challenges, and recommendations. Interview notes were summarized, analyzed, and synthesized by coauthors using qualitative analysis techniques and NVivo software. RESULTS: The withdrawal of state funding for STD services, and the subsequent reduction in clinical service hours, erected numerous barriers for Disease Intervention Specialists (DIS) seeking to ensure timely STD treatment for index cases and their partners. After initial instability, MDPH operations stabilized due partly to strong management, new staff, and intensified integration with human immunodeficiency virus services. Existing contracts with human immunodeficiency virus providers were leveraged to support alternative STD testing and care sites. Massachusetts Department of Public Health strengthened its clinical and epidemiologic expertise. The DIS expanded their scope of work and were outposted to select new sites. Challenges remained, however, such as a shortage of DIS staff to meet the needs. CONCLUSIONS: Although unique in many ways, MA offers experiences and lessons for how a state STD program can adapt to a changing public health context.

Ten Things I Wish Someone Had Told Me When I Became a Health Officer.

Public health, like politics, is the art of the possible. To maximize effectiveness, public health officers in any jurisdiction should (1) get good data and ensure timely and effective dissemination; (2) prioritize and tackle more difficult initiatives first; (3) find, fight, and win winnable battles in areas where progress is possible but not ensured without focused, strategic effort; (4) support and hire great people and protect them so they can do their jobs; (5) address communicable diseases and environmental health effectively; (6) do not cede the clinical realm-public health programs depend on clinical care and on effective coordination between health care and public health; (7) learn and manage the budget cycle; (8) manage the context; (9) never surprise their boss; and (10) follow core principles.

Assessment of Staffing, Services, and Partnerships of Local Health Departments - United States, 2015.

Beginning in 2008, the National Association of County and City Health Officials (NACCHO) periodically surveyed local health departments (LHDs) to assess the impact of the economic recession on jobs and budgets (1). In 2014, the survey was expanded to assess a wider range of factors affecting programs, services, and infrastructure in LHDs and renamed the Forces of Change survey (2). The survey was administered in to January-February 2015 to 948 LHDs across the United States to assess budget changes, job losses, changes in services, and collaboration with health care partners; 690 (73%) LHDs responded. Findings indicated a change in LHD infrastructure: compared with the previous fiscal year.* Overall, LHDs reported 3,400 jobs lost; 25% of LHDs reported budget decreases; 36% reported a reduction in at least one service area; and 35% reported serving fewer patients in clinics. In addition, up to 24% of LHDs reported expanding population-based prevention services, and LHDs reported exploring new collaborations with nonprofit hospitals and primary care providers (PCPs).

Making the case for investment in public health: experiences of Directors of Public Health in English local government.

BACKGROUND: Amid local government budget cuts, there is concern that the ring-fenced public health grant is being appropriated, and Directors of Public Health (DsPH) find it difficult to make the case for investment in public health activity. This paper describes what DsPH are making the case for, the components of their case and how they present the case for public health. METHODS: Thirteen semi-structured telephone interviews and a group discussion were carried out with DsPH (November 2013 to May 2014) in the Southern region of England. RESULTS: DsPH make the case for control of the public health grant and investing in action on wider determinants of health. The cases they present incorporate arguments about need, solutions and their effectiveness, health outcomes, cost and economic impact but also normative, political arguments. Many types of evidence were used to substantiate the cases; evidence was carefully framed to be accessible and persuasive. CONCLUSIONS: DsPH are responding to a new environment; economic arguments and evidence of impact are key components of the case for public health, although multiple factors influence local government (LG) decisions around health improvement. Further evidence of economic impact would be helpful in making the case for public health in LG.

Integration, influence and change in public health: findings from a survey of Directors of Public Health in England.

BACKGROUND: Following the Health and Social Care Act in England, public health teams were formally transferred from the NHS to local authorities in April 2013. METHODS: Online survey of Directors of Public Health (DsPH) in local authorities in England (n = 152) to investigate their experience within local government 1 year on. Tests of association were used to explore relationships between the perceived integration and influence of public health, and changes in how the public health budget was being spent. RESULTS: The organization of and managerial arrangements for public health within councils varied. Most DsPH felt that good relationships had been established within the council, and the move had made them more able to influence priorities for health improvement, even though most felt their influence was limited. Changes in commissioning using the public health budget were already widespread and included the de-commissioning of services. CONCLUSIONS: There was a widespread feeling amongst DsPH that they had greater influence since the reforms, and that this went across the local authority and beyond. Public health's influence was most apparent when the transfer of staff to local government had gone well, when collaborative working relationships had developed, and when local partnership groups were seen as being effective.