Strengthening Public Health Through Primary Care and Public Health Collaboration: Innovative State Approaches.

OBJECTIVE: Partnerships are increasingly critical to achieve the mission of public health. We sought to understand the levers and tools that states use to better connect public health and primary care in efforts to strengthen public health. DESIGN: We reviewed literature focused on collaborative or integrative efforts between primary care and public health and examined strategies employed by 4 innovative states: North Carolina, Oregon, Rhode Island, and Washington. Using a purposive convenience sample, we conducted semistructured interviews with 17 state experts from January to March 2023. We asked leaders to describe their approaches to data sharing, communication, and systems change that could be adopted or adapted by other states interested in better connecting primary care and public health systems. We recorded and coded interviews. PARTICIPANTS: Seventeen state leaders from North Carolina, Oregon, Rhode Island, and Washington. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Key experiences, strategies, policy levers, and lessons for integration or collaboration between primary care and public health sectors, both common and divergent, across the states. RESULTS: State activity can be categorized by 3 actions: (1) endeavors to support relationship building, both formal and informal; (2) efforts to employ coordinating bodies and champions to ensure all necessary actors are included in planning and communications with clear roles; and (3) approaches to identifying and elevating essential system elements and the change levers to support them. The integration is built primarily on the well-resourced medical care system rather than the public health system. CONCLUSION: States are engaged in creative approaches to collaboration between public health and primary care. Building blocks include backbone organizations, leadership training programs, payment reform spheres, interoperable data platforms, and intentional efforts to build relationships. Collaboration between primary care, public health, and community-based organizations is an opportunity to strengthen public health systems while staying focused on improving the public's health.

Mental Health Needs Due to Disasters: Implications for Behavioral Health Workforce Planning During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

Public health emergencies impact the well-being of people and communities. Long-term emotional distress is a pervasive and serious consequence of high levels of crisis exposure and low levels of access to mental health care. At highest risk for mental health trauma are historically medically underserved and socially marginalized populations and frontline health care workers (HCWs). Current public health emergency response efforts provide insufficient mental health services for these groups. The ongoing mental health crisis of the COVID-19 pandemic has implications for the resource-strained health care workforce. Public health has an important role in delivering psychosocial care and physical support in tandem with communities. Assessment of US and international public health strategies deployed during past public health emergencies can guide development of population-specific mental health care. The objectives of this topical review were (1) to examine scholarly and other literature on the mental health needs of HCWs and selected US and international policies to address them during the first 2 years of the pandemic and (2) to propose strategies for future responses. We reviewed 316 publications in 10 topic areas. Two-hundred fifty publications were excluded, leaving 66 for this topical review. Findings from our review indicate a need for flexible, tailored mental health outreach for HCWs after disasters. US and global research emphasizes the dearth of institutional mental health support for HCWs and of mental health providers who specialize in helping the health care workforce. Future public health disaster responses must address the mental health needs of HCWs to prevent lasting trauma.

Resource allocation in public health practice: a national survey of local public health officials.

OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to gain an empirical understanding of the types of allocation decisions local health officials (LHOs) make and the factors that influence those allocation decisions. DESIGN: We conducted a national survey of LHOs in the United States in 2008 to 2009. The sample was stratified by the size of the population served by the department. We merged our data with data from the 2008 National Association of County and City Health Officials Profile survey. Descriptive statistics were generated using weighted data. RESULTS: Our final sample size was 608 respondents, with an average of 10 years experience. The LHOs reported little shifting of resources among population groups but greater capacity to redirect staffing time. Less than half of LHOs reported using economic analyses or conducting needs assessments when setting priorities. Having sole provider status in a community strongly influenced LHOs' allocation decisions. In addition, the effectiveness of activities, previous budget allocations, and input from boards of health were influential factors in allocation decisions. Public expectations were moderately to very influential, but direct public input had a low impact on allocation decisions. CONCLUSIONS: Survey findings provide a clearer understanding of how LHOs fulfill their obligations as stewards of public health resources and ensure effective activities and access to needed services. It may be useful to assess the value of more structured allocation methods (eg, decision frameworks) in the allocation process. Expanding opportunities for public engagement in priority setting may also be valuable for difficult allocation decisions.

"Listen to the people": public deliberation about social distancing measures in a pandemic.

Public engagement in ethically laden pandemic planning decisions may be important for transparency, creating public trust, improving compliance with public health orders, and ultimately, contributing to just outcomes. We conducted focus groups with members of the public to characterize public perceptions about social distancing measures likely to be implemented during a pandemic. Participants expressed concerns about job security and economic strain on families if businesses or school closures are prolonged. They shared opposition to closure of religious organizations, citing the need for shared support and worship during times of crises. Group discussions elicited evidence of community-mindedness (e.g., recognition of an extant duty not to infect others), while some also acknowledged strong self-interest. Participants conveyed desire for opportunities for public input and education, and articulated distrust of government. Social distancing measures may be challenging to implement and sustain due to strains on family resources and lack of trust in government.

Bacterial pneumonias during an influenza pandemic: how will we allocate antibiotics?

We are currently in the midst of the 2009 H1N1 pandemic, and a second wave of flu in the fall and winter could lead to more hospitalizations for pneumonia. Recent pathologic and historic data from the 1918 influenza pandemic confirms that many, if not most, of the deaths in that pandemic were a result of secondary bacterial pneumonias. This means that a second wave of 2009 H1N1 pandemic influenza could result in a widespread shortage of antibiotics, making these medications a scarce resource. Recently, our University of Michigan Health System (UMHS) Scarce Resource Allocation Committee (SRAC) added antibiotics to a list of resources (including ventilators, antivirals, vaccines) that might become scarce during an influenza pandemic. In this article, we summarize the data on bacterial pneumonias during the 1918 influenza pandemic, discuss the possible impact of a pandemic on the University of Michigan Health System, and summarize our committee's guiding principles for allocating antibiotics during a pandemic.

Ethical issues in public health practice in Michigan.

OBJECTIVES: We sought to ascertain the types of ethical challenges public health practitioners face in practice and to identify approaches used to resolve such challenges. METHODS: We conducted 45 semistructured interviews with public health practitioners across a range of occupations (e.g., health officers, medical directors, sanitarians, nurses) at 13 health departments in Michigan. RESULTS: Through qualitative analysis, we identified 5 broad categories of ethical issues common across occupations and locations: (1) determining appropriate use of public health authority, (2) making decisions related to resource allocation, (3) negotiating political interference in public health practice, (4) ensuring standards of quality of care, and (5) questioning the role or scope of public health. Participants cited a variety of values guiding their decision-making that did not coalesce around core values often associated with public health, such as social justice or utilitarianism. Public health practitioners relied on consultations with colleagues to resolve challenges, infrequently using frameworks for decision-making. CONCLUSIONS: Public health practitioners showed a nuanced understanding of ethical issues and navigated ethical challenges with minimal formal assistance. Decision-making guides that are empirically informed and tailored for practitioners might have some value.

Politics and public health ethics in practice: right and left meet right and wrong.

As public health practitioners are no doubt aware, public health practice and politics are closely linked. Although theoretical discussion of the emerging field of public health ethics has been rich, scholars have paid little attention to the relationship between ethical issues and politics in public health practice. We conducted semistructured interviews with 45 public health practitioners across a range of occupations (eg, health officers, medical directors, sanitarians, nurses, educators, and commissioners) working at 12 local health departments across Michigan and the state health department. Practitioners were asked to describe the ethical issues they faced in their daily practice. Ethical issues that resulted from the political environment emerged as one major category of ethical issues our interviewees described. This article illustrates how political issues engender ethical challenges in 4 main areas: public health agenda-setting, political pressures, political conflicts with best practices, and the scope of public health practice. The findings suggest that politics and public health ethics intrinsically intersect, because political pressures and priorities often impose ethical challenges that practitioners negotiate in their daily work.

Looking ahead: addressing ethical challenges in public health practice.

Ethical challenges in public health can have a significant impact on the health of communities if they impede efficiencies and best practices. Competing needs for resources and a plurality of values can challenge public health policymakers and practitioners to make fair and effective decisions for their communities. In this paper, the authors offer an analytic framework designed to assist policymakers and practitioners in managing the ethical tensions they face in daily practice. Their framework is built upon the following set of six considerations: determining population-level utility of the proposed action; demonstrating evidence of need and effectiveness of actions; establishing fairness of goals and proposed implementation strategies; ensuring accountability; and, assessing expected efficiencies and costs associated with the proposed action. Together, these considerations create a structured guide to assist decision-makers in identifying potential ethical challenges and in assessing the moral considerations that underlie public health practice - and possibly even, if the conditions are met, reduce the creation of ethical tension. Although the authors'empirical experiences provide the basis for the framework advanced here, their approach remains to be tested and evaluated by public health practitioners.

Drawing from Freirian empowerment methods to develop and use innovative learning maps: increasing enrollment of uninsured children on Detroit's eastside.

In 2001, virtually every child on Detroit's eastside was eligible for health coverage, yet approximately 3,000 children remained uninsured. The primary aim of the Eastside Access Partnership (EAP), a community-based participatory research collaboration, was to increase enrollment of uninsured children in state programs. To achieve this aim, one of the approaches that EAP is using is the innovative Learning Map titled Choosing the Healthy Path, which was developed in collaboration with Root Learning, Inc. Although Learning Maps were originally developed to assist corporations in implementing strategic change, their integration of visualization and interactive dialogue incorporates Freirian principles of empowerment education, making them a viable option for providing meaningful learning opportunities for community residents. This article presents the collaborative process involving the University of Michigan, local community-based organizations, community members, and Root Learning consultants to develop a visual map that enables community residents to understand and overcome the barriers that prevent them from obtaining health insurance for their children.