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.

Differential impact of hospital and community factors on breadth and depth of hospital population health partnerships.

OBJECTIVE: The aim was to identify hospital and county characteristics associated with variation in breadth and depth of hospital partnerships with a broad range of organizations to improve population health. DATA SOURCES: The American Hospital Association Annual Survey provided data on hospital partnerships to improve population health for the years 2017-2019. DESIGN: The study adopts the dimensional publicness theory and social capital framework to examine hospital and county characteristics that facilitate hospital population health partnerships. The two dependent variables were number of local community organizations that hospitals partner with (breadth) and level of engagement with the partners (depth) to improve population health. The independent variables include three dimensions of publicness: Regulative, Normative and Cultural-cognitive measured by various hospital factors and presence of social capital present at county level. Covariates in the multivariate analysis included hospital factors such as bed-size and system membership. METHODS: We used hierarchical linear regression models to assess various hospital and county factors associated with breadth and depth of hospital-community partnerships, adjusting for covariates. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Nonprofit and public hospitals provided a greater breadth (coefficient, 1.61; SE, 0.11; p < 0.001 and coefficient, 0.95; SE, 0.14; p < 0.001) and depth (coefficient, 0.26, SE, 0.04; p < 0.001 & coefficient, 0.13; SE, 0.05; p < 0.05) of partnerships than their for-profit counterparts, partially supporting regulative dimension of publicness. At a county level, we found community social capital positively associated with breadth of partnerships (coefficient, 0.13; SE, 0.08; p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: An environment that promotes collaboration between hospitals and organizations to improve population health may impact the health of the community by identifying health needs of the community, targeting social determinants of health, or by addressing patient social needs. However, findings suggest that publicness dimensions at an organizational level, which involves a culture of public value, maybe more important than county factors to achieve community building through partnerships.

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.

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.

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.

Exploring the Role of Community Social Capital in Not-for-profit Hospitals' Decision to Engage Community Partners in the Community Health Needs Assessment Process.

Not-for-profit hospitals (NFPs) frequently partner with community organizations to conduct internal revenue service-mandated community health needs assessment (CHNA), yet little is known about the number of partnerships that hospitals enter into for this purpose. This article uses "American Hospital Associations' 2020 Annual Survey" data to examine hospital-community partnerships around the CHNA and the role that community social capital defined as, "the networks that cross various professional, political and social boundaries to reflect community level trust needed to pursue shared objectives" plays in hospitals' choices to partner with community organizations for the CHNA. After controlling for a set of hospital, community, and state characteristics, we found that hospitals present in communities with higher social capital were likely to partner with more community organizations to conduct CHNA. Greater social capital may thus promote community health by facilitating the partnerships NFPs develop with community organizations to conduct the CHNA.

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.

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.

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.

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 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.

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.

Medicaid Expansion and Not-For-Profit Hospitals' Financial Status: National and State-Level Estimates Using IRS and CMS Data, 2011-2016.

Several studies have shown that Medicaid expansion has improved hospital financial performance. All of these studies have either used data from the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) or the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), and none of them has examined the state-level impact of expansion on hospital finances. Using data for not-for-profit hospitals from both IRS and CMS for 2011-2016, we described the difference in costs related to uncompensated care and Medicaid shortfalls. We then estimated the impact of Medicaid expansion on hospitals' financial status nationally and by state. Nationally, the estimated net effect of expansion reduced not-for-profit hospital costs by 2 percentage points based on IRS data and 0.83 percentage points based on CMS data. Across expansion states, the estimated net effects varied widely with approximately a 10-fold difference for hospitals based on IRS data and a 2-fold difference based on CMS data. Future studies should further explore the differences across IRS and CMS data.

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 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.