Improving public health through state health improvement planning: a framework for action.

BACKGROUND: State health improvement plans (SHIPs) identify priorities for making the greatest impacts on health promotion and disease prevention, specific to the needs of state populations. Both SHIPs and the state health assessments on which they are based are prerequisites for Public Health Accreditation Board national accreditation. OBJECTIVE: To identify and evaluate existing SHIPs to develop guidance to support health departments in the state health improvement planning process. DESIGN: In 2010, the Association of State and Territorial Health Officials (ASTHO) conducted a comprehensive search for existing SHIPs. A systematic evaluation of existing SHIPS was accomplished by means of primary source document review using a standardized data collection form. Using data derived from these SHIPs and guidance from a workgroup of practitioners, ASTHO developed the ASTHO SHIP Guidance and Resources (SHIP Guidance) Framework. RESULTS: The search yielded 25 states (49%) having a SHIP completed or in progress. Fifteen states (29%) had no SHIP but had a Healthy People plan, and 10 states (20%) had no SHIP or Healthy People plan. No information was available for 1 state. Findings were reviewed, evaluated, and incorporated into the SHIP Guidance. The SHIP Guidance provides a framework for the implementation, monitoring, and evaluation of a SHIP process using 12 key steps. CONCLUSIONS: As public health/health care integration and accreditation readiness activity grows, multisector engagement through a SHIP will continue to be a priority for state public health and improving health outcomes. The SHIP Guidance provides a systematic, flexible approach for states conducting or updating state health assessments and SHIPs.

A study of incentives to support and promote public health accreditation.

CONTEXT: Accreditation of public health agencies through the Public Health Accreditation Board is voluntary. Incentives that encourage agencies to apply for accreditation have been suggested as important factors in facilitating participation by state and local agencies. OBJECTIVE: The project describes both current and potential incentives that are available at the federal, state, and local levels. DESIGN: Thirty-nine key informants from local, state, tribal, federal, and academic settings were interviewed from March through May 2012. Through open-ended interviews, respondents were asked about incentives that were currently in use in their settings and incentives they thought would help encourage participation in Public Health Accreditation Board accreditation. RESULTS: Incentives currently in use by public health agencies based on interviews include (1) financial support, (2) legal mandates, (3) technical assistance, (4) peer support workgroups, and (5) state agencies serving as role models by seeking accreditation themselves. Key informants noted that state agencies are playing valuable and diverse roles in providing incentives for accreditation within their own states. Key informants also identified the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and other players, such as private foundations, public health institutes, national and state associations, and academia as providing both technical and financial assistance to support accreditation efforts. CONCLUSIONS: State, tribal, local, and federal agencies, as well as related organizations can play an important role by providing incentives to move agencies toward accreditation.

Thinking beyond the silos: emerging priorities in workforce development for state and local government public health agencies.

CONTEXT: Discipline-specific workforce development initiatives have been a focus in recent years. This is due, in part, to competency-based training standards and funding sources that reinforce programmatic silos within state and local health departments. OBJECTIVE: National leadership groups representing the specific disciplines within public health were asked to look beyond their discipline-specific priorities and collectively assess the priorities, needs, and characteristics of the governmental public health workforce. DESIGN: The challenges and opportunities facing the public health workforce and crosscutting priority training needs of the public health workforce as a whole were evaluated. Key informant interviews were conducted with 31 representatives from public health member organizations and federal agencies. Interviews were coded and analyzed for major themes. Next, 10 content briefs were created on the basis of priority areas within workforce development. Finally, an in-person priority setting meeting was held to identify top workforce development needs and priorities across all disciplines within public health. PARTICIPANTS: Representatives from 31 of 37 invited public health organizations participated, including representatives from discipline-specific member organizations, from national organizations and from federal agencies. RESULTS: Systems thinking, communicating persuasively, change management, information and analytics, problem solving, and working with diverse populations were the major crosscutting areas prioritized. CONCLUSIONS: Decades of categorical funding created a highly specialized and knowledgeable workforce that lacks many of the foundational skills now most in demand. The balance between core and specialty training should be reconsidered.

Quality improvement and accreditation readiness in state public health agencies.

OBJECTIVE: There were 3 specific objectives of this study. The first objective was to examine the progress of state/territorial health assessment, health improvement planning, performance management, and quality improvement (QI) activities at state/territorial health agencies and compare findings to the 2007 findings when available. A second objective was to examine respondent interest and readiness for national voluntary accreditation. A final objective was to explore organizational factors (eg, leadership and capacity) that may influence QI or accreditation readiness. DESIGN: Cross-sectional study. SETTING: State and Territorial Public Health Agencies. PARTICIPANTS: Survey respondents were organizational leaders at State and Territorial Public Health Agencies. RESULTS: Sixty-seven percent of respondents reported having a formal performance management process in place. Approximately 77% of respondents reported a QI process in place. Seventy-three percent of respondents agreed or strongly agreed that they would seek accreditation and 36% agreed or strongly agreed that they would seek accreditation in the first 2 years of the program. In terms of accreditation prerequisites, a strategic plan was most frequently developed, followed by a state/territorial health assessment and health improvement plan, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Advancements in the practice and applied research of QI in state public health agencies are necessary steps for improving performance. In particular, strengthening the measurement of the QI construct is essential for meaningfully assessing current practice patterns and informing future programming and policy decisions. Continued QI training and technical assistance to agency staff and leadership is also critical. Accreditation may be the pivotal factor to strengthen both QI practice and research. Respondent interest in seeking accreditation may indicate the perceived value of accreditation to the agency.

Public health spending in 2008: on the challenge of integrating PHSSR data sets and the need for harmonization.

In recent years, state and local public health department budgets have been cut, sometimes drastically. However, there is no systematic tracking of governmental public health spending that would allow researchers to assess these cuts in comparison with governmental public health spending as a whole. Furthermore, attempts to quantify the impact of public health spending are limited by the lack of good data on public health spending on state and local public health services combined. The objective of this article is to integrate self-reported state and local health department (LHD) survey data from 2 major national organizations to create state-level estimates of governmental public health spending. To create integrated estimates, we selected 1388 LHDs and 46 states that had reported requisite financial information. To account for the nonrespondent LHDs, estimates of the spending were developed by using appropriate statistical weights. Finally, funds from federal pass-through and state sources were estimated for LHDs and subtracted from the total spending by the state health agency to avoid counting these dollars in both state and local figures. On average, states spend $106 per capita on traditional public health at the state and local level, with an average of 42% of spending occurring at the local level. Considerable variation exists in state and local public health funding. The results of this analysis show a relatively low level of public health funding compared with state Medicaid spending and health care more broadly.

Governance typology: a consensus classification of state-local health department relationships.

CONTEXT: Public health practitioners and researchers often refer to state public health systems as being centralized, decentralized, shared, or mixed. These categories refer to governance of the local public health units within the state and whether they operate under the authority of the state government, local government, shared state and local governance, or a mix of governance structures within the state. OBJECTIVE: This article describes the development of an objective method of classifying states as centralized, decentralized, shared, or mixed. We also discuss some initial analyses that have been conducted to identify how public health resources and activities vary across states with different classifications. DESIGN: Cross-sectional study. SETTING: State health agencies. PARTICIPANTS: Survey respondents were organizational leaders from all 50 state health agencies. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): Total full-time equivalent employees, total health agency expenditures, expenditures on clinical services, and provision of clinical services. RESULTS: Centralized state health agencies employ more full-time equivalent employees, have higher total expenditures, and provide more clinical services than decentralized state health agencies. Although higher expenditures on clinical services were observed, these differences were not statistically significant. CONCLUSIONS: It is important to take governance classification into account when investigating variation in services, resources, or performance of governmental public health systems. As public health systems and services researchers seek to identify best practices in the organization of public health systems, consistent definition of different types of organization is critical. This system provides an objective and reliable system for classifying governance relationships that allows for comparisons that are meaningful to both practitioners and researchers.

Structure and functions of state public health agencies in 2007.

We sought to document the structure and functions of state public health agencies throughout the United States in 2007 and compare findings with those from a similar 2001 assessment. In 2007 a survey of the structure and functions of state public health agencies was sent to and completed by senior deputies in all 50 states and the District of Columbia (a 100% response rate). The results of the survey showed that all emerging practice areas in 2001 had expanded by 2007. Also, state health departments generally had greater levels of responsibility in 2007 than they did in 2001, emphasizing the need for continued support of governmental public health systems and research on the operations of those systems.

State landscape in public health planning and quality improvement: results of the ASTHO survey.

Limited data exist on state public health agencies and their use of planning and quality improvement (QI) initiatives. Using the 2007 Association of State and Territorial Health Officials (ASTHO) State Public Health Survey, this article describes how state public health agencies perform tasks related to planning, performance management (PM), and QI. While 82 percent of respondents report having a QI process in place, only 9.8 percent have it fully implemented departmentwide. Seventy-six percent reported having a PM process in place, with 16 percent (n = 8) having it fully implemented departmentwide. A state health improvement plan was used by 80.4 percent of respondents, with 56.9 percent of respondents completing the plan more than 3 years ago. More than two-thirds (68.2%) of the respondents developed the plan by using results of their state health assessment. Analysis of state health department level planning, PM, and QI initiatives can inform states' efforts to ready themselves to meet the proposed national voluntary accreditation standards of the Public Health Accreditation Board.