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.

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.

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.

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.

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 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 Progress of US Hospitals in Addressing Community Health Needs.

OBJECTIVES: To identify how US tax-exempt hospitals are progressing in regard to community health needs assessment (CHNA) implementation following the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. METHODS: We analyzed data on more than 1500 tax-exempt hospitals in 2013 to assess patterns in CHNA implementation and to determine whether a hospital's institutional and community characteristics are associated with greater progress. RESULTS: Our findings show wide variation among hospitals in CHNA implementation. Hospitals operating as part of a health system as well as hospitals participating in a Medicare accountable care organization showed greater progress in CHNA implementation whereas hospitals serving a greater proportion of uninsured showed less progress. We also found that hospitals reporting the highest level of CHNA implementation progress spent more on community health improvement. CONCLUSIONS: Hospitals widely embraced the regulations to perform a CHNA. Less is known about how hospitals are moving forward to improve population health through the implementation of programs to meet identified community needs.

Exploring the Link Between Completion of Accreditation Prerequisites and Local Health Departments' Decision to Collaborate With Tax-Exempt Hospitals Around the Community Health Assessment.

CONTEXT: Community health assessments (CHAs) are a core function of local health departments (LHDs). Recently, completing a CHA has become a prerequisite for LHDs seeking accreditation by the Public Health Accreditation Board (PHAB). Similarly, under the Affordable Care Act, nonprofit hospitals are required to conduct periodic community health needs assessments (CHNAs). Opportunities thus exist for LHDs and hospitals to jointly complete CHAs/CHNAs. OBJECTIVE: This study examined existing LHD-hospital collaborations around CHAs/CHNAs, focusing specifically on the relationship between LHDs' level of engagement with PHAB accreditation activities and their collaboration with hospitals around CHAs/CHNAs. DESIGN: Data came from the 2013 NACCHO (National Association of County & City Health Officials) Profile Study and the Area Health Resource File. Complete data were available for 1332 LHDs that participated in the 2013 NACCHO Profile Study. Logistic regression explored the relationship between LHDs' completion of accreditation prerequisites, in particular completion of a CHA, community health improvement plan, and strategic plan, and their involvement in collaborations with tax-exempt hospitals around CHAs/CHNAs. RESULTS: LHDs that collaborated with tax-exempt hospitals on CHAs/CHNAs were larger, more likely to be locally governed, and more likely to have a local board of health. Bivariate analysis showed that CHA/CHNA-related collaboration with hospitals was significantly correlated (P < .01) with an LHD's completion of accreditation prerequisites. In multivariate regression analysis, completion of all 3 PHAB accreditation prerequisites significantly increased the odds of LHDs collaborating with hospitals when controlling for other LHD and community-level characteristics. CONCLUSION: PHAB accreditation prerequisites together with IRS requirements for hospitals foster potential for collaboration around CHAs/CHNAs. Joint completion of CHAs/CHNAs not only allows partners to complete the assessment more efficiently but has also been shown to produce higher-quality assessments, thus building a strong foundation for continued collaboration to improve community health.

Hospital Community Benefit in the Context of the Larger Public Health System: A State-Level Analysis of Hospital and Governmental Public Health Spending Across the United States.

CONTEXT: Achieving meaningful population health improvements has become a priority for communities across the United States, yet funding to sustain multisector initiatives is frequently not available. One potential source of funding for population health initiatives is the community benefit expenditures that are required of nonprofit hospitals to maintain their tax-exempt status. OBJECTIVE: In this article, we explore the importance of nonprofit hospitals' community benefit dollars as a funding source for population health. DESIGN: Hospitals' community benefit expenditures were obtained from their 2009 IRS (Internal Revenue Service) Form 990 Schedule H and complemented with data on state and local public health spending from the Association of State and Territorial Health Officials and the National Association of County & City Health Officials. Key measures included indicators of hospitals' community health spending and governmental public health spending, all aggregated to the state level. Univariate and bivariate statistics were used to describe how much hospitals spent on programs and activities for the community at large and to understand the relationship between hospitals' spending and the expenditures of state and local health departments. RESULTS: Tax-exempt hospitals spent a median of $130 per capita on community benefit activities, of which almost $11 went toward community health improvement and community-building activities. In comparison, median state and local health department spending amounted to $82 and $48 per capita, respectively. Hospitals' spending thus contributed an additional 9% to the resources available for population health to state and local health departments. Spending, however, varied widely by state and was unrelated to governmental public health spending. Moreover, adding hospitals' spending to the financial resources available to governmental public health agencies did not reduce existing inequalities in population health funding across states. CONCLUSIONS: Hospitals' community health investments represent an important source for public health activities, yet inequalities in the availability of funding across communities remain.

Tax-exempt hospitals and community benefit: new directions in policy and practice.

The current community benefit standard for nonprofit hospital tax exemption has been the subject of mounting criticism. Many different constituencies have advanced the view that in its present form it fails to ensure that nonprofit hospitals provide adequate benefits to their communities in exchange for their tax exemption. In contrast, hospitals have often expressed the concern that the community benefit standard in its current form is vague and therefore difficult to comply with. Various suggestions have been made regarding how the existing community benefit standard could be improved or even replaced. In this article, we first discuss the historical and legal development of the community benefit standard. We then present the key controversies that have emerged in recent years and the policy responses attempted thus far. Finally, we evaluate possible future policy directions, which reform efforts could follow.

Analysis of hospital community benefit expenditures' alignment with community health needs: evidence from a national investigation of tax-exempt hospitals.

OBJECTIVES: We investigated whether federally tax-exempt hospitals consider community health needs when deciding how much and what types of community benefits to provide. METHODS: Using 2009 data from hospital tax filings to the Internal Revenue Service and the 2010 County Health Rankings, we employed both univariate and multivariate analyses to examine the relationship between community health needs and the types and levels of hospitals' community benefit expenditures. The study sample included 1522 private, tax-exempt hospitals throughout the United States. RESULTS: We found some patterns between community health needs and hospitals' expenditures on community benefits. Hospitals located in communities with greater health needs spent more as a percentage of their operating budgets on benefits directly related to patient care. By contrast, spending on community health improvement initiatives was unrelated to community health needs. CONCLUSIONS: Important opportunities exist for tax-exempt hospitals to improve the alignment between their community benefit activities and the health needs of the community they serve. The Affordable Care Act requirement that hospitals conduct periodic community health needs assessments may be a first step in this direction.

Nonoperating revenue and hospital financial performance: do hospitals rely on income from nonpatient care activities to offset losses on patient care?

BACKGROUND: For many years, hospitals have relied on nonpatient care activities to complement patient care revenues and strengthen financial performance. For hospitals that lose money on patient care, nonpatient care revenues may mean the difference between net income and loss. Little is known currently, however, about whether nonpatient care revenues allow hospitals with negative patient care margins to offset their losses. PURPOSE: The aims of this study are (a) to examine whether hospitals rely on income from nonpatient care activities to offset losses on patient care and (b) to identify characteristics of hospitals that are able to offset such losses. DATA AND METHODS: Data for this study came from the state of California. The sample consisted of not-for-profit and investor-owned short-term general acute care hospitals for the years 2003-2007. Descriptive statistics were used to compare hospitals with negative patient care margins that were able to offset patient care losses to hospitals that were unable to do so. FINDINGS: Between 2003 and 2007, approximately 40% of study hospitals lost money on patient care. Of these, only 25% relied on nonpatient care income to offset losses. Hospitals that were able to offset patient care losses tended to be larger, not-for-profit organizations that were able to generate substantial shares of their total revenues from nonpatient care activities, in particular, charitable donations and financial investments. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Despite claims that income from nonpatient care activities frequently allows hospitals to offset patient care losses, this study showed that only a small proportion of hospitals were able to do so. The financial viability of hospitals with negative patient care margins will thus depend on their ability to (a) deliver high-quality care profitably, (b) derive income from other operating activities, and (c) generate income from financial investments and engage in active development efforts to increase donations and gifts.

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.