US Public Health Neglected: Flat Or Declining Spending Left States Ill Equipped To Respond To COVID-19

Experiences and Lessons Learned From Surging the Governmental Public Health Workforce During the COVID-19 Pandemic

CONTEXT

During the COVID-19 pandemic, the United States relied on the public health workforce to control the spread of COVID-19 while continuing to provide foundational public health services. Facing longstanding staffing shortages, state, tribal, local, and territorial (STLT) public health agencies (PHAs) used various strategies and supports to surge the workforce in response to the pandemic.

OBJECTIVES

The study explored (1) the types of strategies and supports STLT PHAs used to surge the public health workforce during the pandemic, (2) assessments of surge strategies and supports, and (3) approaches to using the range of surge strategies available.

DESIGN

We conducted 27 semi-structured interviews in 2023 and performed thematic analysis.

PARTICIPANTS

Interviewees included STLT public health officials, leaders of organizations that directly supported the COVID-19 workforce surge, and public health workforce experts indirectly involved in the workforce surge.

RESULTS

To surge the workforce, interviewees relied on partnerships, staffing agencies, the National Guard, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Foundation's COVID-19 Corps, the Medical Reserve Corps, and other strategies. Interviewees valued strategies that rapidly engaged staff and volunteers at no cost to their PHA and flexible funding from the federal government to support surge efforts but noted shortcomings in the strategies and supports available. Interviewees described using multiple strategies simultaneously but noted challenges in implementing these strategies due to inadequate planning and insufficient staff and resources.

CONCLUSION

The study underscores the need for STLT PHAs to establish mechanisms to surge the workforce as part of ongoing planning for emergency preparedness. Focus areas include building administrative and hiring capacity within STLT PHAs and sustaining partnerships and contractual agreements that helped fill staffing gaps during the pandemic. To support efforts to build workforce capacity to meet future surge management needs, STLT PHAs should consider creative solutions to attract and retain staff, as well as opportunities to engage students in public health work.

Social and Environmental Determinants of Health and Cardio-Kidney-Metabolic Syndrome-Related Mortality

Importance

It is not well understood if and how various social and environmental determinants of health (SEDoH) are associated with mortality rates related to cardio-kidney-metabolic syndrome (CKM) across the US.

Objective

To study the magnitude of the association strength of SEDoH with CKM-related mortality at the county level across the US.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This cross-sectional, retrospective, population-based study used aggregate county-level data from the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Wide-Ranging Online Data for Epidemiologic Research (WONDER) data portal from 2010-2019. Data analysis occurred from September 2023 to January 2024.

Exposures

A total of 7 diverse SEDoH were chosen, including median annual household income, percentage of racial and ethnic minority residents per county, fine particulate air pollution (PM2.5) concentrations, high-school completion rate, primary health care access, food insecurity, and rurality rate.

Main Outcomes and Measures

The primary outcome was county-level age-adjusted mortality rate (aaMR) attributable to CKM. The association of county-level CKM-related aaMR with the 7 SEDoH was analyzed using geographically weighted models and the model median coefficients for each covariate studied.

Results

Data from 3101 of 3243 counties (95.6%) were analyzed. There was substantial variation in SEDoH between states and counties. The overall pooled median (IQR) aaMR (2010-2019) in the US was 505.5 (441.3-578.9) per 100 000 residents. Most counties in the lower half of the US had rates much higher than the pooled median (eg, Southern US median [IQR] aaMR, 537.3 [466.0-615.9] per 100 000 residents). CKM-related mortality was positively associated with the food insecurity rate (median [IQR] β = 6.78 [2.78-11.56]) and PM2.5 concentrations (median [IQR] β = 5.52 [-11.06 to 19.70]), while it was negatively associated with median annual household income (median [IQR] β = -0.002 [-0.003 to -0.001]), rurality (median [IQR] β = -0.32 [-0.67 to 0.02]), high school completion rate (median [IQR] β = -1.89 [-4.54 to 0.10]), racial and ethnic minority rate (median [IQR] β = -0.66 [-1.85 to 0.89]), and primary health care access rate (median [IQR] β = -0.18 [-0.35 to 0.07]).

Conclusions and Relevance

In this cross-sectional study of county-level data across the US, there were substantial geographical differences in the magnitude of the association of SEDoH with CKM-related aaMR. These findings may provide guidance for deciding local health care policy.

The effects of dental hygienist autonomy on dental care utilization

We investigate the effects of regulations governing the practice autonomy of dental hygienists on dental care use with the 2001-2014 Medical Expenditure Panel Survey. We measure the strength of autonomy regulations by extending the Dental Hygiene Professional Practice Index to the years 2001-2014, allowing us to capture changes in regulations within states over time. Using a difference-in-differences framework applied to selected states, we find that relaxing supervision requirements to provide dental hygienists moderate autonomy results in an increase in total dental visits due to greater use of preventive dental care. However, the use of dental treatment decreases when states adopt the highest level of autonomy. Both sets of estimates increase in magnitude when we subset the sample to dental care provider shortage areas. In support of these findings, we show that dental visits shift to dental hygienists in shortage areas when states expand the scope of practice of hygienists, and that there is an increase in tasks performed by hygienists, such as cleanings and dental exams.

Best Practices and Lessons Learned From the Public Health Disability Specialists Program: Addressing the Needs of People With Disabilities During COVID-19

CONTEXT

The Association of State and Territorial Health Officials (ASTHO) and the National Association of County and City Health Officials (NACCHO) applied funding issued by the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) to implement the Public Health Disability Specialists Program, part of a project to address the needs of people with disabilities during the COVID-19 pandemic. Disability specialists (subject matter experts) were embedded within state, territorial, and city/county health departments to help ensure disability inclusion in emergency planning, mitigation, and recovery efforts.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the success of the Disability Specialists Program in improving emergency response planning, mitigation, and recovery efforts for people with disabilities within participating jurisdictions.

DESIGN

Disability specialists worked with their assigned jurisdictions to conduct standardized baseline health department needs assessments to identify existing gaps and inform development and implementation of improvement plans. CDC, ASTHO, and NACCHO implemented a mixed methods framework to evaluate specialists' success.

SETTING

State, territorial, and local health departments across 28 jurisdictions between January 2021 and July 2022.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Average number of categories of gaps addressed and qualitative documentation of strategies, barriers, and promising practices.

RESULTS

Specialists identified 1010 gaps (approximately 36 per jurisdiction) across eight needs assessment categories, most related to mitigation, recovery, resilience, and sustainability efforts (n = 213) and communication (n = 193). Specialists addressed an average of three categories of gaps identified; common focus areas included equitable COVID-19 vaccine distribution and accessible communications. Specialists commonly mentioned barriers related to limited health agency capacity (eg, resources) and community mistrust. Promising practices to address barriers included sharing best practices through peer-to-peer networks and building and strengthening partnerships between health departments and the disability community.

CONCLUSIONS

Embedding disability specialists within state, territorial, and local health departments improved jurisdictional ability to meet evolving public health needs for the entire community, including people with disabilities.

Convivial Populations: Ivan Illich and Public Health in the 21st Century

Ivan Illich (1926-2002) was a historian, social critic, and professor at multiple universities. He came to intellectual fame through his criticisms of modern institutions, including health care, and his concern with social structures that he believed to impede human flourishing. However, Illich has not been thoroughly explored as a source of insight for public health professionals. Although he populates the medical and public health literature, discourse remains sparse about how Illich might contribute to key conversations in public health today. In this article, I explore Illich's potential contributions to modern public health through one of his seminal works, Tools for Conviviality. I frame Illich as a valuable conversational partner for public health professionals at a crucial moment in the field's history. (Am J Public Health. 2024;114(7):723-728. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2024.307675).

The Solutions in Health Analytics for Rural Equity Across the Northwest (SHARE-NW) Dashboard for Health Equity in Rural Public Health: Usability Evaluation

BACKGROUND

Given the dearth of resources to support rural public health practice, the solutions in health analytics for rural equity across the northwest dashboard (SHAREdash) was created to support rural county public health departments in northwestern United States with accessible and relevant data to identify and address health disparities in their jurisdictions. To ensure the development of useful dashboards, assessment of usability should occur at multiple stages throughout the system development life cycle. SHAREdash was refined via user-centered design methods, and upon completion, it is critical to evaluate the usability of SHAREdash.

OBJECTIVE

This study aims to evaluate the usability of SHAREdash based on the system development lifecycle stage 3 evaluation goals of efficiency, satisfaction, and validity.

METHODS

Public health professionals from rural health departments from Washington, Idaho, Oregon, and Alaska were enrolled in the usability study from January to April 2022. The web-based evaluation consisted of 2 think-aloud tasks and a semistructured qualitative interview. Think-aloud tasks assessed efficiency and effectiveness, and the interview investigated satisfaction and overall usability. Verbatim transcripts from the tasks and interviews were analyzed using directed content analysis.

RESULTS

Of the 9 participants, all were female and most worked at a local health department (7/9, 78%). A mean of 10.1 (SD 1.4) clicks for task 1 (could be completed in 7 clicks) and 11.4 (SD 2.0) clicks for task 2 (could be completed in 9 clicks) were recorded. For both tasks, most participants required no prompting-89% (n=8) participants for task 1 and 67% (n=6) participants for task 2, respectively. For effectiveness, all participants were able to complete each task accurately and comprehensively. Overall, the participants were highly satisfied with the dashboard with everyone remarking on the utility of using it to support their work, particularly to compare their jurisdiction to others. Finally, half of the participants stated that the ability to share the graphs from the dashboard would be "extremely useful" for their work. The only aspect of the dashboard cited as problematic is the amount of missing data that was present, which was a constraint of the data available about rural jurisdictions.

CONCLUSIONS

Think-aloud tasks showed that the SHAREdash allows users to complete tasks efficiently. Overall, participants reported being very satisfied with the dashboard and provided multiple ways they planned to use it to support their work. The main usability issue identified was the lack of available data indicating the importance of addressing the ongoing issues of missing and fragmented public health data, particularly for rural communities.

Not Only How Much But How: The Importance Of Diversifying Funding Streams In A Reimagined Public Health System

Revenue diversification may be a synergistic strategy for transforming public health, yet few national or trend data are available. This study quantified and identified patterns in revenue diversification in public health before and during the COVID-19 pandemic. We used National Association of County and City Health Officials' National Profile of Local Health Departments study data for 2013, 2016, 2019, and 2022 to calculate a yearly diversification index for local health departments. Respondents' revenue portfolios changed fairly little between 2016 and 2022. Compared with less-diversified local health departments, well-diversified departments reported a balanced portfolio with local, state, federal, and clinical sources of revenue and higher per capita revenues. Less-diversified local health departments relied heavily on local sources and saw lower revenues. The COVID-19 period exacerbated these differences, with less-diversified departments seeing little revenue growth from 2019 to 2022. Revenue portfolios are an underexamined aspect of the public health system, and this study suggests that some organizations may be under financial strain by not having diverse revenue portfolios. Practitioners have ways of enhancing diversification, and policy attention is needed to incentivize and support revenue diversification to enhance the financial resilience and sustainability of local health departments.

Meeting Gaps in the Public Health Workforce During Emergencies: How a Nongovernmental Organization Supported Critical Staffing Needs in the COVID-19 Response

The public health workforce continues to experience staff shortages, which hampered the ability of US state, tribal, local, and territorial health departments to respond to the COVID-19 pandemic. In April 2020, the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) awarded $45 million to the CDC Foundation to provide field assignees to support these health departments. To expand these efforts, the CDC provided an additional $20 million in May 2021 for vaccination efforts and $200 million in June 2021 to support COVID-19 response and general infrastructure support. The CDC Foundation worked with jurisdictions across the United States to develop job descriptions based on need and recruit nationally for positions. This expanded project, called the Workforce/Vaccine Initiative, hired 3,014 staff in 91 jurisdictions, with 2,310 (77%) hired by January 2022. Most assignments were fully remote (55%) or hybrid (28%). The largest number of staff (n=720) supported COVID-19 response work in schools. Other common functions included contact tracing/case investigation (n=456), program coordination (n=330), epidemiology (n=297), data and surveillance (n=283), and administrative support (n=220). To advance health equity and improve response efforts, 79 health equity staff were assigned to 30 jurisdictions. To support the needs of tribes, 76 field staff supported 22 tribal entities. This project demonstrated the important role of a flexible, centralized approach to rapid placement of staff in public health departments during an emergency response. While the goal of the Workforce/Vaccine Initiative was to meet short-term staffing needs, lessons learned could provide insights for building a sustainable and scalable public health workforce.

Indiana's Public Health Investment Holds Insights For Other States

Indiana has a business-friendly environment, but historical underinvestment in public health has yielded poor health outcomes. In 2023, when trust in governmental public health was strained nationwide, Indiana increased public health spending by 1,500 percent. In this article, we explain how Indiana achieved this unprecedented legislative victory for public health, describing the context, approach, and lessons learned. Specifically, an Indiana University report linking economic vitality and overall health sparked the creation of a governor's commission charged with exploring ways to address Indiana's shortcomings. Working with the Indiana Department of Health, the commission developed multisectoral coalitions and business and government partnerships, and it maintained consistent and coordinated communication with policy makers. Lessons learned included the value of uncoupling public health from partisan narratives, appointing diverse commission membership with strategically selected cochairs, involving local leaders, and ensuring local decision-making control. We believe that Indiana's approach holds insights for other states interested in strengthening public health funding in the current era.

When Money Is Not Enough: Reimagining Public Health Requires Systematic Solutions To Hiring Barriers

Public health departments in the US have experienced workforce shortages and challenges in recruiting new employees for decades. Reimagining the public health system will require sufficiently staffed health departments. This Commentary summarizes what is known about the issues that state and local health departments face during the hiring process, with a focus on civil service and merit-based hiring barriers. Although health departments have recently received funding to recruit new employees, they still struggle to hire them. Recommendations for change include tracking hiring process metrics; implementing formal quality improvement to strategically resolve delays; developing formal pathways for converting fellows, interns, and contractors into staff positions; and initiating workarounds in the short term and legal changes to hiring rules as necessary and feasible.

The ties that bind: innovation configurations in low- and middle-income healthcare delivery settings

PURPOSE

This study examines innovation configurations (i.e. sets of product/service, social and business model innovations) and configuration linkages (i.e. factors that help to combine innovations) across six organizations as contingent upon organizational structure.

DESIGN/METHODOLOGY/APPROACH

Using semi-structured interviews and available public information, qualitative data were collected and examined using content analysis to characterize innovation configurations and linkages in three local/private organizations and three foreign-led/public-private partnerships in Repiblik Ayiti (Haiti).

FINDINGS

Organizations tend to combine product/service, social, and business model innovations simultaneously in locally founded private organizations and sequentially in foreign-based public-private partnerships. Linkages for simultaneous combination include limited external support, determined autonomy and shifting from a "beneficiary mindset," and financial need identification. Sequential combination linkages include social need identification, community connections and flexibility.

RESEARCH LIMITATIONS/IMPLICATIONS

The generalizability of our findings for this qualitative study is subject to additional quantitative studies to empirically test the suggested factors and to examine other health care organizations and countries.

PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS

Locally led private organizations in low- and middle-income settings may benefit from considering how their innovations are in service to one another as they may have limited resources. Foreign based public-private partnerships may benefit from pacing their efforts alongside a broader set of stakeholders and ecosystem partners.

ORIGINALITY/VALUE

This study is the first, to our knowledge, to examine how organizations combine sets of innovations, i.e. innovation configurations, in a healthcare setting and the first of any setting to examine innovation configuration linkages.

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.

Revisiting the IOM Reports and Envisioning a Promising Future for Public Health

Two public health reports from the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine published in 1988 and 2003 by the Institute of Medicine continue to resonate. The COVID-19 pandemic highlighted the need for a robust and adequately funded public health system that has political and public support as well as strong connections to health care and other sectors. However, a spate of recent assessments of the nation's public health infrastructure shows continuing gaps in funding, workforce, capacity, and other dimensions. There are reasons for optimism and opportunities for progress in public health in the third decade of the 21st century. There is great promise in cross-sector partnerships and in embracing the "public" in public health by building power with communities in health improvement efforts and in decision-making. (Am J Public Health. 2024;114(5):495-500. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2024.307584).

Surveillance for Emerging and Reemerging Pathogens Using Pathogen Agnostic Metagenomic Sequencing in the United States: A Critical Role for Federal Government Agencies

The surveillance and identification of emerging, reemerging, and unknown infectious disease pathogens is essential to national public health preparedness and relies on fluidity, coordination, and interconnectivity between public and private pathogen surveillance systems and networks. Developing a national sentinel surveillance network with existing resources and infrastructure could increase efficiency, accelerate the identification of emerging public health threats, and support coordinated intervention strategies that reduce morbidity and mortality. However, implementing and sustaining programs to detect emerging and reemerging pathogens in humans using advanced molecular methods, such as metagenomic sequencing, requires making large investments in testing equipment and developing networks of clinicians, laboratory scientists, and bioinformaticians. In this study, we sought to gain an understanding of how federal government agencies currently support such pathogen agnostic testing of human specimens in the United States. We conducted a landscape analysis of federal agency websites for publicly accessible information on the availability and type of pathogen agnostic testing and details on flow of clinical specimens and data. The website analysis was supplemented by an expert review of results with representatives from the federal agencies. Operating divisions within the US Department of Health and Human Services and the US Department of Veterans Affairs have developed and sustained extensive clinical and research networks to obtain patient specimens and perform metagenomic sequencing. Metagenomic facilities supported by US agencies were not equally geographically distributed across the United States. Although many entities have work dedicated to metagenomics and/or support emerging infectious disease surveillance specimen collection, there was minimal formal collaboration across agencies.

Understanding the role of risk preferences and perceptions in vaccination decisions and post-vaccination behaviors among U.S. households

COVID-19 vaccines play a critical role in protecting against infection and transmission of the virus. Therefore, understanding public perceptions of COVID-19 vaccines is essential for successful vaccine promotion. Previous literature reported strong associations between vaccination decisions and several sociodemographic variables. However, knowledge about how behavioral factors, including risk perceptions and preferences, impact individuals' attitudes towards receiving COVID-19 vaccination is currently lacking. Using data from a nationally representative survey of 1050 US adults, this study investigates the correlation between individuals' decisions to receive COVID-19 vaccination and both their risk perceptions and preferences. Additionally, we investigate post-vaccination behavior by measuring individuals' participation in three different groups of activities that vary by their degree of social exposure. We find strong correlations between vaccination decisions and four measures of risk preference and risk perception. We also find associations between the four risk measures and individuals' behaviors post-vaccination. We shed light on the main factors discouraging the uptake of COVID-19 vaccines, as well as public opinions regarding the performance of different organizations in addressing the COVID-19 pandemic, and grocery store policies to prevent COVID-19 infections. Our study provides critical information that can help policymakers communicate more effectively with the public and promote vaccine uptake among population groups and geographic areas with higher anti-vaccine sentiments.

Associations between county-level public health expenditures and community health planning activities with COVID-19 incidence and mortality

The COVID-19 pandemic has revealed consequences of past defunding of the U.S. public health system, but the extent to which public health infrastructure is associated with COVID-19 burden is unknown. We aimed to determine whether previous county-level public health expenditures and community health planning activities are associated with COVID-19 cases and deaths. We examined 3050 of 3143 U.S. counties and county equivalents from March 1, 2020 to February 28, 2022. Multivariable-adjusted linear regression and generalized additive models were used to estimate associations between county-level public health expenditures and completion of community health planning activities by a county health department with outcomes of county-level COVID-19 cases and deaths per 100,000 population. After adjusting for county-level covariates, counties in the highest tertile of public health expenditures per capita had on average 542 fewer COVID-19 cases per 100,000 population (95% CI, -1004 to -81) and 21 fewer deaths per 100,000 population (95% CI, -32 to -10) than counties in the lowest tertile. For analyses of community health planning activities, adjusted estimates of association remained negative for COVID-19 deaths, but confidence intervals included negative and positive values. In conclusion, higher levels of local public health expenditures and community health planning activities were associated with fewer county-level COVID-19 deaths, and to a lesser extent, cases. Future public health funding should be aligned with evidence for the value of county health departments programs and explore further which types of spending are most cost effective.

The Impacts of Politicization on Public Health Workers: The COVID-19 Pandemic in Oregon and Montana

CONTEXT

The contributions from the field of public health to human society are numerous and are often taken for granted. The COVID-19 pandemic thrust the largely invisible public health workforce into the public eye. Like other career civil servants at the intersection of the citizen-state encounter, reports of uncooperative, hostile, and even violent confrontations between public health workers and those they serve are on the rise. This study explores the attitudes of public health professionals in two states in the American West.

METHODS

The authors conducted an anonymous web-based survey of public health professionals in Montana and Oregon one year into the COVID-19 pandemic.

FINDINGS

Public health workers who responded to the survey reported beliefs that the COVID-19 pandemic was politicized by actors in the government, both major political parties, the media, and the public broadly. This politicization affected workers' abilities to do their jobs, with respondents in Montana experiencing more negative impacts than those in Oregon.

CONCLUSIONS

Public health workers face growing antagonism from the public and pressure from political leaders, which poses a significant concern for the public health workforce and for communities as they prepare to address and overcome future public health challenges.

Invited Commentary: Some Social Epidemiologic Lessons From the COVID-19 Pandemic

In their recent article, Dimitris et al. (Am J Epidemiol. 2022;191(6):980-986) presented a series of challenges modern epidemiology has faced during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, including challenges around the scientific progress, epidemiologic methods, interventions, equity, team science, and training needed to address these issues. Here, 2 social epidemiologists who have been working on COVID-19 inequities reflect on further lessons with an added year of perspective. We focus on 2 key challenges: 1) dominant biomedical individualistic narratives around the production of population health, and 2) the role of profit in policy-making. We articulate a need to consider social epidemiologic approaches, including acknowledging the importance of considering how societal systems lead to health inequities. To address these challenges, future (and current) epidemiologists should be trained in theories of population health distribution and political structures of governance. Last, we close with the need for better investment in public health infrastructure as a crucial step toward achieving population health equity.

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.

The Next Generation of Payment Reforms for Population Health - An Actionable Agenda for 2035 Informed by Past Gains and Ongoing Lessons

Policy Points The predominantly fee-for-service reimbursement architecture of the US health care system contributes to waste and excess spending. While the past decade of payment reforms has galvanized the adoption of alternative payment models and generated moderate savings, uptake of truly population-based payment systems continues to lag, and interventions to date have had limited impact on care quality, outcomes, and health equity. To realize the promise of payment reforms as instruments for delivery system transformation, future policies for health care financing must focus on accelerating the diffusion of value-based payment, leveraging payments to redress inequities, and incentivizing partnerships with cross-sector entities to invest in the upstream drivers of health.

The Opportunity Cost of COVID for Public Health Practice: COVID-19 Pandemic Response Work and Lost Foundational Areas of Public Health Work

This article has been temporarily removed by the publisher, Wolters Kluwer, due to a data quality issue. We regret any confusion this may have caused. This article will be published once production is complete on the Public Health Workforce Interest and Needs Survey supplemental issue.

CONTEXT

There is little empirical evidence regarding the magnitude of the COVID-19 response across the public health workforce and the extent to which other public health programs were called upon to contribute to the response, potentially leading to less work being done in other public health programs during the COVID-19 pandemic.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the composition of the workforce that contributed to the COVID-19 pandemic response during 2020-2022.

DESIGN

A large, cross-sectional, nationally representative survey of the state and local public health agency workforce through the Public Health Workforce Interest and Needs Survey (PH WINS).

SETTING

Nearly all state health agency-central offices (SHA-COs) and Big City Health Coalition (BCHC) member public health departments as well as a nationally representative sample of other local health departments (LHDs) with more than 25 staff members and serving more than 25 000 people participated in fall 2021.

PARTICIPANTS

A sample of all individuals working at each SHA-CO or LHD as part-time or full-time employees, contractors, or other employee types was used. A total of 44 732 responses (35% of eligible respondents) were received.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE

Main outcomes included the proportion of full-time equivalent (FTE) effort devoted to COVID-19 response work by quarter (Q) from Q1 2020 through Q1 2022. Predictors of interest included individual- and agency-level demographics, most notably an individual's self-reported public health program area.

RESULTS

Staffing and hiring for the COVID-19 pandemic response was an ongoing effort that began in 2020 and lasted through 2022. During the pandemic, all public health program areas contributed at least 20% of their workforce time to COVID-19 response, peaking at 47-83% of the staff time, depending on the program area.

CONCLUSIONS

There was a considerable public health opportunity cost to the public health systems' large and prolonged COVID-19 response. Persistent understaffing in the public health system remains an important issue.

A COVID-19 Lesson: Better Health Emergency Preparedness Standards Are Needed

This article reports on an assessment of the value of 4 widely recognized standards of health sector emergency preparedness as predictors of effective preparedness for, and response to, the COVID-19 pandemic in the United States. The standards are sponsored by the National Health Security Preparedness Index (NHSPI), the Trust for America's Health (TFAH), the Emergency Management Accreditation Program (EMAP), and the Public Health Accreditation Board (PHAB). The measure of effectiveness was states' cumulative COVID-19 deaths per 100,000 population, from January 21, 2020, through January 20, 2022. Linear regression analysis found no statistically significant associations when controlling for 3 intervening variables. Cross-tabulation of states' preparedness status with their COVID-19 death rates found that high NHSPI and TFAH preparedness scores were generally, but not uniformly, associated with lower death rates. EMAP and PHAB accreditation had negligible association with low or high death rates. Lack of accreditation was associated with lower death rates. Higher prior state public health spending related to COVID-19 preparedness and higher state household income, an indicator of state economic strength, were associated with lower death rates. States with Democratic control of the legislative and executive branches of government generally had substantially lower death rates than states with Republican control. A science-based, practice-oriented research initiative is recommended to improve the predictive power of health sector preparedness standards and to enhance protection for US residents from large-scale future health threats.

The Progress and Future of US Newborn Screening

Progress in newborn screening (NBS) has been driven for 60 years by developments in science and technology, growing consumer advocacy, the actions of providers involved in the care of rare disease patients, and by federal and State government funding and policies. With the current explosion of clinical trials of treatments for rare diseases, the pressure for expansion has grown, and concerns about the capacity for improvement and growth are being expressed. Genome and exome sequencing (GS/ES) have now opened more opportunities for early identification and disease prevention at all points in the lifespan. The greatest challenge facing NBS stems from the conditions most amenable to screening, and new treatment development is that we are screening for rare genetic diseases. In addition, understanding the spectrum of severity requires vast amounts of population and genomic data. We propose recommendations on improving the NBS system and addressing specific demands to grow its capacity by: better defining the criteria by which screening targets are established; financing the NBS system's responsiveness to opportunities for expansion, including engagement and funding from stakeholders; creating a national quality assurance, data, IT, and communications infrastructure; and improving intra-governmental communications. While our recommendations may be specific to the United States, the underlying issues should be considered when working to improve NBS programs globally.

Past local government health spending was not correlated with COVID-19 control in US counties

Context

Wide variation in state and county health spending prior to 2020 enables tests of whether historically better state and locally funded counties achieved faster control over COVID-19 in the first 6 months of the pandemic in the Unites States prior to federal supplemental funding.

Objective

We used time-to-event and generalized linear models to examine the association between pre-pandemic state-level public health spending, county-level non-hospital health spending, and effective COVID-19 control at the county level. We include 2,775 counties that reported 10 or more COVID-19 cases between January 22, 2020, and July 19, 2020, in the analysis.

Main outcome measure

Control of COVID-19 was defined by: (i) elapsed time in days between the 10th case and the day of peak incidence of a county's local epidemic, among counties that bent their case curves, and (ii) doubling time of case counts within the first 30 days of a county's local epidemic for all counties that reported 10 or more cases.

Results

Only 26% of eligible counties had bent their case curve in the first 6 months of the pandemic. Government health spending at the county level was not associated with better COVID-19 control in terms of either a shorter time to peak in survival analyses, or doubling time in generalized linear models. State-level public spending on hazard preparation and response was associated with a shorter time to peak among counties that were able to bend their case incidence curves.

Conclusions

Increasing resource availability for public health in local jurisdictions without thoughtful attention to bolstering the foundational capabilities inside health departments is unlikely to be sufficient to prepare the country for future outbreaks or other public health emergencies.

•

Substantial variation in county and state health spending in the US before the COVID-19 pandemic.

•

County level non-hospital health spending before pandemic not associated with early control over COVID-19.

•

State level spending on hazard preparation is associated with early control over COVID-19 in some model specifications.

•

Results offer no support for pouring funds into public health system to prepare for future outbreaks.

Association of COVID-19 mortality with politics and on-demand testing in 217 U.S. counties

Background

Previous research found increased COVID-19 spread associated with politics and on-demand testing but not in the same study. The objective of this study is to estimate the contribution of each corrected for the other and a variety of known risk factors.

Methods

Using data from 217 U.S. counties of more than 50,000 population where testing data were available in April, 2021, the associations of COVID-19 deaths with politics, testing and other risk factors were examined by Poisson and least squares regression.

Results

Statistical controls for 15 risk factors failed to eliminate the association of COVID mortality risk with percent of vote for Donald Trump in 2016 or negative tests per population. Each is independently predictive of increased mortality.

Conclusion

Apparently, many people who test negative for the SARS-CoV-2 virus engage in activities that increase their risk, a problem likely to increase with the availability of home tests. There is no association of negative tests with the Trump vote but, according to polling data, Trump voters’ past resistance to public health recommendations has been extended to resistance to being vaccinated, threatening the goal of herd immunity.

Health reforms in the United States: The outlook after Biden's first 100 days

The November 2020 election of Joe Biden, coupled with the election of a Congress controlled by the Democratic Party, has the potential to dramatically alter the direction of health policy in the United States. Donald Trump failed to repeal the Affordable Care Act (ACA) but he managed to whittle down aspects of coverage protection. Historically, the first 100 days of a presidency are a bellwether of accomplishments to come. During this period Biden reversed several of Trump policies through both executive orders and a large economic stimulus bill. The stimulus bill substantially increased premium subsidies to encourage people to purchase health insurance coverage, albeit with funding guaranteed only for a two-year period. Larger accomplishments, such as making these enhanced premium subsidies permanent, reining in prescription drug spending, enacting a public health insurance option to compete with private insurers, and improving public health and health equity, will require further legislation. The political environment in the U.S. is now extraordinarily contentious. Each of these proposed initiatives faces major political hurdles and the window of opportunity for enacting each of these goals very well may be brief.