Measuring the value of public health systems: the disconnect between health economists and public health practitioners

Two years of COVID-19 outbreaks in residential care facilities: quantifying workload impact of outbreak control activities on a regional public health team in Ireland, March 2020 to March 2022

BACKGROUND

Ireland, like many countries, pursued a containment strategy during the initial stages of the COVID-19 pandemic. Multidisciplinary Outbreak Control Team (OCT) meetings were among the urgent measures used by public health teams in managing COVID-19 outbreaks, especially in high-risk settings.

AIM

To describe and quantify the resources and person-time involved in managing outbreaks, and conducting OCT meetings, in older person Residential Care Facilities (RCF) in an Irish regional Department of Public Health (DePH) during the first 2 years of the COVID-19 pandemic.

METHODS

All COVID-19 RCF outbreaks managed by the DePH HSE-South between March 2020 and March 2022 were identified. Data pertaining to each outbreak, including details of any OCT meetings (frequency, membership, duration) were extracted. Clinical staff members of the DePH were surveyed regarding their time spent on RCF outbreak management.

RESULTS

Two hundred twenty-four outbreaks in older persons RCFs occurred between March 2020 and March 2022 in Cork and Kerry, accounting for 4211 COVID-19 resident/staff cases and 263 resident COVID deaths. One hundred twenty (53.5%) of the outbreaks required at least one OCT meeting, with 374 OCT meetings held in total (range 1-29 meetings per outbreak). Approximately 1819 hours were spent by clinical public health staff on RCF outbreak-related work.

CONCLUSIONS

While substantial DePH resources were required to manage COVID-19 outbreaks in older person RCFs, it is highly likely that these efforts prevented new infections within RCFs and thus reduced hospitalisations, ICU admissions and deaths. This sustained input placed a significant burden on the wider multidisciplinary public health team, and it affected the department's capacity to deal with competing health threats and priorities. Future pandemic preparedness requires commensurate resource planning for public health teams.

Exploring the social value of Public Health Institutes: An international scoping survey and expert interviews

Introduction

Making the case for investing in preventative public health by illustrating not only the health impact but the social, economic and environmental value of Public Health Institutes is imperative. This is captured by the concept of Social Value, which when measured, demonstrates the combined intersectoral value of public health. There is currently insufficient research and evidence to show the social value of Public Health Institutes and their work across the life course, population groups and settings, in order to make the case for more investment.

Methods

During July 2021, a quantitative online self-administered questionnaire was conducted across international networks. Semi-structured interviews were also carried out with nine representatives to gain a deeper understanding. A thematic analysis was undertaken on the data collected.

Results

In total, 82.3% (n = 14) were aware of the terminology of social value and 58.8% (n = 10) were aware of the economic method of Social Return on Investment. However, only two Institutes reported capturing social and community impacts within their economic analysis and only 41.2% (n = 7) currently capture or measure the social value of their actions. Interviews and survey responses indicate a lack of resources, skills and buy-in from political powers. Finally, 76.5% (n = 12) wanted to do more to understand and measure wider outcomes and impact of their actions. It was noted this can be achieved through enhancing political will, developing a community of best practice and tools.

Conclusion

This research can inform future work to understand how to measure the holistic social value of Public Health Institutes, in order to strengthen institutional capacity and impact, as well as to achieve a more equitable society, and a more sustainable health system and economy, making the case for investing in public health, as we recover from COVID-19.

Quantifying the Value of Prevention: A Survey of Public Health Departments' Quantitative and Economic Modeling Capacity

OBJECTIVE

To improve the understanding of local health departments' (LHDs') capacity for and perceived barriers to using quantitative/economic modeling information to inform policy and program decisions.

DESIGN

We developed, tested, and deployed a novel survey to examine this topic.

SETTING

The study's sample frame included the 200 largest LHDs in terms of size of population served plus all other accredited LHDs (n = 67). The survey was e-mailed to 267 LHDs; respondents completed the survey online using SurveyMonkey.

PARTICIPANTS

Survey instructions requested that the survey be completed from the perspective of the entire health department by LHD's top executive or designate. A total of 63 unique LHDs responded (response rate: 39%).

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S)

Capacity for quantitative and economic modeling was measured in 5 categories (routinely use information from models we create ourselves; routinely use information from models created by others; sometimes use information from models we create ourselves; sometimes use information from models created by others; never use information from modeling). Experience with modeling was measured in 4 categories (very, somewhat, not so, not at all).

RESULTS

Few (9.5%) respondents reported routinely using information from models, and most who did used information from models created by others. By contrast, respondents reported high levels of interest in using models and in gaining training in their use and the communication of model results. The most commonly reported barriers to modeling were funding and technical skills. Nearly all types of training topics listed were of interest.

CONCLUSIONS

Across a sample of large and/or accredited LHDs, we found modest levels of use of modeling coupled with strong interest in capacity for modeling and therefore highlight an opportunity for LHD growth and support. Both funding constraints and a lack of knowledge of how to develop and/or use modeling are barriers to desired progress around modeling. Educational or funding opportunities to promote capacity for and use of quantitative and economic modeling may catalyze use of modeling by public health practitioners.

"[It's] more than just medicine": The value and sustainability of mandatory, non-clinical, short-term rural placements in a Western Australian medical school

Introduction: In 2005, the University of Notre Dame School of Medicine (Western Australia) established a mandatory, non-clinical rural and remote (hereafter termed rural) health placement program delivered in 2 weeks over 2 years, largely resourced by voluntary human capital. Our study investigated whether the program: (1) encouraged medical graduates to seek rural employment; (2) enhanced their ability to meet rural people's health needs; and (3) was sustainable.Methods: A qualitative descriptive study collected data using semi-structured, in-depth interviews with graduates and placement hosts. Data were transcribed, coded and analysed using Framework Analysis to identify key themes.Results: Twenty-eight medical graduates and 15 community hosts participated. The program validated pre-existing interest in, or positively influenced graduates' attitudes towards, rural practice, and enabled empathy and responsiveness when caring for rural patients in urban, as well as rural, health services. Placement hosts unanimously supported the program and contributed social capital, to ensure its sustainability.Discussion: The program influenced a broad spectrum of students over 15 years and reflects a socially-accountable approach to medical education.Conclusions: This study demonstrates the sustainability and value of mandatory short-term community-based placements in improving medical graduates' responsiveness to the health needs of rural Australians.

Getting the Word Out: New Approaches for Disseminating Public Health Science

The gap between discovery of public health knowledge and application in practice settings and policy development is due in part to ineffective dissemination. This article describes (1) lessons related to dissemination from related disciplines (eg, communication, agriculture, social marketing, political science), (2) current practices among researchers, (3) key audience characteristics, (4) available tools for dissemination, and (5) measures of impact. Dissemination efforts need to take into account the message, source, audience, and channel. Practitioners and policy makers can be more effectively reached via news media, social media, issue or policy briefs, one-on-one meetings, and workshops and seminars. Numerous “upstream” and “midstream” indicators of impact include changes in public perception or awareness, greater use of evidence-based interventions, and changes in policy. By employing ideas outlined in this article, scientific discoveries are more likely to be applied in public health agencies and policy-making bodies.

Assessing The Value Of 40 Years Of Local Public Expenditures On Health

The US public and private sectors now spend more than $3 trillion on health each year. While critical studies have examined the relationship between public spending on health and health outcomes, relatively little is known about the impact of broader public-sector spending on health. Using county-level public finance data for the period 1972-2012, we estimated the impact of local public hospital spending and nonhospital health spending on all-cause mortality in the county. Overall, a 10 percent increase in nonhospital health spending was associated with a 0.006 percent decrease in all-cause mortality one year after the initial spending. This effect was larger and significant in counties with greater proportions of racial/ethnic minorities. Our results indicate that county nonhospital health spending has health benefits that can help reduce costs and improve health outcomes in localities across the nation, though greater focus on population-oriented services may be warranted.

Integrating social justice concerns into economic evaluation for healthcare and public health: A systematic review

Social justice is the moral imperative to avoid and remediate unfair distributions of societal disadvantage. In priority setting in healthcare and public health, social justice reaches beyond fairness in the distribution of health outcomes and economic impacts to encompass fairness in the distribution of policy impacts upon other dimensions of well-being. There is an emerging awareness of the need for economic evaluation to integrate all such concerns. We performed a systematic review (1) to describe methodological solutions suitable for integrating social justice concerns into economic evaluation, and (2) to describe the challenges that those solutions face. To be included, publications must have captured fairness considerations that (a) involve cross-dimensional subjective personal life experience and (b) can be manifested at the level of subpopulations. We identified relevant publications using an electronic search in EMBASE, PubMed, EconLit, PsycInfo, Philosopher's Index, and Scopus, including publications available in English in the past 20 years. Two reviewers independently appraised candidate publications, extracted data, and synthesized findings in narrative form. Out of 2388 publications reviewed, 26 were included. Solutions sought either to incorporate relevant fairness considerations directly into economic evaluation or to report them alongside cost-effectiveness measures. The majority of reviewed solutions, if adapted to integrate social justice concerns, would require their explicit quantification. Four broad challenges related to the implementation of these solutions were identified: clarifying the normative basis; measuring and determining the relative importance of criteria representing that basis; combining the criteria; and evaluating trade-offs. All included solutions must grapple with an inherent tension: they must either face the normative and operational challenges of quantifying social justice concerns or accede to offering incomplete policy guidance. Interdisciplinary research and broader collaborations are crucial to address these challenges and to support due attention to social justice in priority setting.

The Use of Economic Evaluation to Inform Newborn Screening Policy Decisions: The Washington State Experience

POLICY POINTS

Newborn screening not only saves lives but can also yield net societal economic benefit, in addition to benefits such as improved quality of life to affected individuals and families. Calculations of net economic benefit from newborn screening include the monetary equivalent of avoided deaths and reductions in costs of care for complications associated with late-diagnosed individuals minus the additional costs of screening, diagnosis, and treatment associated with prompt diagnosis. Since 2001 the Washington State Department of Health has successfully implemented an approach to conducting evidence-based economic evaluations of disorders proposed for addition to the state-mandated newborn screening panel.

CONTEXT

Economic evaluations can inform policy decisions on the expansion of newborn screening panels. This article documents the use of cost-benefit models in Washington State as part of the rule-making process that resulted in the implementation of screening for medium-chain acyl-CoA dehydrogenase (MCAD) deficiency and 4 other metabolic disorders in 2004, cystic fibrosis (CF) in 2006, 15 other metabolic disorders in 2008, and severe combined immune deficiency (SCID) in 2014.

METHODS

We reviewed Washington State Department of Health internal reports and spreadsheet models of expected net societal benefit of adding disorders to the state newborn screening panel. We summarize the assumptions and findings for 2 models (MCAD and CF) and discuss them in relation to findings in the peer-reviewed literature.

FINDINGS

The MCAD model projected a benefit-cost ratio of 3.4 to 1 based on assumptions of a 20.0 percentage point reduction in infant mortality and a 13.9 percentage point reduction in serious developmental disability. The CF model projected a benefit-cost ratio of 4.0-5.4 to 1 for a discount rate of 3%-4% and a plausible range of 1-2 percentage point reductions in deaths up to age 10 years.

CONCLUSIONS

The Washington State cost-benefit models of newborn screening were broadly consistent with peer-reviewed literature, and their findings of net benefit appear to be robust to uncertainty in parameters. Public health newborn screening programs can develop their own capacity to project expected costs and benefits of expansion of newborn screening panels, although it would be most efficient if this capacity were shared among programs.

Does a biomedical research centre affect patient care in local hospitals?

BACKGROUND

Biomedical research can have impacts on patient care at research-active hospitals. We qualitatively evaluated the impact of the Oxford Biomedical Research Centre (Oxford BRC), a university-hospital partnership, on the effectiveness and efficiency of healthcare in local hospitals. Effectiveness and efficiency are conceptualised in terms of impacts perceived by clinicians on the quality, quantity and costs of patient care they deliver.

METHODS

First, we reviewed documentation from Oxford BRC and literature on the impact of research activity on patient care. Second, we interviewed leaders of the Oxford BRC's research to identify the direct and indirect impacts they expected their activity would have on local hospitals. Third, this information was used to inform interviews with senior clinicians responsible for patient care at Oxford's acute hospitals to discover what impacts they observed from research generally and from Oxford BRC's research work specifically. We compared and contrasted the results from the two sets of interviews using a qualitative approach. Finally, we identified themes emerging from the senior clinicians' responses, and compared them with an existing taxonomy of mechanisms through which quality of healthcare may be affected in research-active settings.

RESULTS

We were able to interview 17 research leaders at the Oxford BRC and 19 senior clinicians at Oxford's acute hospitals. The research leaders identified a wide range of beneficial impacts that they expected might be felt at local hospitals as a result of their research activity. They expected the impact of their research activity on patient care to be generally positive. The senior clinicians responsible for patient care at those hospitals presented a more mixed picture, identifying many positive impacts, but also a smaller number of negative impacts, from research activity, including that of the Oxford BRC. We found the existing taxonomy of benefit types to be helpful in organising the findings, and propose modifications to further improve its usefulness.

CONCLUSIONS

Impacts from research activity on the effectiveness and efficiency of patient care at the local acute hospitals, as perceived by senior clinicians, were more often beneficial than harmful. The Oxford BRC contributed to those impacts.

Investing in a healthy lifestyle strategy: is it worth it?

OBJECTIVES

In Quebec, various actors fund activities aimed at increasing physical activity, improving eating habits and reducing smoking. The objective was to evaluate how effective does the healthy lifestyle habits promotion (HLHP) strategy need to be to make to offset its costs.

METHODS

First, we built the logic model of the HLHP strategy. We then assessed the strategy's total cost as well as the direct health care expenditures associated with lifestyle-related risk factors (smoking, physical inactivity, insufficient intake of fruits and vegetables, obesity and overweight). Finally, we estimated the break-even point beyond which the economic benefits of the HLHP strategy would outweigh its costs.

RESULTS

The HLHP strategy cost for 2010-2011 was estimated at $110 million. Direct healthcare expenditures associated with lifestyle-related risk factors were estimated at $4.161 billion. We estimated that 47 % of these expenditures were attributable to these risk factors.

CONCLUSIONS

We concluded that the HLHP strategy cost corresponded to 5.6 % of the annual healthcare expenditures attributable to these risk factors. This study compared the economic value of HLHP activities against healthcare expenditures associated with targeted risk factors.

What are the benefits and risks of using return on investment to defend public health programs?

Return on investment (ROI) is an economic measure used to indicate how much economic benefit is derived from a program in relation to its costs. Interest in the use of ROI in public health has grown substantially over recent years. Given its potential influence on resource allocation, it is crucial to understand the benefits and the risks of using ROI to defend public health programs. In this paper, we explore those benefits and risks. We present two recent examples of ROI use in public health in the United States and Canada and conclude with a series of proposals to minimize the risks associated with using ROI to defend public health interventions.

•

APHA and CPHA estimates of ROI on major public health range from 125% to 3900%.

•

Assessing the economic value of public health programs using ROIs could provide robust arguments in their defense.

•

Even if there are known benefits to using ROIs, there are also several risks.

•

We offer recommendations for using ROI while acknowledging programs full range of impacts.

Lessons Learned From Measuring Return on Investment in Public Health Quality Improvement Initiatives

CONTEXT

The Center for Public Health Quality and its partner, North Carolina State University Industrial Extension Service, used 2 existing, yet similar quality improvement (QI) programs to provide technical assistance to conduct return on investment (ROI) and economic impact (EI) analyses so that they could estimate their QI projects' financial impacts.

OBJECTIVES

The objectives of this article are to describe the approach and ongoing learning from applying ROI and EI analyses to public health QI projects and analyze the results in order to illustrate ROI potential in public health.

DESIGN

We used a before-after study design for all ROI and EI analyses, spanning a 3-year time period.

SETTING

The study was conducted as part of 2 existing public health QI training programs that included webinars, face-to-face workshops, on-site facilitation, and longitudinal coaching and mentoring.

PARTICIPANTS

The QI training programs included multidisciplinary teams from local and state public health programs in North Carolina.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE

Return on investment and EI calculations.

RESULTS

Numerous adaptations were made over the 3 years of the ROI program to enhance participant's understanding and application. Results show an average EI of $149 000, and a total EI in excess of $5 million for the 35 projects studied. The average ROI per QI project was $8.56 for every $1 invested in the project.

CONCLUSIONS

Adapting the ROI approach was important in helping teams successfully conduct their ROI analyses. This study suggests that ROI analyses can be effectively applied in public health settings, and the potential for financial return is substantial.

Assessing entrepreneurship in governmental public health

OBJECTIVES

We assessed the feasibility and desirability of public health entrepreneurship (PHE) in governmental public health.

METHODS

Using a qualitative case study approach with semistructured interview protocols, we conducted interviews between April 2010 and January 2011 at 32 local health departments (LHDs) in 18 states. Respondents included chief health officers and senior LHD staff, representatives from national public health organizations, health authorities, and public health institutes.

RESULTS

Respondents identified PHE through 3 overlapping practices: strategic planning, operational efficiency, and revenue generation. Clinical services offer the strongest revenue-generating potential, and traditional public health services offer only limited entrepreneurial opportunities. Barriers include civil service rules, a risk-averse culture, and concerns that PHE would compromise core public health values.

CONCLUSIONS

Ongoing PHE activity has the potential to reduce LHDs' reliance on unstable general public revenues. Yet under the best of circumstances, it is difficult to generate revenue from public health services. Although governmental public health contains pockets of entrepreneurial activity, its culture does not sustain significant entrepreneurial activity. The question remains as to whether LHDs' current public revenue sources are sustainable and, if not, whether PHE is a feasible or desirable alternative.

Is Health Related Quality of Life (HRQoL) a valid indicator for health systems evaluation?

The purpose of this review is to do a discussion about the use of the HRQoL as a health measure of the populations that enable to analyze its potential use as a measure of development and efficiency of health systems. The principal use of the HRQoL is in health technologies economics evaluation; however this measure can be use in public health when need to know the health state of population. The WHO recognizes its potential use but its necessary to do a discussion about your difficulties for its application and restrictions for its use as a performance indicator for the health systems.

The review show the different aspects about the use of HRQoL how a measure of efficiency ot the health system, each aspect identified in the literature is analyzed and discussed, developing the pros and cons of their possible use, especially when it comes as a cardinal measure.

The analysis allows recognize that measuring HRQoL in countries could serve as a useful indicator, especially when it seeks to measure the level of health and disease, as do most of the indicators of current use. However, the methodological constraints that do not allow comparability between countries especially when you have large socioeconomic differences have yet to be resolved to allow comparison between different regions.

Public health services and systems research: current state of finance research

There is a growing recognition that the US public health system should strive for efficiency-that it should determine the optimal ways to utilize limited resources to improve and protect public health. The field of public health finance research is a critical part of efforts to understand the most efficient ways to use resources. This article discusses the current state of public health finance research through a review of public health finance literature, chronicles important lessons learned from public health finance research to date, discusses the challenges faced by those seeking to conduct financial research on the public health system, and discusses the role of public health finance research in relation to the broader endeavor of Public Health Services and Systems Research.

Estimates of costs for housing-related interventions to prevent specific illnesses and deaths

Public health is embracing economic analyses in an effort to use limited resources in the most efficient manner. However, users of economic analyses in the public health arena should recognize the inherent strengths and weaknesses of different types of analysis, as well as understand how the inclusion or omission of certain costs or benefits might influence study results. For example, asthma is a chronic condition that can result in health care costs that accrue well beyond the duration of a housing intervention. Thus, an economic analysis that omits long-term health care costs can underestimate the total economic benefit of the housing intervention. This article contains reviews of economic articles on housing interventions published in PubMed, examines salient differences between studies, and discusses pertinent gaps in the literature. In addition, this article attempts to provide an overview of key economic evaluation methods in relation to housing interventions to a target audience of local and state public health practitioners. Specific housing-related health issues discussed include asthma, lead, and carbon monoxide poisoning and radon-related lung cancer.

Methods in public health services and systems research: a systematic review

CONTEXT

Public Health Services and Systems Research (PHSSR) is concerned with evaluating the organization, financing, and delivery of public health services and their impact on public health. The strength of the current PHSSR evidence is somewhat dependent on the methods used to examine the field. Methods used in PHSSR articles, reports, and other documents were reviewed to assess their methodologic strengths and challenges in light of PHSSR goals.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

A total of 364 documents from the PHSSR library met the inclusion criteria as empirical and based in the U.S. After additional exclusions, 327 of these were analyzed.

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

A detailed codebook was used to classify articles in terms of (1) study design; (2) sampling; (3) instrumentation; (4) data collection; (5) data analysis; and (6) study validity. Inter-coder reliability was assessed for the codebook; once it was found reliable, the available empirical documents were coded.

CONCLUSIONS

Although there has been a dramatic increase in the amount of published PHSSR recently, methods used remain primarily cross-sectional and descriptive. Moreover, although appropriate for exploratory and foundational work in a new field, these approaches are limiting progress toward some PHSSR goals. Recommendations are given to advance and strengthen the methods used in PHSSR to better meet the goals and challenges facing the field.

Creating a framework for getting quality into the public health system

The US health care system has undertaken concerted efforts to improve the quality of care that Americans receive, using well-documented strategies and new incentives found in the Affordable Care Act of 2010. Applying quality concepts to public health has lagged these efforts, however. This article describes two reports from the Department of Health and Human Services: Consensus Statement on Quality in the Public Health System and Priority Areas for Improvement of Quality in Public Health. These reports define what is meant by public health quality, establish quality aims, and highlight priority areas needing improvement. We describe how these developments relate to the Affordable Care Act and serve as a call to action for ensuring a better future for population health. We present real-world examples of how a framework of quality concepts can be applied in the National Vaccine Safety Program and in a state office of minority health.

Exploring the role of economics in prioritization in public health: what do stakeholders think?

BACKGROUND

Debates surrounding the use of conventional approaches in public health and the existence of perceived barriers to using the results of economic evaluations have led to questions posed as to how to establish priorities within public health schemes. The aims of this study were therefore to explore the feasibility and validity of economic evaluation techniques in developing priorities within public health programmes and consider the extent to which different presentational approaches are likely to be incorporated into decision-making, from perspectives of relevant stakeholders.

METHODS

An advisory board, representative of potential users of economic evaluations, was set up to identify preferences for how findings from economic evaluations might be presented to decision makers and to test the impact of different approaches, different outputs and different presentational styles. The board was divided into two groups, each of which was given three hypothetical 'scenarios' to consider. The scenarios comprised descriptions of methods and outputs, with costs, effects, target population and context of intervention constant across all scenarios.

RESULTS

The perceived validity of estimates of effectiveness was vitally important, along with sufficient information to gauge whether designs were appropriate and to assess implementation practicalities. Cost-benefit analysis and cost-utility analysis were the preferred approaches despite their complexity, although participants required benchmarks to place net-benefit estimates from cost-benefit analyses into context.

CONCLUSION

Further research is required to substantiate and build on these preliminary findings and collaborations between economists and policy makers are needed to develop clear, rigorous and standard guidance relating to economic evaluation, recognizing the diversity of public health strategies.

Assessing the economic value of public health programs based on risk: the case of the cancer plan in France

OBJECTIVES

This article intends to understand how health risk is actually valued and managed in public health programs through the case study of the cancer plan in France.

METHODS

A literature review has been carried out with a particular focus on major health risk characteristics from a multidisciplinary perspective. To assess the economic value of the cancer plan in France, the study uses secondary data on the costs of cancer that have been collected and published by the National Institute for Cancer for 2004.

RESULTS

A model is designed to evaluate health risk components that can be classified into four main categories relating the level at which risk is analyzed (individual or population) to the main type of intervention needed (preventive or curative) to cope with it. The findings show that actions and interventions dealing with prevention, education, and research represent 3.54% of the total costs of the cancer plan in France while 96.46% relates to health care and economic losses.

CONCLUSIONS

The proposed classification of health risk components gives more insight and understanding of risks associated with diseases and illness and proposes an operational representation of actions and costs related to the risks. The methodology proposed might be of significant interest to those involved in making health-care financing decisions.

A framework to measure the value of public health services

OBJECTIVE

To develop a framework that public health practitioners could use to measure the value of public health services.

DATA SOURCES

Primary data were collected from August 2006 through March 2007. We interviewed (n=46) public health practitioners in four states, leaders of national public health organizations, and academic researchers.

STUDY DESIGN

Using a semi-structured interview protocol, we conducted a series of qualitative interviews to define the component parts of value for public health services and identify methodologies used to measure value and data collected.

DATA COLLECTION/EXTRACTION METHODS

The primary form of analysis is descriptive, synthesizing information across respondents as to how they measure the value of their services.

PRINCIPAL FINDINGS

Our interviews did not reveal a consensus on how to measure value or a specific framework for doing so. Nonetheless, the interviews identified some potential strategies, such as cost accounting and performance-based contracting mechanisms. The interviews noted implementation barriers, including limits to staff capacity and data availability.

CONCLUSIONS

We developed a framework that considers four component elements to measure value: external factors that must be taken into account (i.e., mandates); key internal actions that a local health department must take (i.e., staff assessment); using appropriate quantitative measures; and communicating value to elected officials and the public.