Search

Competing Interests: The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Context: The National Research Agenda for Public Health Services and Systems Research states the need for research to determine the cost of delivering public health services in order to assist the public health system in communicating financial needs to decision makers, partners, and health reform leaders., Objective: The objective of this analysis is to compare 2 cost estimation methodologies, public health manager estimates of employee time spent and activity logs completed by public health workers, to understand to what degree manager surveys could be used in lieu of more time-consuming and burdensome activity logs., Design: Employees recorded their time spent on communicable disease surveillance for a 2-week period using an activity log. Managers then estimated time spent by each employee on a manager survey. Robust and ordinary least squares regression was used to measure the agreement between the time estimated by the manager and the time recorded by the employee., Main Outcome Measures: The 2 outcomes for this study included time recorded by the employee on the activity log and time estimated by the manager on the manager survey., Setting: This study was conducted in local health departments in Colorado., Participants: Forty-one Colorado local health departments (82%) agreed to participate., Results: Seven of the 8 models showed that managers underestimate their employees' time, especially for activities on which an employee spent little time. Manager surveys can best estimate time for time-intensive activities, such as total time spent on a core service or broad public health activity, and yet are less precise when estimating discrete activities., Conclusions: When Public Health Services and Systems Research researchers and health departments are conducting studies to determine the cost of public health services, there are many situations in which managers can closely approximate the time required and produce a relatively precise approximation of cost without as much time investment by practitioners.

Objectives: To provide an overview of budget cuts, job losses, and program reductions among local health departments (LHDs) and to examine the association between LHD infrastructure characteristics and the likelihood of budget cuts., Design: Data from 4 waves of the economic surveillance survey (July-August 2009, September-November 2010, January-February 2012, and January-March 2013) conducted by the National Association of County & City Health Officials were analyzed to assess cuts to budgets, jobs, and programs since 2009. Data from the 2013 National Profile of Local Health Departments survey were used to assess the infrastructural characteristics associated with budget cuts., Results: When asked in early 2013, more than a quarter of LHDs (26.9%) reported a reduced budget, continuing the trend of a substantial proportion of LHDs experiencing financial hardship in recent years. The percentages of LHDs that made cuts to programmatic areas fluctuated from year to year but have never been lower than 40%. Maternal and child health services were among areas most often cut during all 4 time points of the survey. Governance type, total expenditures, and percentage of revenues from local sources were significantly associated with LHD budget cuts., Conclusions: Cuts in LHD budgets, staff, and activities have been widespread for a period that lasted long after the official end of the Great Recession. There is a great need for substantive and consistent funding to ensure the retention of the workforce and the delivery of essential public health services.

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

Background: Priority setting is at the core of resource allocation. In recent years, priority setting in public health has occurred in the context of a difficult authorizing environment, one in which politicians have shown increasing interest in reducing the footprint of government, even during times of increased demand for social services. In this context of austerity, tradeoffs abound. These tradeoffs may occur not only within a single programmatic area in public health (e.g., cutting an infant mortality program vs a "Children With Special Health Care Needs" program) but also at a broader, more abstract level (e.g., favoring programs that are relatively more efficient for one population vs less efficient for programs serving a population in greater need of services)., Objectives: This project was undertaken to provide more insight into tradeoffs within state health agencies with regard to what types of tradeoffs exist and how often they occur., Methods: To characterize these tradeoffs, we engaged in a mixed-methods project where we first conducted 45 semistructured interviews with public health leaders across 6 state health agencies. Tradeoffs were elicited through open-ended questions and probes and qualitatively coded and analyzed. Next, we conducted a national survey across all state health agencies, receiving 207 responses (66% response rate). Survey respondents were asked to rate how frequently they encountered particular tradeoffs and how difficult they were to resolve., Results: The most frequently encountered tradeoffs were "insufficient funding for a program versus no funding for a program" (84% rating as frequently/very frequently encountered) and prioritizing "current versus future need" (80% rating as frequently/very frequently). More than 50% of respondents said that they encountered 7 of the 11 tradeoffs frequently or very frequently and found 10 of the 11 difficult or very difficult to resolve. Forty-two percent of respondents rated "services for younger groups versus services for older groups" as difficult/very difficult to resolve.

Objectives: To describe changes in the organizational structure of state health-related departments/agencies between 1990 and 2009; to identify factors associated with key organizational structures; and to investigate their relationship with different resource allocations across health policy areas, as represented by state budgets., Design: Original data collection on the organization of state health-related departments/agencies from 1990 to 2009. Analyses included descriptive statistics, logistic regression, and time-series regression modeling., Setting and Participants: All 50 states., Main Outcomes Measures: Organizational structure of state government related to health in 4 areas (Medicaid, public health, mental health, human services); coupling of Medicaid and public health in the same agency; state budget changes in health policy areas, including Medicaid, public health, and hospitals., Results: The housing of 2 or more health-related functions in the same unit was common, with 21 states combining public health and Medicaid at 1 or more points in time. Eighteen states (36%) reorganized their health agencies/departments during the study period. Controlling for numerous economic, social, and political factors, when the state agency responsible for public health is consolidated with Medicaid, the share of the state budget allocated to Medicaid declined significantly, while public health allocations were unchanged. However, consolidating Medicaid with other services did not impact state Medicaid spending., Conclusions: Government organizational structure related to health varies greatly across states and is somewhat dynamic. When Medicaid and public health functions are consolidated in the same stage agency, public health does not "lose" in terms of its share of the state budget. However, this could change as Medicaid costs continue to grow and with the implementation the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010.

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

Objectives: The Florida Public Health Practice-Based Research Network conducted the study of Florida county health departments (CHDs) to assess relationships between self-assessed performance on essential services (ESs) and sources of funding., Methods: Primary data were collected using an online survey based on Public Health Accreditation Board standards for ES. Bivariate and multivariate analyses were conducted to assess the relationship of sources and amounts of revenue obtained from the Florida Department of Health financial system to responses to the survey of CHD capacity for ESs., Results: Self-assessed CHD performance for each ES varied extensively among the CHDs and across the 10 ESs, ranging from a high of 98% CHDs completely or almost completely meeting the standards for ES 2 (Investigating Problems and Hazards) to a low of 32% completely or almost completely meeting standards for ES 10 (Research/Evidence). Medicaid revenue and fees were positively correlated with some ESs. Per capita revenue support varied extensively among the CHDs., Conclusions: Revenue for ES is decreasing and is heavily reliant on noncategorical (discretionary) revenue. This study has important implications for continued reliance on ES as an organizing construct for public health.

In the United States, fiscal and functional federalism strongly shape public health policy and programs. Federalism has implications for public health practice: it molds financing and disbursement options, including funding formulas, which affect allocations and program goals, and shapes how funding decisions are operationalized in a political context. This article explores how American federalism, both fiscal and functional, structures public health funding, policy, and program options, investigating the effects of intergovernmental transfers on public health finance and programs.

Context: Multiple federal public health programs use funding formulas to allocate funds to states., Objective: To characterize the effects of adjusting formula-based allocations for differences among states in the cost of implementing programs, the potential for generating in-state resources, and income disparities, which might be associated with disease risk., Setting: Fifty US states and the District of Columbia., Intervention: Formula-based funding allocations to states for 4 representative federal public health programs were adjusted using indicators of cost (average salaries), potential within-state revenues (per-capita income, the Federal Medical Assistance Percentage, per-capita aggregate home values), and income disparities (Theil index)., Main Outcome: Percentage of allocation shifted by adjustment, the number of states and the percentage of US population living in states with a more than 20% increase or decrease in funding, maximum percentage increase or decrease in funding., Results: Each adjustor had a comparable impact on allocations across the 4 program allocations examined. Approximately 2% to 8% of total allocations were shifted, with adjustments for variations in income disparity and housing values having the least and greatest effects, respectively. The salary cost and per-capita income adjustors were inversely correlated and had offsetting effects on allocations. With the exception of the housing values adjustment, fewer than 10 states had more than 20% increases or decreases in allocations, and less than 10% of the US population lived in such states., Conclusions: Selection of adjustors for formula-based funding allocations should consider the impacts of different adjustments, correlations between adjustors and other data elements in funding formulas, and the relationship of formula inputs to program objectives.

A turnaround describes an organization's ability to recover from successive periods of decline. Current and projected declines in US economic conditions continue to place local public health departments at risk of fiscal exigency. This examination focused on turnaround methodologies used by a local public health department to reverse successive periods of operational and financial declines. Illustrations are provided on the value added by implementing financial ratio and trend analysis in addition to using evidence-based private sector turnaround strategies of retrenchment, repositioning, and reorganization. Evidence has shown how the financial analysis and strategies aided in identifying operational weakness and set in motion corrective measures. The Public Health Uniform Data System is introduced along with a list of standards offered for mainstreaming these and other routine stewardship practices to diagnose, predict, and prevent agency declines.

Public health funding formulas have received less scrutiny than those used in other government sectors, particularly health services and public health insurance. We surveyed states about their use of funding formulas for specific public health activities; sources of funding; formula attributes; formula development; and assessments of political and policy considerations. Results show that the use of funding formulas is positively correlated with the number of local health departments and with the percentage of public health funding provided by the federal government. States use a variety of allocative strategies but most commonly employ a "base-plus" distribution. Resulting distributions are more disproportionate than per capita or per-person-in-poverty allotments, an effect that increases as the proportion of total funding dedicated to equal minimum allotments increases.

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

We measured the impact of the 2008-2010 economic recession on local health departments (LHDs) across the United States. Between 2008 and 2010, we conducted 3 Web-based, cross-sectional surveys of a nationally representative sample of LHDs to assess cuts to budgets, workforce, and programs. By early 2010, more than half of the LHDs (53%) were experiencing cuts to their core funding. In excess of 23 000 LHDs jobs were lost in 2008-2009. All programmatic areas were affected by cuts, and more than half of the LHDs had to reduce or eliminate at least 1 programmatic area. The capacity of LHDs to provide core public health services was undermined by the economic recession.

Objective: This study presents a model for determining total funding needed for individual local health departments. The aim is to determine the financial resources needed to provide services for statewide local public health departments in Minnesota based on a gaps analysis done to estimate the funding needs., Design: We used a multimethod analysis consisting of 3 approaches to estimate gaps in local public health funding consisting of (1) interviews of selected local public health leaders, (2) a Delphi panel, and (3) a Nominal Group Technique. On the basis of these 3 approaches, a consensus estimate of funding gaps was generated for statewide projections., Setting: The study includes an analysis of cost, performance, and outcomes from 2005 to 2007 for all 87 local governmental health departments in Minnesota., Participants: For each of the methods, we selected a panel to represent a profile of Minnesota health departments., Main Outcome Measures: The 2 main outcome measures were local-level gaps in financial resources and total resources needed to provide public health services at the local level., Results: The total public health expenditure in Minnesota for local governmental public health departments was $302 million in 2007 ($58.92 per person). The consensus estimate of the financial gaps in local public health departments indicates that an additional $32.5 million (a 10.7% increase or $6.32 per person) is needed to adequately serve public health needs in the local communities., Conclusions: It is possible to make informed estimates of funding gaps for public health activities on the basis of a combination of quantitative methods. There is a wide variation in public health expenditure at the local levels, and methods are needed to establish minimum baseline expenditure levels to adequately treat a population. The gaps analysis can be used by stakeholders to inform policy makers of the need for improved funding of the public health system.

The allocation of resources for public health programming is a complicated and daunting responsibility. Financial decision-making processes within public health agencies are especially difficult when not supported with techniques for prioritizing and ranking alternatives. This article presents a case study of a decision analysis software model that was applied to the process of identifying funding priorities for public health services in the Spokane Regional Health District. Results on the use of this decision support system provide insights into how decision science models, which have been used for decades in business and industry, can be successfully applied to public health budgeting as a means of strengthening agency financial management processes.

The absence of appropriate financial management competencies has impeded progress in advancing the field of public health finance. It also inhibits the ability to professionalize this sector of the workforce. Financial managers should play a critical role by providing information relevant to decision making. The lack of fundamental financial management knowledge and skills is a barrier to fulfilling this role. A national expert committee was convened to examine this issue. The committee reviewed standards related to financial and business management practices within public health and closely related areas. Alignments were made with national standards such as those established for government chief financial officers. On the basis of this analysis, a comprehensive set of public health financial management competencies was identified and examined further by a review panel. At a minimum, the competencies can be used to define job descriptions, assess job performance, identify critical gaps in financial analysis, create career paths, and design educational programs.

Background: The work reported here builds on the identification of public health financial management practice competencies by a national expert panel. The next logical step was to provide a validity check for the competencies and identify priority areas for educational programming., Methods: We developed a survey for local public health finance officers based on the public health finance competencies and field tested it with a convenience sample of officials. We asked respondents to indicate the importance of each competency area and the need for training to improve performance; we also requested information regarding respondent education, jurisdiction size, and additional comments. Our local agency survey sample drew on the respondent list from the National Association of County and City Health Officials 2005 local health department survey, stratified by agency size and limited to jurisdiction populations of 25,000 to 1,000,000. Identifying appropriate respondents was a major challenge. The survey was fielded electronically, yielding 112 responses from 30 states., Results: The areas identified as most important and needing most additional training were knowledge of budget activities, financial data interpretation and communication, and ability to assess and correct the organization's financial status. The majority of respondents had some postbaccalaureate education. Many provided additional comments and recommendations., Discussion: Health department finance officers demonstrated a high level of general agreement regarding the importance of finance competencies in public health and the need for training. The findings point to a critical need for additional training opportunities that are accessible, cost-effective, and targeted to individual needs.

Unlabelled: All-state fiscal year 2005 public health-related spending in the state of Oklahoma was investigated including funds from federal, state, and local sources expended through the state health department and the two autonomous metropolitan health departments., Methodology: The cost finding and allocation methodology used a series of structured resource worksheets developed for this project that segregate public health department expenditures into six primary groups: disease and prevention; family health; community health; protective health; support and administrative services; and other. The six primary groups were further divided into 59 units and subunits. All financial data were provided directly by staff in the public health agencies working closely with project staff. The data were analyzed along three lines: (1) level of health department (state, metro, other local); (2) revenue source (federal, state, local); and (3) public health function (behaviors, health conditions, direct services, population health)., Results and Conclusions: Public health officials may not have necessary information on the multiple sources and applications of revenue, categories of expense, operational control of resources, and the inherent restrictions upon the use of those resources. The study gave the city-county and state health officials a new and more complete picture of public health spending in Oklahoma, which catalyzed a dialogue between the commissioner and the directors to explore ways for local priorities to be incorporated into the direct state spending.

Objective: Local environmental public health (EPH) is the foundation of a nation's environmental protection infrastructure. With increasing pressure to demonstrate the ability of EPH activities to effectively protect health, the Johns Hopkins Center for Excellence in EPH Practice, as part of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's (CDC's) EPH capacity-building effort, developed the Profile of Maryland Environmental Public Health Practice. This profile offers an examination of front-line local EPH strengths, needs, challenges, and provides recommendations to strengthen the EPH infrastructure., Methods: A multistep process was conducted, including site visits to all of Maryland's 24 local EPH agencies and a questionnaire addressing administrative structure, communication, funding, workforce, crisis management, technology, and legal authority, completed by local EPH directors., Results: The Maryland Profile revealed a dedicated and responsive workforce limited by a neglected, fragmented, and underfunded EPH infrastructure. Recommendations regarding leadership, workforce, training, technology, communication, and legal authority are offered., Conclusions: This research has implications for the national EPH infrastructure. Recommendations offered are consistent with the CDC's findings in A National Strategy to Revitalize Environmental Public Health Services. These findings and recommendations offer opportunities to facilitate the advancement of an EPH system to better protect the nation's health.

Background: We aimed to increase human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) counseling, testing, referral (CTR), and knowledge of HIV serostatus of close contacts of tuberculosis patients and improve tuberculosis screening and treatment of HIV-infected contacts., Methods: Of close contacts to infectious tuberculosis patients reported from December 2002 to November 2003, investigators (1) offered HIV CTR, (2) identified factors associated with HIV testing, and (3) assessed study costs., Results: Of 614 contacts, 569 (93%) were provided HIV information and offered HIV CTR. Of the 569, 58 (10%) were previously HIV tested; 165 (29%) were newly HIV tested; and 346 (61%) were not tested. None of the 165 newly HIV tested contacts were HIV infected. Contacts more likely to be newly HIV tested (vs not tested) included those aged 18-24, Hispanic, or non-Hispanic Black. Of 24 HIV-infected contacts, 71 percent received chest-radiograph screening for tuberculosis disease; 56 percent of 18 eligible for latent-tuberculosis-infection treatment started and half completed. It cost $1 per patient to provide HIV information and $5-$8 to offer HIV CTR., Conclusion: The project increased HIV CTR of close contacts of infectious tuberculosis patients. The important factor for success in knowing contacts' HIV serostatus was simply for TB program staff to ask about it and offer the test to those who did not know their status.

Financial transparency is based on concepts for valid, standardized information that is readily accessible and routinely disseminated to stakeholders. While Congress and others continuously ask for an accounting of public health investments, transparency remains an ignored concept. The objective of this study was to examine financial transparency practices in other industries considered as part of the public health system. Key informants, regarded as financial experts on the operations of hospitals, school systems, and higher education, were a primary source of information. Principal findings were that system partners have espoused some concepts for financial transparency beginning in the early 20th century--signifying an 80-year implementation gap for public health. Critical features that promote accountability included standardized data collection methods and infrastructures, uniform practices for quantitative analysis of financial performance, and credentialing of the financial management workforce. Recommendations are offered on the basis of these findings to aid public health to close this gap by framing a movement toward transparency.

Objective: Enhancing public health surveillance to include electronic syndromic surveillance systems has received increased attention in recent years. Although cost continually serves as a critical factor in public health decision making, few studies have evaluated direct costs associated with syndromic surveillance systems. In this study, we calculated the direct costs associated with developing and implementing a syndromic surveillance system in Boston, Massachusetts, from the perspective of local, state, and federal governments., Methods: Between December 2003 and July 2005, the Boston Public Health Commission (BPHC), in collaboration with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), and the Massachusetts Department of Public Health developed a syndromic surveillance system in which limited demographic and chief complaint data are collected from all Boston acute care emergency departments every 24 hours. Costs were divided into three categories: development, operation, and upgrade. Within these categories, all fixed and variable costs incurred by both BPHC and CDC were assessed, including those associated with development of syndromic surveillance-related city regulations and system enhancements., Results: The total estimated direct cost of system development and implementation during the study period was $422,899 ($396,716 invested by BPHC and $26,183 invested by CDC). Syndromic system enhancements to improve situational awareness accounted for $74,389., Conclusion: Development, implementation, and operation of a syndromic surveillance system accounted for a relatively small proportion of surveillance costs in a large urban health department. Funding made available for a future cost-benefit analysis, and an assessment of local epidemiologic capacity will help to guide decisions for local health departments. Although not a replacement for traditional surveillance, syndromic surveillance in Boston is an important and relatively inexpensive component of a comprehensive local public health surveillance system.

Local public health agencies are funded federal, state, and local revenue sources. There is a common belief that increases from one source will be offset by decreases in others, as when a local agency might decide it must increase taxes in response to lowered federal or state funding. This study tests this belief through a cross-sectional study using data from Missouri local public health agencies, and finds, instead, that money begets money. Local agencies that receive more from federal and state sources also raise more at the local level. Given the particular effectiveness of local funding in improving agency performance, these findings that nonlocal revenues are amplified at the local level, help make the case for higher public health funding from federal and state levels.

Among the many roles a government plays in our daily lives, protecting the public's health is one of the most conspicuous. The government provides goods and services such as registration of births and deaths, public health surveillance of disease and injury, outbreak investigations, research and education, health insurance for the poor and elderly, enforcement of laws and regulations, evaluation of health promotion programs, and assurance of a competent healthy workforce. In the past, economics in public health has almost exclusively focused on efficiency of programs through the use of cost-effectiveness or net present value measures clustered under the rubric of "economic evaluation." Efficiency measures are useful at the programmatic level. However, lack of full employment and market failures including public goods and the impact of consumers and producers actions not reflected in the markets (externalities) not only compromise efficiency but also generate health inequities. We propose an expansion of the scope of existing health economics research in an area characterized as public health economics--the study of the economic role of government in public health, particularly, but not exclusively, in supplying public goods and addressing externalities.

Federal public health programs use a mix of formula-based and competitive methods to allocate funds among states and other constituent jurisdictions. Characteristics of formula-based allocations used by a convenience sample of four programs, three from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and one from the Health Resources and Services Administration, are described to illustrate formula-based allocation methods in public health. Data sources in these public health formulas include population counts and funding proportions based on historical precedent. None include factors that adjust allocations based on variations in the availability of local resources or the cost of delivering services. Formula-funded activities are supplemented by programs that target specific prevention needs or encourage development of innovative methods to address emerging problems, using set-aside funds. A public health finance research agenda should address ways to improve the fit between funding allocation formulas and program objectives.

Providing for the delivery of public health services and understanding the funding mechanisms for these services are topics of great currency in the United States. In 2002, the Department of Homeland Security was created and the responsibility for providing public health services was realigned among federal agencies. State and local public health agencies are under increased financial pressures even as they shoulder more responsibilities as the vital first link in the provision of public health services. Recent events, such as hurricanes Katrina and Rita, served to highlight the need to accurately access the public health delivery system at all levels of government. The National Health Expenditure Accounts (NHEA), prepared by the National Health Statistics Group, measure expenditures on healthcare goods and services in the United States. Government public health activity constitutes an important service category in the NHEA. In the most recent set of estimates, Government Public Health Activity expenditures totaled $56.1 billion in 2004, or 3.0 percent of total US health spending. Accurately measuring expenditures for public health services in the United States presents many challenges. Among these challenges is the difficult task of defining what types of government activity constitute public health services. There is no clear-cut, universally accepted definition of government public health care services, and the definitions in the proposed International Classification for Health Accounts are difficult to apply to an individual country's unique delivery systems. Other challenges include the definitional issues associated with the boundaries of healthcare as well as the requirement that census and survey data collected from government(s) be compliant with the Classification of Functions of Government (COFOG), an internationally recognized classification system developed by the United Nations.

The recent focus on public health stemming from, among other things, severe acute respiratory syndrome and avian flu has created an imperative to refine health-spending estimates in the Canadian Health Accounts. This article presents the Canadian experience in attempting to address the challenges associated with developing the needed taxonomies for systematically capturing, measuring, and analyzing the national investment in the Canadian public health system. The first phase of this process was completed in 2005, which was a 2-year project to estimate public health spending based on a more classic definition by removing the administration component of the previously combined public health and administration category. Comparing the refined public health estimate with recent data from the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development still positions Canada with the highest share of total health expenditure devoted to public health than any other country reporting. The article also provides an analysis of the comparability of public health estimates across jurisdictions within Canada as well as a discussion of the recommendations for ongoing improvement of public health spending estimates. The Canadian Institute for Health Information is an independent, not-for-profit organization that provides Canadians with essential statistics and analysis on the performance of the Canadian health system, the delivery of healthcare, and the health status of Canadians. The Canadian Institute for Health Information administers more than 20 databases and registries, including Canada's Health Accounts, which tracks historically 40 categories of health spending by 5 sources of finance for 13 provincial and territorial jurisdictions. Until 2005, expenditure on public health services in the Canadian Health Accounts included measures to prevent the spread of communicable disease, food and drug safety, health inspections, health promotion, community mental health programs, public health nursing, as well as all the costs for the general administration of government health departments.

Although the public health community has developed several typologies for classifying public health services into programmatic categories, to date little attention has been paid to the legislative perspective on these program designations. Using programs in the state of Georgia's public health budget as a case study, this article describes the considerations that were important to legislators and legislative budget staff when assessing the Georgia Division of Public Health's program structure. The case study illustrates how legislative concerns over accountability and control as well as practical, political, and strategic choices influence the program structure. These different considerations led to a structure that differed from the Ten Essential Services as well as the National Association of State Budget Officers program categories.

For optimal effectiveness, assessments of public health agency and system performance should include analysis to measure the amount of financial resources consumed to achieve performance levels. This pilot study was conducted to test a methodology in a state health department for comparing financial resources consumed to performance scores in each of the 10 Essential Public Health Services categories. An additional feature was to quantify the percentage of total agency expenditures utilized for administrative functions as well. The allocation of all fiscal year 2004 expenditures to the 10 Essential Public Health Services and administration categories was based on assessments of employee job functions and scope of services performed under agency contracts. Performance scores were obtained through a 2-month process of completing self-assessment surveys with system partners using the National Public Health Performance Standards Program Assessment Instrument. Investigators found no clear consistency between performance scores and agency expenditure levels. Two categories, essential service 5 (develop policies and plans) and essential service 10 (research), did have low performance and low expenditure levels. Overall though, categories with high performance scores consumed low percentages of agency expenditures and expenditure patterns were relatively high in categories with low performance scores. The study did quantify that the percentage of expenditures in the administration category was low compared to previous studies in other health departments. This knowledge was particularly useful for informing policymakers.

The purpose of this study is to describe state funding of local public health within the context of state public health system types. These types are based on administrative relationships, legal structures, and relative proportion of state funding in local public health budgets. We selected six states representing various types and geographic regions. A case study for each state summarized available information and was validated by state public health officials. An analysis of the case studies reveals that the variability of state public health systems--even within a given type--is matched by variability in approaches to funding local public health. Nevertheless, some meaningful associations appear. For example, higher proportions of state funding occur along with higher levels of state oversight and the existence of local service mandates in state law. These associations suggest topics for future research on public health financing in relation to local accountability, local input to state priority-setting, mandated local services, and the absence of state funds for public health services in some local jurisdictions.

In 1994, the Public Health Functions Steering Committee proffered a description of the Essential Public Health Services (Essential Services). Questions remain, however, about the relationship between the roles defined therein and current public health practice at state and local levels. This case study describes the core business of public health in Georgia relative to the theoretical ideal and elucidates the primary drivers of the core business, thus providing data to inform future efforts to strengthen practice in the state. The principal finding was that public health in Georgia is not aligned with the Essential Services. Further analysis revealed that the primary drivers or determinants of public health practice are finance-related rather than based in need or strategy, precluding an integrated and intentional focus on health improvement. This case study provides a systems context for public health financing discussions, suggests leverage points for public health system change, and furthers the examination of applications for systems thinking relative to public health finance, practice, and policy.

This article documents the instability and variation in public financing of public health functions at the federal and state levels. Trust for America's Health has charted federal funding for the Centers of Disease Control and Prevention, which in turn provides a major portion of financing for state and local public health departments, and has compiled information about state-generated revenue commitments to public health activities nationwide. The federal-level analysis shows that funding has been marked by diminished support for "core" public health functions. The state-level analysis shows tremendous variation in use of state revenues to support public health functions. The combination of these factors results in very different public health capacities across the country, potentially leaving some states more vulnerable, while simultaneously posing a general threat to the nation since public health problems do not honor state borders. On the basis of this analysis, the authors suggest changes in the financing arrangements for public health, designed to assure a more stable funding stream for core public health functions and a more consistent approach to financing public health activities across the country.

For four decades, health centers have provided quality, cost-effective primary healthcare to underserved populations. Using the Uniform Data System, this study analyzes national trends in health center patients, providers, and financial performance for 1998-2004, and state-specific data for 2004. Between 1998 and 2004, health centers served increasing numbers of underserved patients, which included patients who were uninsured or on Medicaid, minorities, and patients at or below poverty level. Even though the number of health center providers and patients increased, patient-to-provider ratios did not change significantly. Medicaid remained the single largest source of health center revenue, accounting for 36.4 percent of total revenue in 2004. Compared with Medicare, private insurance, and self-pay, Medicaid consistently reimbursed health centers at the highest rate per patient. Federal and nonfederal grants to support care for the uninsured as well as enabling services such as transportation, translation, and other support systems is one of many important sources of revenue. Financial challenges for health centers included increasing costs and varied or declining rates of reimbursement for services rendered. However, health centers became more self-sufficient over time, average net revenues increased, and operating margins were predominantly positive. Data on individual states, with different numbers and types of health centers, varied widely in all of these categories. In conclusion, health centers rely on federal and nonfederal grant support in concert with the Medicaid program as major funding sources and continued financial stability will be contingent upon health centers' ability to balance revenues with the cost of managing the vulnerable populations that they serve.

Newborn screening (NBS) programs are population-based public health programs and are uniquely financed footline compared with many other public health programs. Since they began more than 45 years ago, the financing issues have become more complex for NBS programs. Today, almost all programs have a portion of their costs paid by fees. The fee amounts vary from program to program, with little standardization in the way they are formulated, collected, or used. We previously surveyed 37 of the 51 dried blood spot screening programs throughout the United States, and confirmed an increasing dependence on NBS fees. In this study, we have collected responses from all 51 programs (100%), including updated responses from the original 37, and updated our fee listings. Comments from those surveyed indicated that the lack of a national standardized procedural coding system for NBS contributes to billing complexities. We suggest one coding possibility for discussion and debate for such a system. Differences in Medicaid interpretations may also contribute to financing inequities across NBS programs and there may be benefit from certain clarifications at the national level. Completed survey responses accounted for few changes in the conclusions of our original survey. We confirmed that 90 percent of all NBS programs have a fee paid by parents or a third party payer. Sixty-one percent reported receiving some funds from the Maternal and Child Health Services Title V block grant, 33 percent reported some funding from state general revenue/general public health appropriations; and 24 percent reported obtaining direct reimbursement from Medicaid (without passing through a third party). A majority of programs (63%) reported budget increases between 2002 and 2005, with increases primarily from fees (72%) and to a lesser extent from Medicaid, the Title V block grant, and state general revenues.

The ability of public health to meet its functional mandates of assessment, assurance, and policy development footline is driven by the system's capacity to meet basic financing needs. To do so, state and local public health leaders must be able to articulate financing needs in terms that are understandable to policy makers and that link funding to anticipated community impact, benefit, and performance. "Rational" budgeting demands imposed by performance-centered budgeting in the states have proved particularly challenging for public health programs. This Georgia-based case study explores one approach for program budgeting in state and regional public health systems and finds the framework to be normatively sound and appropriately descriptive of the "core functions" of public health. The structure clearly distinguishes between personal health services and population health and allows for the future establishment of measurable program targets, an essential feature of a performance-centered budgeting system.

Objectives: To describe persons with suspected (did not meet the national tuberculosis [TB] surveillance case definition) and noncounted TB (met the TB case definition but transferred and were counted by another jurisdiction) and estimate costs incurred by public health departments for managing them., Methods: We reviewed TB registry, medical records, budgets, bills, salaries, organizational charts, and travel/activity logs from the year 2000 at health departments in New York City (NYC), three Texas (TX) counties (El Paso, Hidalgo, and Webb), and Massachusetts (MA). We also interviewed or observed personnel to estimate the time spent on activities for these patients., Results: In 2000, NYC and MA had more persons with suspected (n = 2,996) and noncounted (n = 163) TB than with counted (n = 1,595) TB. TX counties had more persons with counted TB (n = 179) than with suspected (n = 55) and noncounted (n = 15) TB. Demographic and clinical characteristics varied widely. For persons with suspected TB, NYC spent an estimated $1.7 million, with an average cost of $636 for each person; TX counties spent $60,928 ($1,108 per patient); and MA spent $1.1 million ($3,330 per patient). For persons with noncounted TB, NYC spent $303,148 ($2,180 per patient), TX counties spent $40,002 ($2,667 per patient), and MA spent $84,603 ($3,525 per patient)., Conclusions: Health departments incurred substantial costs in managing persons with suspected and noncounted TB. These costs should be considered when allocating TB program resources.