archives@tulane.edu / Public health finance is still a relatively young field and, as such, many questions have yet to be asked—and answered. To date, few have examine how specific revenue streams—alone or in combination—shape local health departments’ (LHD) resources and capacity to accomplish their public health missions. Given ongoing policy conversations about financing for public health, it’s important for researchers to rigorously examine the and the potential costs and benefits associated with different revenue sources. Introduction Chapter: The central thesis for the body of work encapsulated by this dissertation is simple: where money comes from matters. This chapter critically examines published evidence and theory linking public health financing mechanisms and their interactions to LHD operations, outputs, and even outcomes. The chapter also introduces situates the specific research questions addressed in this dissertation within a broader conceptual framework. Paper 1: The first paper examines the relationship between revenue diversification and revenue volatility among Washington State LHDs. Using fixed effects linear regression models and revenue data reported during 1998-2014 by all LHDs operating in Washington State, the paper finds little evidence to suggest revenue diversification is significantly associated with revenue volatility. Paper 2: The second paper evaluates whether available revenue sources differentially effected the scope of programs provided by Washington State LHDs between 2000 and 2011. Using two measures of program scope and both linear and non-linear fixed effects panel regression models, the paper finds that only funding received from federal Medicaid was consistently and significantly associated with both measures of program scope. Paper 3: The third paper examines changes in total LHD expenditures in Washington State between 2006 and 2013 following introduction of a new state funding program to support core public health services and infrastructure. Using a pre-post design regression model to evaluate changes in LHD expenditures, the paper finds overall spending among LHDs significantly increased with receipt of the new state funds in the first years of the program. However, those increases were not sustained over the longer term Conclusion Chapter: The final chapter reviews findings from the three papers and discusses their implications for public health policy, practice, finance, and research. / 1 / Abigail Hope Viall

Introduction: The appropriate role of local health departments (LHDs) as a clinical service provider remains a salient issue. This study examines differences in clinical service provision among rural/urban LHDs for early periodic screening, diagnosis, and treatment (EPSDT) and prenatal care services. Methods: Data collected from the 2013 National Association of County and City Health Officials Profile of Local Health Departments Survey was used to conduct a cross-sectional analysis of rural/urban differences in clinical service provision by LHDs. Profile data were linked with the 2013 Area Health Resource File to derive other county-level measures. Data analysis was conducted in 2015. Results: Approximately 35% of LHDs in the analysis provided EPSDT services directly and 26% provided prenatal care. LHDs reporting no others providing these services in the community were four times more likely to report providing EPSDT services directly and six times more likely to provide prenatal care services directly. Rural LHDs were more likely to provide EPSDT (OR=1.46, 95% CI=1.07, 2.00) and prenatal care (OR=2.43, 95% CI=1.70, 3.47) services than urban LHDs. The presence of a Federally Qualified Health Center in the county was associated with reduced clinical service provision by LHDs for EPSDT and prenatal care. Conclusions: Findings suggest that many LHDs in rural communities remain a clinical service provider and a critical component of the healthcare safety net. The unique position of rural LHDs should be considered in national policy discussions around the organization and delivery of public health services, particularly as they relate to clinical services.

Local Health Departments (LHD) that aim to address the public health needs of growing populations require qualified professionals with management competencies. In Arizona, the majority of public health services are delivered by the county health departments, which are charged with assisting community members and monitoring and improving community health. These activities are funded with federal, state and local money, which varies across counties. This study provides a comprehensive understanding of the local public health system in Arizona, the distribution of public health services across counties and examines the association between health outcomes data and funding patterns for each county. National Association of City and County Health Officials (NACCHO) data from their 2008 survey was used to examine the activities performed at the local level. The majority of the activities in which the LHDs focus fall within the assurance function of public health. Interviews with all Arizona county health department directors (N=15) were conducted. Discussion focused on LHD activities, county and state political/policy climate and partnerships that contribute to LHDs activities. Responses varied significantly across the state due to differences in demographic and financial characteristics of the counties. Many political, socioeconomic and environmental barriers to provision of services were identified as well as the need for developing a stronger public health infrastructure.Finally, associations between several health outcomes and funding, workforce and demographic data of the 15 local health departments in Arizona were examined by conducting correlation analysis and linear regressions. This study found strong positive associations between LHD revenues, LHD expenditures, population size and number of LHD employees and HIV/AIDS incidence, low birth weight births and infant mortality rate. Positive associations were also found between revenues and number of women who received prenatal care and HIV/AIDS mortality rate as well as between number of LHD employees and diabetes mortality rate. This study represents a small step in better understanding the local public health system in Arizona, the distribution of public health services across counties and the political, financial and policy constraints faced by county health department directors.

Objective: Health department accreditation is a crucial strategy for strengthening public health infrastructure. The purpose of this study was to investigate local health department (LHD) characteristics that are associated with accreditation-seeking behavior. This study sought to ascertain the effects of rurality on the likelihood of seeking accreditation through the Public Health Accreditation Board (PHAB). Design: Cross-sectional study using secondary data from the 2013 National Association of County & City Health Officials (NACCHO) National Profile of Local Health Departments Study (Profile Study). Setting: United States. Participants: LHDs (n = 490) that responded to the 2013 NACCHO Profile Survey. Main Outcome Measures: LHDs decision to seek PHAB accreditation. Results: Significantly more accreditation-seeking LHDs were located in urban areas (87.0%) than in micropolition (8.9%) or rural areas (4.1%) (P < .001). LHDs residing in urban communities were 16.6 times (95% confidence interval [CI], 5.3-52.3) and micropolitan LHDs were 3.4 times (95% CI, 1.1-11.3) more likely to seek PHAB accreditation than rural LHDs (RLHDs). LHDs that had completed an agency-wide strategic plan were 8.5 times (95% CI, 4.0-17.9), LHDs with a local board of health were 3.3 times (95% CI, 1.5-7.0), and LHDs governed by their state health department were 12.9 times (95% CI, 3.3-50.0) more likely to seek accreditation. The most commonly cited barrier was time and effort required for accreditation application exceeded benefits (73.5%). Conclusion: The strongest predictor for seeking PHAB accreditation was serving an urban jurisdiction. Micropolitan LHDs were more likely to seek accreditation than smaller RLHDs, which are typically understaffed and underfunded. Major barriers identified by the RLHDs included fees being too high and the time and effort needed for accreditation exceeded their perceived benefits. RLHDs will need additional financial and technical support to achieve accreditation. Even with additional funds, clear messaging of the benefits of accreditation tailored to RLHDs will be needed.

Context: Accreditation of local health departments has been identified as a crucial strategy for strengthening the public health infrastructure. Rural local health departments (RLHDs) face many challenges including lower levels of staffing and funding than local health departments serving metropolitan or urban areas; simultaneously their populations experience health disparities related to risky health behaviors, health outcomes, and access to medical care. Through accreditation, rural local health departments can become better equipped to meet the needs of their communities. Objective: To better understand the needs of communities by assessing barriers and incentives to state-level accreditation in Missouri from the RLHD perspective. Design: Qualitative analysis of semistructured key informant interviews with Missouri local health departments serving rural communities. Participants: Eleven administrators of RLHDs, 7 from accredited and 4 from unaccredited departments, were interviewed. Population size served ranged from 6400 to 52 000 for accredited RLHDs and from 7200 to 73 000 for unaccredited RLHDs. Results: Unaccredited RLHDs identified more barriers to accreditation than accredited RLHDs. Time was a major barrier to seeking accreditation. Unaccredited RLHDs overall did not see accreditation as a priority for their agency and failed to the see value of accreditation. Accredited RLHDs listed more incentives than their unaccredited counterparts. Unaccredited RLHDs identified accountability, becoming more effective and efficient, staff development, and eventual funding as incentives to accreditation. Conclusions: There is a need for better documentation of measurable benefits in order for an RLHD to pursue voluntary accreditation. Those who pursue accreditation are likely to see benefits after the fact, but those who do not pursue do not see the immediate and direct benefits of voluntary accreditation. The finding from this study of state-level accreditation in Missouri provides insight that can be translated to national accreditation.

Objectives. We identified the levels of joint action that led to collaboration between hospitals and local health departments (LHDs) using the hospital’s community health needs assessments (CHNAs). Methods. In 2014, we conducted a content analysis of Missouri nonprofit hospitals (n = 34) CHNAs, and identified hospitals based on previously reported collaboration with LHDs. We coded the content according to the level of joint action. A comparison sample (n = 50) of Missouri nonprofit hospitals provided the basic comparative information on hospital characteristics. Results. Among the hospitals identified by LHDs, 20.6% were “networking,” 20.6% were “coordinating,” 38.2% were “cooperating,” and 2.9% were “collaborating.” Almost 18% of study hospitals had no identifiable level of joint action with LHDs based on their CHNAs. In addition, comparison hospitals were more often part of a larger system (74%) compared with study hospitals (52.9%). Conclusions. The results of our study helped develop a better understanding of levels of joint action from a hospital perspective. Our results might assist hospitals and LHDs in making more informed decisions about efficient deployment of resources for assessment processes and implementation plans.

No description available.

background: Accreditation of local health departments (LHDs) has been identified as a crucial strategy for strengthening the public health infrastructure. This study seeks to identify the role of organizational and structural factors on accreditation-seeking decisions of LHDs. data sets and sources: Data were obtained from the NACCHO 2013 National Profile of Local Health Departments Study. . LHDs were coded as “urban”, “micropolitan”, or “rural” based on Rural/Urban Commuting Area codes. “Micropolitan” includes census tracts with towns of 10,000 - 49,999 population and census tracts tied to these towns through commuting. “Rural” includes census tracts with small towns of fewer than 10,000 population, tracts tied to small towns, and isolated census tracts. analysis: Binary logistic regression analysis was conducted to predict PHAB accreditation decision. Predictors included variables related to rurality, governance, funding, and workforce. findings: From a sample of 448, approximately 6% of LHDs surveyed had submitted their letter of intent or full accreditation application. Over two-thirds were not seeking accreditation or deferring to the state agency. LHDs located in urban communities were 30.6 times (95% CI: 10.1, 93.2) more likely to seek accreditation compared to rural LHDs. LHDs with a local board of health were 3.5 times (95% CI: 1.6, 7.7) more likely to seek accreditation (controlling for rurality). Additionally, employing an epidemiologist (aOR=2.4, 95% CI: 1.2, 4.9), having a strategic plan (aOR=14.7, 95% CI: 6.7, 32.2) were associated with higher likelihood of seeking PHAB accreditation. conclusions: Rural LHDs are less likely to seek accreditation. This lower likelihood of seeking accreditation likely relates to a myriad of challenges. Simultaneously, rural populations experience health disparities related to risky health behaviors, health outcomes, and access to medical care. Through accreditation, rural LHDs can become better equipped to meet the needs of their communities.

Background: Accreditation of local health departments (LHDs) has been identified as a crucial strategy for strengthening the public health infrastructure. Research Objective: To identify the role of organizational and structural factors on accreditation-seeking decisions of LHDs. Of particular interest is the effect of rurality on the likelihood of seeking accreditation through the Public Health Accreditation Board (PHAB). Data Sets and Sources: Data were obtained from the NACCHO 2013 National Profile of Local Health Departments Study (2013 Profile Study). The 2013 Profile Study includes a core questionnaire (core,) that was sent to all LHDs, and two modules, sent to a sample. Variables were selected from the core and module one for this project. LHDs were coded as “urban”, “micropolitan”, or “rural” based on Rural/Urban Commuting Area codes for the zip code of the LHD address. “Micropolitan” includes census tracts with towns of between 10,000 and 49,999 population and census tracts tied to these towns through commuting. “Rural” includes census tracts with small towns of fewer than 10,000 population, tracts tied to small towns, and isolated census tracts. Both “micropolitan” and “rural” categories are considered rural by the Federal Office of Rural Health Policy. Study Design: Cross-sectional. Analysis: Binary logistic regression analysis was conducted to predict PHAB accreditation decision. The variable for PHAB accreditation decision was created from the 2013 Profile Study question, “Which of the following best describes your LHD with respect to participation in the PHAB’s accreditation program for LHDs?” LHDs that selected “My LHD has submitted an application for accreditation” or “My LHD has submitted a statement of Intent” were coded as “Seeking PHAB Accreditation.” LHDs that selected “My LHD has decided NOT to apply for accreditation” or “The state health agency is pursuing accreditation on behalf of my LHD” were coded as “Not Seeking PHAB Accreditation.” Predictors included variables related to rurality, governance, funding, and workforce. Findings: From a sample of 448, approximately 6% of LHDs surveyed had either submitted their letter of intent or full accreditation application. Over two-thirds were either not seeking accreditation or deferring to the state agency. LHDs located in urban communities were 30.6 times (95% CI: 10.1, 93.2) more likely to seek accreditation compared to rural LHDs. LHDs with a local board of health were 3.5 times (95% CI: 1.6, 7.7) more likely to seek accreditation (controlling for rurality). Additionally, employing an epidemiologist (aOR=2.4, 95% CI: 1.2, 4.9), having a strategic plan (aOR=14.7, 95% CI: 6.7, 32.2), and higher per capita revenue (aOR=1.02, 95% CI: 1.01, 1.02) were associated with higher likelihood of seeking PHAB accreditation. Conclusions: Specific geographic, governance, leadership, and workforce factors were associated with intention to seek accreditation. Implications: Rural LHDs are less likely to seek accreditation. This lower likelihood of seeking accreditation likely relates to a myriad of challenges (e.g., lower levels of staffing and funding). Simultaneously, rural populations experience health disparities related to risky health behaviors, health outcomes, and access to medical care. Through accreditation, rural LHDs can become better equipped to meet the needs of their communities.

No description available.