Activities and Workforce of Small Town Rural Local Health Departments: Findings from the 2005 National Profile of Local Health Departments Study
|
|
- Howard Wilcox
- 6 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 Activities and Workforce of Small Town Rural Local Health Departments: Findings from the 2005 National Profile of Local Health Departments Study
2 th Street, NW 2nd Floor Washington, DC (202) (202) Fax is the national organization representing local public health departments. works to support efforts that protect and improve the health of all people and all communities by promoting national policy, developing resources and programs, seeking health equity and supporting effective local public health practice and systems. Funding for this project was provided by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (under cooperative agreement U50/CCU302718) and by the Health Resources and Services Administration. The contents of this document are solely the responsibility of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official views of the sponsors. May 2007
3 Executive Summary This report uses data collected in the 2005 National Profile of Local Health Departments (2005 Profile) study to characterize the workforce and activities of small town rural local health departments (LHDs) and to compare them to those of larger rural, suburban, and urban LHDs in the U.S. For the purpose of this report, small town rural jurisdictions include small towns (population less than 10,000) and frontier areas. Nearly all small town rural LHDs serve single county or multi-county jurisdictions, which may include several small towns and frontier areas. The small town rural group does not include larger towns and small cities that are also considered rural in other classification systems. Approximately 40 percent of the LHDs in the U.S. serve small town rural areas. The typical (median) small town rural LHD serves a population of 15,000, has a budget of approximately $500,000, and employs nine FTE staff. The 2005 Profile study shows that the percentage of LHDs providing almost any service is higher for LHDs serving large populations than small populations. Small town rural LHDs serve populations that are, on average, an order of magnitude smaller than other LHDs. Consequently, two factors could account for a difference in the percentages of small town rural versus other LHDs providing a service: jurisdiction population and degree of urbanization. Comparing LHDs serving small populations (less than 50,000 total residents in the jurisdiction) makes it easier to identify those differences that are related to degree of urbanization. Health Services. Small town rural LHDs are as likely or more likely to provide all of the health services included in the 2005 Profile study than other LHDs serving small populations. Epidemiology and Surveillance. Small town rural LHDs are as likely or more likely to engage in epidemiology and surveillance activities than other LHDs serving small populations. Primary Prevention. Small town rural LHDs are more likely to provide most populationbased primary prevention services than other LHDs serving small populations. Environmental Health. Small town rural LHDs are less likely to provide environmental health services than other LHDs serving small populations. Furthermore, many environmental health services are less likely to be provided by any governmental agency in small town rural LHD jurisdictions than in other jurisdictions. The workforce in small town rural LHDs reflects the types of services these LHDs most often provide. Small town rural LHDs employ more nurses and few environmental health specialists than other LHDs. The 2005 Profile study suggests that small town rural LHDs experience many of the same challenges as other LHDs serving small populations. Their relatively small number of staff and narrow range of occupations may limit the range of services that they are able to provide. Small town rural LHDs typically focus more on provision of healthcare services, while other small LHDs typically focus more on environmental health services. Additional research would be needed to determine the extent to which the local public health systems in these jurisdictions have the capacity to meet their communities public health needs.
4 Activities and Workforce of Small Town Rural LHDs: Findings from the 2005 National Profile of Local Health Departments Study Introduction For many years, the adage if you ve seen one local health department, you ve seen one local health department was used to convey the uniqueness of each local health department (LHD). Rural health departments were viewed as fundamentally different from urban health departments, and two health departments in neighboring counties might be very different from each other, even if they were both considered rural. More recently, public health leaders have recognized that, although the characteristics and needs of any community are unique, all communities should reasonably expect a consistent and robust set of public health services. 1 In 2005, the National Association of County and City Health Officials () conducted a National Profile of Local Health Departments study (2005 Profile). The aim of the 2005 Profile was to develop a comprehensive and accurate description of LHD infrastructure and practice. This report uses data collected in the 2005 Profile to examine the activities and workforce of the most isolated rural LHDs and compare them with larger rural, suburban, and urban LHDs. Methodology The 2005 Profile questionnaire was structured as a core questionnaire (sent to every LHD in the U.S., N=2,864) and three separate module questionnaires (sent to samples of approximately 520 LHDs each). The questionnaires were Web-based and were fielded from June through October Extensive follow-up efforts resulted in an overall response rate of 80 percent for the core questionnaire. Additional details about the methodology are available in the main study report. 2 The response rate for small town rural LHDs was slightly higher than for other LHDs (83% versus 79%). All of the data presented in this report were collected via the core questionnaire The unit of analysis for the 2005 Profile study is the LHD jurisdiction; thus every LHD is categorized based on the rural-urban commuting areas (RUCA) method (see box on page 3). The two groups compared are small town rural areas and all other LHDs. This study focuses on a subcategory (RUCA codes 7 and higher) that represents the smallest and most isolated jurisdictions, which are termed small town rural LHDs. Consequently, it is important to note that the all other LHDs category includes LHDs designated as rural in more traditional geographic classifications. Because many LHDs serve both rural and non-rural areas, this classification method is not ideal, but it is a practical approximation, given the absence of census tract-level data to characterize LHD jurisdictions. Thus, many LHDs that are not classified as small town rural may serve such areas. It is less likely that LHDs classified as small town rural serve significant non-rural areas, as LHD offices tend to be located in more populated areas within jurisdictions. The great difference in the size of population served by small town rural versus other LHDs is important to consider when examining differences in many of the LHD characteristics included in the 2005 Profile study. A great majority of these characteristics vary by the jurisdiction s population size not only characteristics such as budget and number of staff. Items ranging from education of top agency executive to occupations employed to number and types of services provided all vary by size of population served (regardless of whether the population is in a rural or non-rural area). Consequently, the population of the jurisdiction is an important confounding factor in analyses comparing LHDs
5 Activities and Workforce of Small Town Rural LHDs: Findings from the 2005 National Profile of Local Health Departments Study serving areas with different degrees of urbanization. To account for this factor, some data are presented both for all LHDs and for LHDs serving populations less than 50,000 (which include nearly all small town rural LHDs). Without accounting for the variation in the distribution of size of population served between the two groups, it is not clear how much of the differences between small town rural and other LHDs should be attributed to differences in urbanization or differences in size of population served. Statistical analyses were performed using Stata version 9.0. Statistical significance was determined by inspecting Wald 95 percent confidence intervals for the statistics. What Is Rural? The terms rural and urban are familiar to everyone, but their definitions are imprecise. In general, rural and urban are considered endpoints on a continuum that describes the degree of urbanization of an area. Definitions of what is rural may depend on the purpose of the analysis (e.g., geography versus political science) and the context (e.g., Montana versus Pennsylvania). Rural areas are classifed in several ways. The Office of Management and Budget uses a county-based classification system that designates Core-Based Statistical Areas (CBSAs), which are made up of either Metropolitan areas or Micropolitan areas. All other counties are not part of CBSAs. Given that county sizes vary greatly across the country, this classification system lacks precision. The rural-urban commuting areas (RUCA) methodology is another way to classify rural areas. RUCAs use census tracts rather than counties as building blocks and are designed to define rural and urban based on the Census Bureau s carefully constructed definitions of urbanized areas and urban clusters, which are based on complex criteria including population density and population work commuting patterns. Thus, the RUCA taxonomy is based on the size of cities and towns and their functional relationships as measured by work commuting flows. 3 For this study, LHDs were classified by matching the zip code of the LHD s main office to the zip code approximation for RUCAs. RUCAs 7 and higher were categorized as small town rural. The group all other LHDs includes RUCAs 1-6. The jurisdictions classified as small town rural in this study include small towns (population less than 10,000) and frontier areas. Areas in RUCA codes 4 through 6 are large town rural areas. The Health Resources and Services Administration classifies RUCA codes 4 and higher as rural, while codes 1-3 are considered urban. Because of the diversity among LHDs serving rural areas, this study focuses on the more isolated rural census tracts (codes 7 and higher). It is important to recognize that over half of the census tracts classified as rural are in RUCA codes 4-6, and thus, by design, are included in the all other LHDs group for the purpose of this analysis.
6 Activities and Workforce of Small Town Rural LHDs: Findings from the 2005 National Profile of Local Health Departments Study Results Approximately 40 percent of the LHDs in the U.S. are categorized as serving small town rural areas using the methodology described above. Figure 1 highlights some of the differences in structure and size of small town rural LHDs compared with all other LHDs. Small town rural LHDs are more likely than other LHDs to serve a county jurisdiction and to be a unit of the state health agency. Other LHDs are more varied in jurisdiction type and are more likely than small town rural LHDs to be units of local government. Small town rural LHDs serve populations that are, on average, nearly an order of magnitude smaller than other LHDs, and their budgets and numbers of staff are correspondingly smaller. Ninety-two percent of small town rural LHDs serve populations less than 50,000. Median annual expenditures for small town rural LHDs are approximately one-quarter that of other LHDs, and small town rural LHDs employ, on average, a much smaller number of staff than other LHDs. On average, small town rural LHDs have higher expenditures, on a per capita basis, than other LHDs. The 2005 Profile study collected information about the provision of 75 different public health-related services and activities. Data on all these services and activities except licensing and inspection activities are presented in this report. The 2005 Profile study also collected information about the total number of LHD employees and about the presence and number of employees within selected occupations. The results below illustrate similarities and differences between small town rural and other LHDs. Figure 1 Characteristics of Small Town Rural and Other LHDs Small town rural LHDs All other LHDs Number (and percentage) of 2005 Profile respondents 914 (40%) 1384 (60%) Percentage serving county jurisdictions 75% 48% Percentage that are units of state health agencies 26% 17% Percentage serving populations <50,000 92% 42% Mean jurisdiction population size 22, ,000 Median jurisdiction population size 15,000 64,000 Median annual LHD expenditures $500,000 $2,000,000 Median per capita LHD expenditures $35 $26 Median number of LHD staff (full time equivalents) 9 29 LHD Activities and Services Figures 2, 3, and 4 provide data on the percentages of LHDs that provide selected services or activities (directly or via contract) in their jurisdictions. Figure 2 shows that small town rural LHDs are more likely to provide some health services (e.g., childhood immunizations, tuberculosis screening, and family planning) and less likely to provide others, (e.g., HIV/AIDS screening, oral health, and STD treatment) compared with other LHDs. When comparing only LHDs serving fewer than 50,000 residents, small town rural LHDs are as likely or more likely to provide all of these health services than other LHDs.
7 Activities and Workforce of Small Town Rural LHDs: Findings from the 2005 National Profile of Local Health Departments Study Figure 2 Percentage of LHDs Providing Selected Health Services All LHDs LHDs serving populations <50,000 Activity or service Small town rural All other LHDs Small town rural All other LHDs IMMUNIZATIONS Adult immunizations Ñ 93% Ñ 90% Ñ 94% Ñ 82% Childhood immunizations Ñ 95% Ñ 86% Ñ 94% Ñ 75% SCREENING FOR DISEASES/CONDITIONS HIV/AIDS Ñ 56% Ñ 66% Ñ 55% Ñ 44% Other STDs Ñ 60% Ñ 67% Ñ 58% Ñ 44% Tuberculosis Ñ 87% Ñ 83% Ñ 87% Ñ 70% Cancer 44% 48% 43% 37% Cardiovascular disease 36% 37% 35% 30% Diabetes Ñ 56% Ñ 47% Ñ 56% Ñ 44% High blood pressure Ñ 79% Ñ 67% Ñ 80% Ñ 67% Blood lead 67% 65% Ñ 66% Ñ 54% COMMUNICABLE DISEASE TREATMENT HIV/AIDS Ñ 20% Ñ 29% 19% 18% Other STDs Ñ 56% Ñ 64% Ñ 54% Ñ 41% Tuberculosis 77% 73% Ñ 76% Ñ 56% MATERNAL AND CHILD HEALTH Family planning Ñ 62% Ñ 55% Ñ 61% Ñ 40% Prenatal care 43% 41% Ñ 41% Ñ 31% Obstetrical care Ñ 12% Ñ 17% 12% 11% WIC Ñ 73% Ñ 63% Ñ 72% Ñ 46% EPSDT Ñ 52% Ñ 42% Ñ 51% Ñ 32% OTHER HEALTH SERVICES Comprehensive primary care Ñ 10% Ñ 17% 8% 8% Home health care Ñ 34% Ñ 24% Ñ 34% Ñ 24% Oral health Ñ 23% Ñ 35% 22% 17% Behavioral/mental health services Ñ 10% Ñ 15% 9% 9% Substance abuse services Ñ 6% Ñ 14% 6% 7% School-based clinics Ñ 28% Ñ 22% Ñ 28% Ñ 19% School health 42% 40% Ñ 42% Ñ 33% Outreach and enrollment for medical insurance 42% 42% Ñ 41% Ñ 28% Correctional health 21% 18% Ñ 21% Ñ 13% Colored numeric entries indicate areas where there is a statistically significant difference in the proportion of small town rural versus other LHDs providing that service. Ñ more small town rural LHDs Ñ more other LHDs
8 6 Activities and Workforce of Small Town Rural LHDs: Findings from the 2005 National Profile of Local Health Departments Study Small town rural LHDs are less likely to conduct several types of epidemiology and surveillance activities (injury, environmental health, and syndromic) and are equally likely to provide most types of population-based primary prevention services, compared with other LHDs (Figure 3). When comparing only LHDs serving fewer than 50,000 residents, small town rural LHDs are as likely or more likely to provide epidemiology and surveillance activities and more likely to provide all but one category of prevention services (mental illness) than other LHDs. Figure 3 Percentage of LHDs Providing Epidemiology/Surveillance and Population-Based Primary Prevention Services All LHDs LHDs serving populations <50,000 Activity or service Small town rural All other LHDs Small town rural All other LHDs EPIDEMIOLOGY AND SURVEILLANCE Communicable/infectious disease 87% 90% 86% 83% Chronic disease 39% 43% Ñ 38% Ñ 32% Injury Ñ 21% Ñ 26% 20% 16% Behavioral risk factors 34% 37% 33% 27% Environmental health Ñ 68% Ñ 80% 68% 71% Syndromic Ñ 29% Ñ 35% Ñ 28% Ñ 21% POPULATION-BASED PRIMARY PREVENTION Injury 41% 40% Ñ 39% Ñ 25% Unintended pregnancy Ñ 55% Ñ 48% Ñ 54% Ñ 32% Obesity 57% 55% Ñ 56% Ñ 41% Violence 24% 26% Ñ 23% Ñ 15% Tobacco 68% 69% Ñ 67% Ñ 58% Substance abuse 25% 26% Ñ 26% Ñ 17% Mental illness 13% 14% 13% 9% Colored numeric entries indicate areas where there is a statistically significant difference in the proportion of small town rural versus other LHDs providing that service. Ñ more small town rural LHDs Ñ more other LHDs
9 Activities and Workforce of Small Town Rural LHDs: Findings from the 2005 National Profile of Local Health Departments Study 7 The picture is very different when environmental health (EH) and other miscellaneous public healthrelated services are examined (Figure 4). Small town rural LHDs are less likely than other LHDs to provide almost all of these services, and the difference persists when examining only LHDs that serve populations less than 50,000. Figure 4 Percentage of LHDs Conducting Environmental Health and Other Public Health Activities All LHDs LHDs serving populations <50,000 Activity Small town rural All other LHDs Small town rural All other LHDs ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH ACTIVITIES Indoor air quality Ñ 14% Ñ 38% Ñ 14% Ñ 36% Food safety education Ñ 66% Ñ 81% Ñ 64% Ñ 76% Radiation control Ñ 7% Ñ 12% 7% 9% Vector control Ñ 43% Ñ 62% Ñ 42% Ñ 54% Land use planning Ñ 12% Ñ 19% Ñ 11% Ñ 19% Groundwater protection Ñ 27% Ñ 47% Ñ 27% Ñ 45% Surface water protection Ñ 23% Ñ 39% Ñ 23% Ñ 38% Hazmat response Ñ 12% Ñ 24% Ñ 12% Ñ 23% Hazardous waste disposal Ñ 10% Ñ 23% Ñ 10% Ñ 24% Noise pollution Ñ 3% Ñ 21% Ñ 3% Ñ 26% OTHER PUBLIC HEALTH ACTIVITIES Emergency medical services Ñ 4% Ñ 8% 4% 4% Animal control Ñ 11% Ñ 28% Ñ 11% Ñ 28% Occupational safety and health Ñ 8% Ñ 15% Ñ 8% Ñ 13% Veterinarian public health activities Ñ 13% Ñ 26% Ñ 12% Ñ 22% Laboratory services Ñ 23% Ñ 37% 22% 22% Colored numeric entries indicate areas where there is a statistically significant difference in the proportion of small town rural versus other LHDs providing that service. Ñ more small town rural LHDs Ñ more other LHDs
10 8 Activities and Workforce of Small Town Rural LHDs: Findings from the 2005 National Profile of Local Health Departments Study Figure 5 shows the organizations that provide selected EH activities in small town rural and other LHDs. Each of the EH activities is provided less frequently by a local or state governmental agency in small town rural jurisdictions than in other jurisdictions. For example, hazmat response is provided by a governmental agency in 71 percent of small town rural jurisdictions compared to 89 percent of other jurisdictions. The differences range from seven percent for food safety education to 23 percent for noise pollution activities. Furthermore, the percentage of LHDs reporting that the service is not available in their jurisdiction is higher for small town rural than other LHDs for radiation control, hazmat response, and pollution prevention. The difference in availability from any source for each of these services is small, however, ranging from three to four percent. A particularly interesting finding is that the percentage of respondents indicating that they did not know who provided the service in their jurisdictions was higher for small town rural than for other LHDs for every EH activity except hazmat response. The differences ranged from three percent for food safety education to 12 percent for land use planning. Figure 5 Organizations Conducting Selected Environmental Health Activities: Small Town Rural and Other Jurisdictions Food safety education R N Vector control R N Groundwater protection R N Indoor air quality R N Pollution prevention R N Hazmat response R N Land use planning R N 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% R = small town rural LHDs N = all other LHDs Percentage of jurisdictions n LHD n Other governmental n Non-governmental only n Not available n Unknown
11 Activities and Workforce of Small Town Rural LHDs: Findings from the 2005 National Profile of Local Health Departments Study 9 The data on provision of other miscellaneous public health activities show similar patterns. Each of these activities is less likely to be provided by a local or state governmental agency and more likely to be provided only by non-governmental organizations in small town rural jurisdictions compared to other jurisdictions. Animal control is more likely to be unavailable in small town rural jurisdictions, and respondents in these jurisdictions were less likely to know who provided animal control and occupational safety and health activities than respondents in other jurisdictions. The percentage of jurisdictions where an activity or service is not available is similar for small town rural and other jurisdictions for most activities and services. Figure 6 lists those activities and services for which the percentage of jurisdictions reporting the activity or service to be unavailable differs significantly between small town rural and other LHDs. In all cases where the percentages differ, the availability of the activity or service is lower in small town rural than other jurisdictions. The largest difference in availability is eight percent for obstetrical care (unavailable in 12 percent of small town rural and four percent of other jurisdictions). The 2005 Profile data provide no information, however, about the adequacy of these services, either in terms of quantity or quality. Figure 6 Percentage of LHD Jurisdictions Where Activity or Service Is Not Available: Differences Between Small Town Rural and Other LHD Jurisdictions Unavailable in jurisdiction Activity or service Small town rural All other LHDs HIV/AIDS treatment 7% 3% Prenatal care 7% 3% Obstetrical care 12% 4% Substance abuse services 7% 4% Radiation control 9% 5% Housing inspection 8% 4% Animal control 5% 1% Pollution prevention 6% 2% Hazmat response 4% 1% Note: All differences are statistically significant.
12 10 Activities and Workforce of Small Town Rural LHDs: Findings from the 2005 National Profile of Local Health Departments Study LHD Workforce The composition of the workforce of small town rural LHDs reflects the differences in the types of activities and services these LHDs provide compared to other LHDs (Figure 7). Specifically, the small town rural LHD workforce includes a larger percentage of nurses and a smaller percentage of EH specialists (sanitarians) than the workforce of other LHDs. The 11 professional occupations/occupational categories included in the 2005 Profile questionnaire (listed in Figure 8, below) comprise approximately 53 percent of the workforce of small town rural LHDs and 57 percent of the workforce of other LHDs. Figure 7 Composition of LHD Workforces Small Town Rural LHDs All Other LHDs 21% 7% 14% 7% 31% 27% 29% 26% 3% 3% 2% 7% 5% 3% 3% 12% Estimated Total FTEs = 19,000 Estimated Total FTEs = 120,000 n Managers/directors n Nurses n EH specialists and scientists n Health educators n Nutritionists n Other Profile categories n Clerical staff n Occupations not categorized
13 Activities and Workforce of Small Town Rural LHDs: Findings from the 2005 National Profile of Local Health Departments Study 11 A smaller percentage of small town rural LHDs (compared with other LHDs) employ each of the occupations included in the 2005 Profile questionnaire, except for clerical staff and nurses (Figure 8). The percentage of LHDs employing most of these occupations is strongly related to the size of population served. 4 When the analysis is restricted to those LHDs serving populations less than 50,000, the percentages of LHDs employing health service managers/directors, epidemiologists, health educators, information systems (IS) specialists, public information (PI) specialists, and emergency preparedness (EP) coordinators are similar for small town rural and other jurisdictions. Small town rural LHDs serving fewer than 50,000 residents are more likely to employ nurses, nutritionists, and clerical staff and are less likely to employ EH specialists, EH scientists, and physicians than other LHDs in this size category. Figure 8 Percentage of LHDs Employing Selected Occupations All LHDs LHDs serving <50,000 Small town rural All other LHDs Small town rural All other LHDs Managers/directors Ñ 85% Ñ 92% 85% 84% Nurses 96% 93% Ñ 96% Ñ 86% Physicians Ñ 26% Ñ 54% Ñ 24% Ñ 32% EH specialists (sanitarians) Ñ 69% Ñ 87% Ñ 67% Ñ 83% Other EH scientists Ñ 17% Ñ 41% Ñ 15% Ñ 22% Epidemiologists Ñ 7% Ñ 36% 6% 10% Health educators Ñ 40% Ñ 64% 36% 38% Nutritionists Ñ 48% Ñ 62% Ñ 46% Ñ 36% IS specialists Ñ 14% Ñ 39% 12% 12% PI specialists Ñ 7% Ñ 25% 6% 5% EP coordinators Ñ 47% Ñ 66% 44% 43% Clerical staff 97% 96% Ñ 97% Ñ 91% Colored numeric entries indicate areas where there is a statistically significant difference in the proportion of small town rural versus other LHDs providing that service. Ñ more small town rural LHDs Ñ more other LHDs The mean number of LHD staff per thousand jurisdiction residents also differs between small town rural and other LHDs (Figure 9). Small town rural LHDs employ an average of 0.93 workers per thousand residents compared with 0.57 workers per thousand residents for other LHDs. The average number of nurses per thousand residents is twice as high for small town rural LHDs as for other LHDs (0.30 versus 0.15). The average number of EH specialists per thousand residents is similar for small town rural and other LHDs (0.05). Figure 9 Mean Number of LHD Staff per Thousand Jurisdiction Residents Staff per thousand residents Small town rural LHDs All other LHDs All LHD staff Nurses EH specialists
14 12 Activities and Workforce of Small Town Rural LHDs: Findings from the 2005 National Profile of Local Health Departments Study Discussion Activities and Service Provision Most public health services are available (from some source) in approximately the same percentage of small town rural jurisdictions as in other jurisdictions. There are a few exceptions (see Figure 7), but the differences in availability are relatively small. There are, however, significant differences in the organizations that provide these services. LHDs in small town rural areas frequently provide health services that in other areas are provided by other organizations, probably due to shortages of other providers (particularly safety net providers) in small town rural areas. Environmental health services are more frequently provided by a governmental agency other than the LHD in small town rural areas, and are more frequently available only through non-governmental organizations in small town rural areas compared to other areas. The finding that more respondents in small town rural LHDs did not know who provided certain EH services suggests that these services are not available locally. It also suggests that small town rural LHDs may be less aware than other LHDs of the extent to which the EH needs of their communities are being met. Workforce The 2005 Profile study indicates that, while LHDs serving small town rural jurisdictions are less likely to employ most occupations than LHDs serving other jurisdictions, the picture changes considerably when differences in the sizes of population served are taken into account. LHDs in small town rural jurisdictions of 50,000 residents or less are more likely than LHDs in other jurisdictions of the same size to employ nurses, nutritionists, and clerical staff. LHDs serving smaller small town rural jurisdictions are less likely than LHDs serving smaller jurisdictions of other types to employ EH specialists and scientists or physicians. LHDs in small town rural jurisdictions have a higher number of total LHD staff and nurses per capita than LHDs serving other jurisdictions, but have similar numbers of EH specialists per capita as other LHDs. This seems consistent with the finding that LHDs in small town rural areas are more likely to provide a number of public health nursing functions than LHDs in other areas, but are less likely to provide EH services. K e y F i n d i n g s n Small town rural LHDs are more likely to provide many public health nursing services than other LHDs. n Small town rural LHDs are less likely to conduct EH activities than other LHDs. n Similar percentages of small town rural and other LHDs serving small populations provide epidemiology, surveillance, and population-based primary prevention services. n Some EH activities are less likely to be provided by a governmental agency in small town rural jurisdictions compared to other jurisdictions. n The small town rural LHD workforce includes a higher percentage of nurses and a lower percentage of EH specialists and scientists than the workforce of other LHD jurisdictions. n LHDs in small town rural areas have more financial and human resources on a per capita basis than LHDs in other areas.
15 Activities and Workforce of Small Town Rural LHDs: Findings from the 2005 National Profile of Local Health Departments Study 13 Implications This research suggests that, in many ways, rural LHDs are similar to other LHDs that serve small populations. LHDs serving small populations typically provide a narrower range of activities and services compared to LHDs that serve larger populations. They also employ a narrower range of occupational categories, often limited to a manager/director, nurses, EH specialists, and clerical staff. The mix of services provided differs, however. Small town rural LHDs provide more public health nursing services and conduct fewer EH activities than other LHDs. This research cannot, however, assess the extent to which the public health needs of communities are being met nor whether there are differences in the adequacy of public health services provided between LHDs in rural and non-rural areas or between LHDs serving larger and smaller populations. This is accomplished at the individual community level through community health assessment and strategic planning processes. The emerging voluntary accreditation program for local and state health departments 5 may shed some light on differences in LHD capacity in a way that this type of study cannot. The differences in the composition of local public health systems in rural jurisdictions will present some additional challenges to rural LHDs. The 2005 Profile results suggest that small town rural LHDs are providing more direct health services than other LHDs. A reason for this difference (not assessable in this study) could be the absence of other safety net providers in their local public health systems. The need to provide clinical services may limit the ability of these LHDs to adequately fulfill other population-based functions. Because EH activities are more frequently conducted by organizations other than the LHD and less frequently conducted by governmental agencies in small town rural than in other areas, small town rural LHDs may experience more challenges in assuring quality EH activities within their communities. Rural and non-rural LHDs serving small populations face some common challenges from a workforce perspective. Though many of these LHDs are active in epidemiology, health education, and policy development, few of them employ members of specialized occupations who are likely to have had public health training in their formal education, such as physicians, epidemiologists, and health educators. In order to provide these services, these agencies must use a variety of strategies to access skills in these areas. Some possibilities include obtaining expertise from their state health agency, either from the central office or a district or regional office; from larger LHDs in their region; and from other local governmental agencies or non-governmental community partners, such as universities or hospitals. LHDs also might seek training in specialized areas for staff with a variety of job responsibilities (e.g., public health nurses who also conduct epidemiological studies or provide health education). Staff with education and experience in nursing or environmental health may need training and leadership development to acquire broader public health competencies to fulfill their wide range of roles effectively. Regionalization either of specific public health functions and services or of entire LHDs is frequently discussed as a way to strengthen public health capacity in areas where there are many LHDs each serving a relatively small population. Sharing of LHD services is certainly more easily accomplished over smaller geographic areas. In some non-rural parts of the U.S. (e.g., Connecticut, New Jersey, and Ohio), multiple LHDs serving small populations actually have merged in some cases into single LHDs serving several cities or towns. But for rural LHDs in frontier areas, neighboring LHDs may be quite distant, making it more challenging to share services across a very large geographic area.
16 14 Activities and Workforce of Small Town Rural LHDs: Findings from the 2005 National Profile of Local Health Departments Study In many parts of the U.S., however, rural areas are served by multicounty district LHDs. The entire state of Idaho is served by multicounty district LHDs, as are nearly all of the rural areas in Nebraska. Many states with mostly single county LHDs (e.g., North Carolina, Michigan, and Minnesota) have district LHDs in rural areas. The method used to classify LHDs for the 2005 Profile study does not permit an analysis that would compare the staffing and services available to rural areas served by district LHDs versus single county LHDs. An analysis that used census tracts rather than LHDs as the unit of analysis would be more appropriate for making these comparisons. Such an analysis would be useful in exploring the potential benefits of combining single-county LHD jurisdictions in rural areas into multicounty jurisdictions. (Endnotes) 1 National Association of County and City Health Officials. (2005). Operational Definition of a Functional Local Health Department. Washington, DC:. Available from infrastructure/operationaldefinition.cfm 2 National Association of County and City Health Officials. (2006) National Profile of Local Health Departments (page 2). Washington, DC:. 3 Available from 4 National Association of County and City Health Officials. (2006) National Profile of Local Health Departments (page 32). Washington, DC:. 5 Association of State and Territorial Health Officials and National Association of County and City Health Officials. (2006). Final Recommendations for a Voluntary National Accreditation Program for State and Local Public Health Departments. Available from EAFinalRecommendations pdf
17 Acknowledgments This report was authored by Carolyn J. Leep, who also served as study director for the 2005 National Profile of Local Health Departments study. Carol Brown (), Caren Clark (), Grace Gorenflo (), Anjum Hajat (University of North Carolina), Carol Moehrle (North Central [ID] Health District), and Julie Nelson Ingoglia () provided comments and editorial assistance with this report. gratefully acknowledges the financial support of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, which supported the 2005 National Profile of Local Health Departments study, and of the Health Resources and Services Administration s Office of Rural Health Policy, which provided funding and advice for the analysis of rural LHDs and the preparation of this report.
18 th Street, NW 2nd Floor Washington, DC (202) (202) Fax
STATEMENT OF POLICY. Foundational Public Health Services
12-18 STATEMENT OF POLICY Foundational Public Health Services Policy The National Association of County and City Health Officials (NACCHO) recognizes the importance of an evidence- and experience-based
More informationProfile of State Environmental Health: Summary and Analysis of Workforce Changes from
Profile of State Environmental Health: Summary and Analysis of Workforce Changes from 2010-2012 Association of State and Territorial Health Officials 2231 Crystal Drive, Suite 450 Arlington, VA 22202 202-371-9090
More informationASTHO Baseline Survey
Respondent Information As respondent for this questionnaire, please verify your information below: Name (First, Middle Initial, Last): Title: Address: Telephone number: Fax number: Email address: copyright
More informationAssessing Health Needs and Capacity of Health Facilities
In rural remote settings, the community health needs may seem so daunting that it is difficult to know how to proceed and prioritize. Prior to the actual on the ground assessment, the desktop evaluation
More informationTHE STATE OF GRANTSEEKING FACT SHEET
1 THE STATE OF GRANTSEEKING FACT SHEET ORG ANIZATIONAL COMPARISO N BY C ENSUS DIV ISION S PRING 2013 The State of Grantseeking Spring 2013 is the sixth semi-annual informal survey of nonprofits conducted
More informationCommunity Health Needs Assessment July 2015
Community Health Needs Assessment July 2015 1 Executive Summary UNM Hospitals is committed to meeting the healthcare needs of our community. As a part of this commitment, UNM Hospitals has attended forums
More informationPublic Health Accreditation Board STANDARDS. Measures VERSION 1.0 APPLICATION PERIOD 2011-JULY 2014 APPROVED MAY 2011
Public Health Accreditation Board STANDARDS & Measures VERSION 1.0 APPLICATION PERIOD 2011-JULY 2014 APPROVED MAY 2011 Introduction The Public Health Accreditation Board (PHAB) Standards and Measures document
More informationTHE STATE OF GRANTSEEKING FACT SHEET
1 THE STATE OF GRANTSEEKING FACT SHEET ORGANIZATIONAL COMPARISON BY ANNUAL BUDGET SPRING 2013 The State of Grantseeking Spring 2013 is the sixth semi-annual informal survey of nonprofits conducted by GrantStation
More informationHEALTH WORKFORCE SUPPLY AND REQUIREMENTS PROJECTION MODELS. World Health Organization Div. of Health Systems 1211 Geneva 27, Switzerland
HEALTH WORKFORCE SUPPLY AND REQUIREMENTS PROJECTION MODELS World Health Organization Div. of Health Systems 1211 Geneva 27, Switzerland The World Health Organization has long given priority to the careful
More informationETHNIC/RACIAL PROFILE OF STUDENT POPULATION IN SCHOOLS WITH
Assembly on School-Based NASBHCNational Health Care Bringing Health Care to Schools for Student Success School-Based Health Centers National Census School Year 2004-05 PURPOSE A. Hanson 2007 The National
More informationMaternal and Child Health North Carolina Division of Public Health, Women's and Children's Health Section
Maternal and Child Health North Carolina Division of Public Health, Women's and Children's Health Section Raleigh, North Carolina Assignment Description The WCHS is one of seven sections/centers that compose
More informationUnemployment Rate (%) Rank State. Unemployment
States Ranked by February 2018 Unemployment Rate Seasonally Adjusted Unemployment Unemployment Unemployment 1 Hawaii 2.1 19 Alabama 3.7 33 Ohio 4.5 2 New Hampshire 2.6 19 Missouri 3.7 33 Rhode Island 4.5
More informationUnemployment Rate (%) Rank State. Unemployment
States Ranked by November 2015 Unemployment Rate Seasonally Adjusted Unemployment Unemployment Unemployment 1 North Dakota 2.7 19 Indiana 4.4 37 Georgia 5.6 2 Nebraska 2.9 20 Ohio 4.5 37 Tennessee 5.6
More informationUnemployment Rate (%) Rank State. Unemployment
States Ranked by April 2017 Unemployment Rate Seasonally Adjusted Unemployment Unemployment Unemployment 1 Colorado 2.3 17 Virginia 3.8 37 California 4.8 2 Hawaii 2.7 20 Massachusetts 3.9 37 West Virginia
More informationUnemployment Rate (%) Rank State. Unemployment
States Ranked by August 2017 Unemployment Rate Seasonally Adjusted Unemployment Unemployment Unemployment 1 North Dakota 2.3 18 Maryland 3.9 36 New York 4.8 2 Colorado 2.4 18 Michigan 3.9 38 Delaware 4.9
More informationUnemployment Rate (%) Rank State. Unemployment
States Ranked by March 2016 Unemployment Rate Seasonally Adjusted Unemployment Unemployment Unemployment 1 South Dakota 2.5 19 Delaware 4.4 37 Georgia 5.5 2 New Hampshire 2.6 19 Massachusetts 4.4 37 North
More informationUnemployment Rate (%) Rank State. Unemployment
States Ranked by September 2017 Unemployment Rate Seasonally Adjusted Unemployment Unemployment Unemployment 1 North Dakota 2.4 17 Indiana 3.8 36 New Jersey 4.7 2 Colorado 2.5 17 Kansas 3.8 38 Pennsylvania
More informationUnemployment Rate (%) Rank State. Unemployment
States Ranked by December 2017 Unemployment Rate Seasonally Adjusted Unemployment Unemployment Unemployment 1 Hawaii 2.0 16 South Dakota 3.5 37 Connecticut 4.6 2 New Hampshire 2.6 20 Arkansas 3.7 37 Delaware
More informationUnemployment Rate (%) Rank State. Unemployment
States Ranked by September 2015 Unemployment Rate Seasonally Adjusted Unemployment Unemployment Unemployment 1 North Dakota 2.8 17 Oklahoma 4.4 37 South Carolina 5.7 2 Nebraska 2.9 20 Indiana 4.5 37 Tennessee
More informationUnemployment Rate (%) Rank State. Unemployment
States Ranked by November 2014 Unemployment Rate Seasonally Adjusted Unemployment Unemployment Unemployment 1 North Dakota 2.7 19 Pennsylvania 5.1 35 New Mexico 6.4 2 Nebraska 3.1 20 Wisconsin 5.2 38 Connecticut
More informationUnemployment Rate (%) Rank State. Unemployment
States Ranked by July 2018 Unemployment Rate Seasonally Adjusted Unemployment Unemployment Unemployment 1 Hawaii 2.1 19 Massachusetts 3.6 37 Kentucky 4.3 2 Iowa 2.6 19 South Carolina 3.6 37 Maryland 4.3
More informationMontana s Public Health System & Community Health Centers
Montana s Public Health System & Community Health Centers MATT KELLEY, MPH HEALTH OFFICER GALLATIN CITY-COUNTY HEALTH DEPARTMENT September 26, 2014 1 Objectives Overview of public health system Discuss
More informationDetermining Like Hospitals for Benchmarking Paper #2778
Determining Like Hospitals for Benchmarking Paper #2778 Diane Storer Brown, RN, PhD, FNAHQ, FAAN Kaiser Permanente Northern California, Oakland, CA, Nancy E. Donaldson, RN, DNSc, FAAN Department of Physiological
More informationEnumeration and Characterization of the Public Health Nurse Workforce. Findings of the 2012 Public Health Nurse Workforce Surveys
Enumeration and Characterization of the Public Health Nurse Workforce Findings of the 2012 Public Health Nurse Workforce Surveys June 2013 Table of Contents Acknowledgments... 1 Summary of Tables and
More informationFindings Brief. NC Rural Health Research Program
Do Current Medicare Rural Hospital Payment Systems Align with Cost Determinants? Kristin Moss, MBA, MSPH; G. Mark Holmes, PhD; George H. Pink, PhD BACKGROUND The financial performance of small, rural hospitals
More informationPublic Health Services & Systems Research: Concepts, Methods, and Emerging Findings
University of Kentucky From the SelectedWorks of Glen Mays Fall September 5, 2013 Public Health Services & Systems Research: Concepts, Methods, and Emerging Findings Glen Mays, University of Kentucky Available
More informationChicago Department of Public Health
Annual Report 2010 Message from the Mayor Throughout Chicago s history, public health challenges have been faced and met- starting in 1835, when leaders of the Town of Chicago formed a Board of Health
More informationHow North Carolina Compares
How North Carolina Compares A Compendium of State Statistics January 2013 Prepared by the N.C. General Assembly Program Evaluation Division Program Evaluation Division North Carolina General Assembly Legislative
More informationCOMMUNITY HEALTH NEEDS ASSESSMENT HINDS, RANKIN, MADISON COUNTIES STATE OF MISSISSIPPI
COMMUNITY HEALTH NEEDS ASSESSMENT HINDS, RANKIN, MADISON COUNTIES STATE OF MISSISSIPPI Sample CHNA. This document is intended to be used as a reference only. Some information and data has been altered
More information2005 Survey of Licensed Registered Nurses in Nevada
2005 Survey of Licensed Registered Nurses in Nevada Prepared by: John Packham, PhD University of Nevada School of Medicine Tabor Griswold, MS University of Nevada School of Medicine Jake Burkey, MS Washington
More informationCalifornia Community Clinics
California Community Clinics A Financial and Operational Profile, 2008 2011 Prepared by Sponsored by Blue Shield of California Foundation and The California HealthCare Foundation TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction
More informationCounting for Dollars: Tulare County, California
Counting for Dollars: Tulare County, California Federal Assistance Programs that Distributed Funds in Tulare County, California on the Basis of Census-Related Statistics, Fiscal Year 2008 This table lists
More informationReport on the Pilot Survey on Obtaining Occupational Exposure Data in Interventional Cardiology
Report on the Pilot Survey on Obtaining Occupational Exposure Data in Interventional Cardiology Working Group on Interventional Cardiology (WGIC) Information System on Occupational Exposure in Medicine,
More informationRUPRI Center for Rural Health Policy Analysis Rural Policy Brief
RUPRI Center for Rural Health Policy Analysis Rural Policy Brief Brief No. 2015-4 March 2015 www.public-health.uiowa.edu/rupri A Rural Taxonomy of Population and Health-Resource Characteristics Xi Zhu,
More informationSCERC Needs Assessment Survey FY 2015/16 Oscar Arias Fernandez, MD, ScD and Dean Baker, MD, MPH
INTRODUCTION SCERC Needs Assessment Survey FY 2015/16 Oscar Arias Fernandez, MD, ScD and Dean Baker, MD, MPH The continuous quality improvement process of our academic programs in the Southern California
More informationMandated Services: What Services MUST Local Health Departments Provide? Aimee Wall UNC School of Government
Rather, Mandated Services: What Services MUST Local Health Departments? Aimee Wall UNC School of Government 1 State law provides that a county shall provide public health services. 0F What does this mandate
More informationCommunity Performance Report
: Wenatchee Current Year: Q1 217 through Q4 217 Qualis Health Communities for Safer Transitions of Care Performance Report : Wenatchee Includes Data Through: Q4 217 Report Created: May 3, 218 Purpose of
More informationMETHODOLOGY FOR INDICATOR SELECTION AND EVALUATION
CHAPTER VIII METHODOLOGY FOR INDICATOR SELECTION AND EVALUATION The Report Card is designed to present an accurate, broad assessment of women s health and the challenges that the country must meet to improve
More informationFY2019 President s Budget Proposal NACCHO Priority Public Health Program Funding - February 2018
FY2019 President s Budget Proposal NACCHO Priority Public Health Program Funding - February 2018 The President has released his FY2019 budget proposal, An American Budget. Below is NACCHO s analysis of
More informationAppendix A. Local Public Health Agency Services and Functions. Comparing North Carolina s Local Public Health Agencies 1
Appendix A Local Public Health Agency Services and Functions Comparing North Carolina s Local Public Health Agencies 1 There are several sources of law that influence the services provided by North Carolina
More informationAnalysis of 340B Disproportionate Share Hospital Services to Low- Income Patients
Analysis of 340B Disproportionate Share Hospital Services to Low- Income Patients March 12, 2018 Prepared for: 340B Health Prepared by: L&M Policy Research, LLC 1743 Connecticut Ave NW, Suite 200 Washington,
More informationModule 3 Identifying Health Problems
Slide 1: Title Slide Module 3 Thank you for joining us for Module 3:. Now that we have defined our community, it s time to identify its priority health problems. Slide 2: Disclosures for Continuing Medical
More informationHow North Carolina Compares
How North Carolina Compares A Compendium of State Statistics March 2017 Prepared by the N.C. General Assembly Program Evaluation Division Preface The Program Evaluation Division of the North Carolina General
More informationBackup Information for Local Health Department Messages and Talking Points
Backup Information for Local Health Department Messages and Talking Points What do local health departments do for North Carolina? Public health works every day to promote and protect health, and prevent
More informationColorado s Health Care Safety Net
PRIMER Colorado s Health Care Safety Net The same is true for Colorado s health care safety net, the network of clinics and providers that care for the most vulnerable residents. The state s safety net
More informationBLOOMINGTON NONPROFITS: SCOPE AND DIMENSIONS
NONPROFIT SURVEY SERIES COMMUNITY REPORT #1 BLOOMINGTON NONPROFITS: SCOPE AND DIMENSIONS A JOINT PRODUCT OF THE CENTER ON PHILANTHROPY AT INDIANA UNIVERSITY AND THE SCHOOL OF PUBLIC & ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
More informationWisconsin Public Health Research Network Priority Research Questions Update August 2015
Wisconsin Public Health Research Network Priority Research Questions Update August 2015 Tracy Mrochek, MPA, RN Karissa Ryan, BS Thank you to the following individuals for their assistance with this project:
More informationTransforming Public Health Making Decisions in a Changing World
Transforming Public Health Making Decisions in a Changing World Michelle Larkin, JD, MS, RN Assistant Vice President, Health Group Robert Wood Johnson Foundation Overview Robert Wood Johnson Foundation
More informationSECTION 1: UPDATES ON 5 YEAR PLAN
Office of Program Support, Administration on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities SECTION 1: UPDATES ON 5 YEAR PLAN PROGRAMMATIC CHANGES TO THE UCEDD 5-YEAR PLAN There are no changes to the goals
More informationThe Art and Science of Evidence-Based Decision-Making Epidemiology Can Help!
The Art and Science of Evidence-Based Decision-Making Epidemiology Can Help! Association of Public Health Epidemiologists in Ontario The Art and Science of Evidence-Based Decision-Making Epidemiology Can
More informationMedicaid 101: The Basics for Homeless Advocates
Medicaid 101: The Basics for Homeless Advocates July 29, 2014 The Source for Housing Solutions Peggy Bailey CSH Senior Policy Advisor Getting Started Things to Remember: Medicaid Agency 1. Medicaid is
More informationBasic Concepts of Data Analysis for Community Health Assessment Module 5: Data Available to Public Health Professionals
Basic Concepts of Data Analysis for Community Assessment Module 5: Data Available to Public Professionals Data Available to Public Professionals in Washington State Welcome to Data Available to Public
More informationTable 1 Elementary and Secondary Education. (in millions)
Revised February 22, 2005 WHERE WOULD THE CUTS BE MADE UNDER THE PRESIDENT S BUDGET? Data Table 1 Elementary and Secondary Education Includes Education for the Disadvantaged, Impact Aid, School Improvement
More informationTHE UTILIZATION OF MEDICAL ASSISTANTS IN CALIFORNIA S LICENSED COMMUNITY CLINICS
THE UTILIZATION OF MEDICAL ASSISTANTS IN CALIFORNIA S LICENSED COMMUNITY CLINICS Tim Bates and Susan Chapman UCSF Center for the Health Professions Overview Medical Assistants (MAs) play a key role as
More informationSTATE ENTREPRENEURSHIP INDEX
University of Nebraska - Lincoln DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln Business in Nebraska Bureau of Business Research 12-2013 STATE ENTREPRENEURSHIP INDEX Eric Thompson University of Nebraska-Lincoln,
More informationTable of Contents. Overview. Demographics Section One
Table of Contents Overview Introduction Purpose... x Description... x What s New?... x Data Collection... x Response Rate... x How to Use This Report Report Organization... xi Appendices... xi Additional
More informationLicensed Nurses in Florida: Trends and Longitudinal Analysis
Licensed Nurses in Florida: 2007-2009 Trends and Longitudinal Analysis March 2009 Addressing Nurse Workforce Issues for the Health of Florida www.flcenterfornursing.org March 2009 2007-2009 Licensure Trends
More informationLess than 10 miles miles miles miles. 5. More than 100 miles. 1. Boston. 2. Central MA. 5. Southeast MA. 6.
Massachusetts Public Health Regionalization Project: A Statewide Conversation Sponsors and supporters: February 29, 2008 Coalition for Local Public Health MA Association of Health Boards MA Environmental
More informationFY 2014 Per Capita Federal Spending on Major Grant Programs Curtis Smith, Nick Jacobs, and Trinity Tomsic
Special Analysis 15-03, June 18, 2015 FY 2014 Per Capita Federal Spending on Major Grant Programs Curtis Smith, Nick Jacobs, and Trinity Tomsic 202-624-8577 ttomsic@ffis.org Summary Per capita federal
More informationHow. January. Prepared by
How North Carolina Compares A Compendium of State Statisticss January 2011 Prepared by the N.C. General Assembly Program Evaluation Division Prefacee The Program Evaluation Division of the North Carolina
More informationINFOBRIEF SRS TOP R&D-PERFORMING STATES DISPLAY DIVERSE R&D PATTERNS IN 2000
INFOBRIEF SRS Science Resources Statistics National Science Foundation NSF 03-303 Directorate for Social, Behavioral, and Economic Sciences November 2002 TOP R&D-PERFORMING STATES DISPLAY DIVERSE R&D PATTERNS
More informationCounting for Dollars: Fresno County, California
Counting for Dollars: Fresno County, California Federal Assistance Programs that Distributed Funds in Fresno County, California on the Basis of Census-Related Statistics, Fiscal Year 2008 This table lists
More informationOntario Public Health Standards, 2008
Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care Ontario Public Health Standards, 2008 The Ontario Public Health Standards are published as the guidelines for the provision of mandatory health programs and services
More informationDraft. Public Health Strategic Plan. Douglas County, Oregon
Public Health Strategic Plan Douglas County, Oregon Douglas County 2014 Letter from the Director Dear Colleagues It is with great enthusiasm that I present the Public Health Strategic Plan for 2014-2015.
More informationSurvey of the Public Health Nutrition Workforce:
Survey of the Public Health Nutrition Workforce: 2006-07 Submitted October 29, 2007 to the Association of State and Territorial Public Health Nutrition Directors Betsy Haughton, EdD, RD Professor Director,
More informationCounting for Dollars: Pinal County, Arizona
Counting for Dollars: Pinal County, Arizona Federal Assistance Programs that Distributed Funds in Pinal County, Arizona on the Basis of Census-Related Statistics, Fiscal Year 2008 This table lists federal
More informationMinister. Secretaries of State. Department of Planning and Health Information. Department of Human Resources Development
KINGDOM OF CAMBODIA NATION RELIGION KING 1 Minister Secretaries of State Cabinet Under Secretaries of State Directorate General for Admin. & Finance Directorate General for Health Directorate General for
More informationEvaluation of Health Care Homes:
Division of Health Policy PO Box 64882 St. Paul, MN 55164-0882 651-201-3626 www.health.state.mn.us Evaluation of Health Care Homes: 2010-2012 Minnesota Department of Health Minnesota Department of Human
More informationFinal Report No. 101 April Trends in Skilled Nursing Facility and Swing Bed Use in Rural Areas Following the Medicare Modernization Act of 2003
Final Report No. 101 April 2011 Trends in Skilled Nursing Facility and Swing Bed Use in Rural Areas Following the Medicare Modernization Act of 2003 The North Carolina Rural Health Research & Policy Analysis
More informationAbility to Meet Minimum Expectations: The Current State of Local Public Health in Minnesota
Ability to Meet Minimum Expectations: The Current State of Local Public Health in Minnesota SUMMARY OF ASSESSMENT FINDINGS Executive Summary Minnesota s Local Public Health Act (Minn. Stat. 145A) provides
More informationStudent Project PRACTICE-BASED RESEARCH
A Description of Medication Therapy Management Services in Minnesota Amie Jo Digatono, Pharm.D. Candidate, College of Pharmacy, University of Minnesota Key words: medication therapy management, Minnesota,
More informationAlameda County Public Health Department: A Brief Overview
Alameda County Public Health Department: A Brief Overview Muntu Davis, MD, MPH County Health Officer and Public Health Director Alameda County September 14, 2017 Alameda County Public Health Commission
More informationTwo-Year Effects of the Comprehensive Primary Care Initiative on Practice Transformation and Medicare Fee-for-Service Beneficiaries Outcomes
Two-Year Effects of the Comprehensive Primary Care Initiative on Practice Transformation and Medicare Fee-for-Service Beneficiaries Outcomes Deborah Peikes, Stacy Dale, Erin Taylor, Arkadipta Ghosh, Ann
More informationThe Impact of Medicaid Primary Care Payment Increases in Washington State
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY BACKGROUND Enhanced payments for primary care services provided to Medicaid patients in 2013 and 2014, authorized by the federal Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) of 2010,
More informationPUBLIC HEALTH 264 HUMAN SERVICES. Mission Statement. Mandates. Expenditure Budget: $3,939, % of Human Services
Mission Statement Public Health will promote optimum health and the adoption of healthful lifestyles; assure access to vital statistics, health information, preventive health, environmental health and
More informationPUBLIC HEALTH. Mission Statement. Mandates. Expenditure Budget: 3.2% of Human Services
Mission Statement Public Health will promote optimum health and the adoption of healthful lifestyles; assure access to vital statistics, health information, preventive health, environmental health and
More informationArizona State Funding Project: Addressing the Teacher Labor Market Challenge Executive Summary. Research conducted by Education Resource Strategies
Arizona State Funding Project: Addressing the Teacher Labor Market Challenge Executive Summary Research conducted by Education Resource Strategies Key findings 1. Student outcomes in Arizona lag behind
More informationArizona Rural Health Workforce Trend Analysis A report prepared for the
Arizona Rural Health Workforce Trend Analysis 2007-2010 A report prepared for the Joe Tabor, and Howard J. Eng Center for Rural Health Mel and Enid Zuckerman College of Public Health The University of
More informationA Profile of Public Health Educators in North Carolina's Local Health Departments.
A Profile of Public Health Educators in North Carolina's Local Health Departments. By: Glascoff, Mary A., Johnson, Hans H., Glascoff, William J., Lovelace, Kay, Bibeau, Daniel L. PhD Glascoff MA, Johnson
More informationNew Facts and Figures on Hospice Care in America
New Facts and Figures on Hospice Care in America NHPCO has just released the 2010 edition of NHPCO Facts and Figures: Hospice Care in America. Through an easy-to-read narrative that is written for the
More informationPrimary Care Measures at the Sub-Region Level
Primary Care Measures at the Sub-Region Level Trillium Primary Health Care Research Day May 31, 2017 Paul Huras South East LHIN Overview The LHIN Mandate Primary Care Capacity Framework The South East
More informationFebruary 21, Regional Directors Child Nutrition Programs All Regions. State Agency Directors All States
United States Department of Agriculture Food and Nutrition Service 3101 Park Center Drive Alexandria, VA 22302-1500 SUBJECT: TO: February 21, 2003 Implementation of Interim Rule: Monitor Staffing Standards
More informationNorth Carolina s Local Health Departments. Dennis Joyner, MPH President, NCALHD Union County Public Health Director February 28, 2018
North Carolina s Local Health Departments Dennis Joyner, MPH President, NCALHD Union County Public Health Director February 28, 2018 There are 85 Local Health Departments representing all 100 counties
More informationCounting for Dollars: Syracuse, NY
Counting for Dollars: Syracuse, NY Federal Assistance Programs that Distributed Funds in the Syracuse, NY Metropolitan Area on the Basis of Census-Related Statistics, Fiscal Year 2008 This table lists
More informationNATIONAL LOTTERY CHARITIES BOARD England. Mapping grants to deprived communities
NATIONAL LOTTERY CHARITIES BOARD England Mapping grants to deprived communities JANUARY 2000 Mapping grants to deprived communities 2 Introduction This paper summarises the findings from a research project
More informationNebraska Final Report for. State-based Cardiovascular Disease Surveillance Data Pilot Project
Nebraska Final Report for State-based Cardiovascular Disease Surveillance Data Pilot Project Principle Investigators: Ming Qu, PhD Public Health Support Unit Administrator Nebraska Department of Health
More informationPublic Health Plan
Summary framework for consultation DRAFT State Public Health Plan 2019-2024 Contents Message from the Chief Public Health Officer...2 Introduction...3 Purpose of this document...3 Building the public health
More informationSTEUBEN COUNTY HEALTH PROFILE. Finger Lakes Health Systems Agency, 2017
STEUBEN COUNTY HEALTH PROFILE Finger Lakes Health Systems Agency, 2017 About the Report The purpose of this report is to provide a summary of health data specific to Steuben County. Where possible, benchmarks
More informationComparison of Duties and Responsibilities
Comparison of Duties and Responsibilities of Public Health Educators, 1957 and 1969 ROBERTA. BOWMAN, Ph.D., VERNON A. BOWMAN, M.P.H., and EDWARD J. ROCCELLA. M.P.H. IN THE PAST 35 years, professional organizations,
More informationKEYNOTE ADDRESS NATIONAL "EVALUATING THE ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH WORK FORCE CONFERENCE," JULY 13, 1987, AIRLIE HOUSE, WARRENTON, VIRGINIA.
GARREY CARRUTHERS, Governor STATE OF NEW MEXICO LARRY GORDON Secretary for Health and Environment KEYNOTE ADDRESS NATIONAL "EVALUATING THE ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH WORK FORCE CONFERENCE," JULY 13, 1987, AIRLIE
More informationRe: Rewarding Provider Performance: Aligning Incentives in Medicare
September 25, 2006 Institute of Medicine 500 Fifth Street NW Washington DC 20001 Re: Rewarding Provider Performance: Aligning Incentives in Medicare The American College of Physicians (ACP), representing
More informationSchool of Public Health and Health Services Department of Prevention and Community Health
School of Public Health and Health Services Department of Prevention and Community Health Master of Public Health and Graduate Certificate Community Oriented Primary Care (COPC) 2009-2010 Note: All curriculum
More informationLIVINGSTON COUNTY HEALTH PROFILE. Finger Lakes Health Systems Agency, 2017
LIVINGSTON COUNTY HEALTH PROFILE Finger Lakes Health Systems Agency, 2017 About the Report The purpose of this report is to provide a summary of health data specific to Livingston County. Where possible,
More informationREGIONAL AND STATE EMPLOYMENT AND UNEMPLOYMENT JUNE 2010
For release 10:00 a.m. (EDT) Tuesday, July 20, USDL-10-0992 Technical information: Employment: Unemployment: Media contact: (202) 691-6559 sminfo@bls.gov www.bls.gov/sae (202) 691-6392 lausinfo@bls.gov
More informationAnnex A: State Level Analysis: Selection of Indicators, Frontier Estimation, Setting of Xmin, Xp, and Yp Values, and Data Sources
Annex A: State Level Analysis: Selection of Indicators, Frontier Estimation, Setting of Xmin, Xp, and Yp Values, and Data Sources Right to Food: Whereas in the international assessment the percentage of
More informationGrants 101: An Introduction to Federal Grants for State and Local Governments
Grants 101: An Introduction to Federal Grants for State and Local Governments Introduction FFIS has been in the federal grant reporting business for a long time about 30 years. The main thing we ve learned
More informationTelecommuting or doing work
Brookings Greater Washington Research Program Washington Area Trends While studies have evaluated Effects of Telecommuting on Central City Tax Bases by Philip M. Dearborn, Senior Fellow, The Brookings
More informationRegistrant Survey 2013 initial analysis
Registrant Survey 2013 initial analysis April 2014 Registrant Survey 2013 initial analysis Background and introduction In autumn 2013 the GPhC commissioned NatCen Social Research to carry out a survey
More informationCounting for Dollars: Washoe County, Nevada
Counting for Dollars: Washoe County, Nevada Federal Assistance Programs that Distributed Funds in Washoe County, Nevada on the Basis of Census-Related Statistics, Fiscal Year 2008 This table lists federal
More informationNielsen ICD-9. Healthcare Data
Nielsen ICD-9 Healthcare Data Healthcare Utilization Model The Nielsen healthcare utilization model has three primary components: demographic cohort population counts, cohort-specific healthcare utilization
More information