Evidence-Based Practice for Public Health Emergency Preparedness and Response

by National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, Health and Medicine Division, Board on Population Health and Public Health Practice, Board on Health Sciences Policy, Committee on Evidence-Based Practices for Public Health Emergency Preparedness and Response

2020 · National Academies Press

When communities face complex public health emergencies, state local, tribal, and territorial public health agencies must make difficult decisions regarding how to effectively respond. The public health emergency preparedness and response (PHEPR) system, with its multifaceted mission to prevent, protect against, quickly respond to, and recover from public health emergencies, is inherently complex and encompasses policies, organizations, and programs. Since the events of September 11, 2001, the United States has invested billions of dollars and immeasurable amounts of human capital to develop and enhance public health emergency preparedness and infrastructure to respond to a wide range of public health threats, including infectious diseases, natural disasters, and chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear events. Despite the investments in research and the growing body of empirical literature on a range of preparedness and response capabilities and functions, there has been no national-level, comprehensive review and grading of evidence for public health emergency preparedness and response practices comparable to those utilized in medicine and other public health fields. Evidence-Based Practice for Public Health Emergency Preparedness and Response reviews the state of the evidence on PHEPR practices and the improvements necessary to move the field forward and to strengthen the PHEPR system. This publication evaluates PHEPR evidence to understand the balance of benefits and harms of PHEPR practices, with a focus on four main areas of PHEPR: engagement with and training of community-based partners to improve the outcomes of at-risk populations after public health emergencies; activation of a public health emergency operations center; communication of public health alerts and guidance to technical audiences during a public health emergency; and implementation of quarantine to reduce the spread of contagious illness.

Systems Practices for the Care of Socially At-Risk Populations

by National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, Health and Medicine Division, Board on Health Care Services, Board on Population Health and Public Health Practice, Committee on Accounting for Socioeconomic Status in Medicare Payment Programs

2016 · National Academies Press

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) have been moving from volume-based, fee-for-service payment to value-based payment (VBP), which aims to improve health care quality, health outcomes, and patient care experiences, while also controlling costs. Since the passage of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010, CMS has implemented a variety of VBP strategies, including incentive programs and risk-based alternative payment models. Early evidence from these programs raised concerns about potential unintended consequences for health equity. Specifically, emerging evidence suggests that providers disproportionately serving patients with social risk factors for poor health outcomes (e.g., individuals with low socioeconomic position, racial and ethnic minorities, gender and sexual minorities, socially isolated persons, and individuals residing in disadvantaged neighborhoods) may be more likely to fare poorly on quality rankings and to receive financial penalties, and less likely to receive financial rewards. The drivers of these disparities are poorly understood, and differences in interpretation have led to divergent concerns about the potential effect of VBP on health equity. Some suggest that underlying differences in patient characteristics that are out of the control of providers lead to differences in health outcomes. At the same time, others are concerned that differences in outcomes between providers serving socially at-risk populations and providers serving the general population reflect disparities in the provision of health care. Systems Practices for the Care of Socially At-Risk Populations seeks to better distinguish the drivers of variations in performance among providers disproportionately serving socially at-risk populations and identifies methods to account for social risk factors in Medicare payment programs. This report identifies best practices of high-performing hospitals, health plans, and other providers that serve disproportionately higher shares of socioeconomically disadvantaged populations and compares those best practices of low-performing providers serving similar patient populations. It is the second in a series of five brief reports that aim to inform the Office of the Assistant Secretary of Planning and Evaluation (ASPE) analyses that account for social risk factors in Medicare payment programs mandated through the Improving Medicare Post-Acute Care Transformation (IMPACT) Act.

The Budget Report of the State Board of Finance and Control to the General Assembly, Session of [1929-] 1937

by Connecticut. Board of Finance and Control

1927

Budget report for 1929/31 deals also with the operations of the fiscal year ended June 30, 1928 and the estimates for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1929.

Collected Papers by Members of the Staff of the International Health Board

by Rockefeller Foundation. International Health Board

1926

Consists of reprints of articles from various journals.