Michael Meit

Why is rural public health important? A look to the future.

Public health in the United States began as a largely urban phenomenon, dating back to the late 1700s. In those days, public health was mostly concerned with issues such as sanitation and communicable diseases, which were of greater concern in areas with higher population density. By the late 1800s, however, it was apparent that the countrys population was becoming more mobile and communicable diseases were beginning to spread from urban dwellers to rural dwellers, creating a need for rural public health services. Beginning in 1908, local governmental public health began to expand its reach into rural areas, with county health departments developing rapidly until the mid-1940s. Following the passage of the Hill-Burton Act in 1945, which funded the construction of community hospitals, rural health focus shifted almost exclusively to ensuring access to healthcare services. This article provides a historical context for rural public health service delivery and a beginning discussion of implications for contemporary rural public health practice.

The Double Disparity Facing Rural Local Health Departments.

Residents of rural jurisdictions face significant health challenges, including some of the highest rates of risky health behaviors and worst health outcomes of any group in the country. Rural communities are served by smaller local health departments (LHDs) that are more understaffed and underfunded than their suburban and urban peers. As a result of history and current need, rural LHDs are more likely than their urban peers to be providers of direct health services, leading to relatively lower levels of population-focused activities. This review examines the double disparity faced by rural LHDs and their constituents: pervasively poorer health behaviors and outcomes and a historical lack of investment by local, state, and federal public health entities.

Hepatitis C prevention programs: assessment of local health department capacity.

Hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection is the most common bloodborne infection in the United States. To determine the capacity of local health departments to respond to concerns about HCV, local health officers were surveyed regarding HCV programs and needs. Of 612 respondents, fewer reported offering HCV services (education, counseling, testing) compared with those for HIV. Most respondents reported that technical assistance would be needed for HCV services and that such services should be integrated into existing HIV programs. Many local health departments may be unprepared for a growing need for public HCV services; integrated HCV-HIV programs should be considered.

Evaluating the Impact of National Public Health Department Accreditation ― United States, 2016

In 2011, the nonprofit Public Health Accreditation Board (PHAB) launched the national, voluntary public health accreditation program for state, tribal, local, and territorial public health departments. As of May 2016, 134 health departments have achieved 5-year accreditation through PHAB and 176 more have begun the formal process of pursuing accreditation. In addition, Florida, a centralized state in which the employees of all 67 local health departments are employees of the state, achieved accreditation for the entire integrated local public health department system in the state. PHAB-accredited health departments range in size from a small Indiana health department that serves approximately 17,000 persons to the much larger California Department of Public Health, which serves approximately 38 million persons. Collectively, approximately half the U.S. population, or nearly 167 million persons, is covered by an accredited health department. Forty-two states and the District of Columbia now have at least one nationally accredited health department. In a survey conducted through a contract with a social science research organization during 2013-2016, >90% of health departments that had been accredited for 1 year reported that accreditation has stimulated quality improvement and performance improvement opportunities, increased accountability and transparency, and improved management processes.

Local Health Department Clinical Service Delivery along the Urban/Rural Continuum

Background: Engagement in the core public health functions and ten essential services remains the standard for measuring local health department (LHD) performance; their role as providers of clinical services remains uncertain, particularly in rural and underserved communities. Purpose: To examine the role of LHDs as clinical service providers and how this role varies among rural and nonrural communities. Methods: The 2013 National Association of County and City Health Officials (NACCHO) Profile was used to examine the geographic distribution of clinical service provision among LHDs. LHDs were coded as urban, large rural, or small rural based on Rural/Urban Commuting Area codes. Bivariate analysis for clinical services was conducted by rural/urban status. For each service, the proportions of LHDs that directly performed the service, contracted with other organizations to provide the service, or reported provision of the service by independent organizations in the community was compared. Results: Analyses show significant differences in patterns of clinical services offered, contracted, or provided by others, based on rurality. LHDs serving rural communities, especially large rural LHDs, tend to provide more direct services than urban LHDs. Among rural LHDs, larger rural LHDs provided a broader array of services and reported more community capacity for delivery than small rural LHDsparticularly maternal and child health services. Implications: There are capacity differences between large and small rural LHDs. Limited capacity within small rural LHDs may result in providing less services, regardless of the availability of other providers within their communities. These findings provide valuable information on clinical service provision among LHDs, particularly in rural and underserved communities.

Rural public health financing: implications for community health promotion initiatives.

BACKGROUND Public health in rural areas has distinctive features, often shaped by state-level infrastructure and organization and financing of public health activities. Variation in the way funds are distributed can influence the ability of local health departments and nongovernmental organizations serving rural communities to conduct public health functions. PURPOSE The purpose of this article was to describe how federal funds for selected chronic disease prevention and health promotion activities are distributed through states to the local level and identify infrastructure-related barriers that local health departments and nongovernmental organizations may face in securing these funds. METHODS Thirty semistructured interviews were conducted with individuals at the state and local levels responsible for managing funds and implementing initiatives in selected disease areas across six states, using a standardized protocol through which select funds were followed from the state to the local level. RESULTS Respondents report that states do not get sufficient Centers for Disease Control and Prevention funding for diabetes, cancer, and injury prevention to distribute effectively to the local level. Local funding, when provided, tends to be allocated through competitive mini-grant processes that are often difficult for rural communities to access because of infrastructural challenges. Mini-grant amounts are often too limited to build local program capacities and often awarded to communities with existing capacities.

Local Health Departments as Clinical Safety Net in Rural Communities

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.

Public Health Agency Accreditation Among Rural Local Health Departments: Influencers and Barriers.

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.

The double disparity facing rural local health departments: A short report

Rural residents in the U.S. face significant health challenges, including higher rates of risky health behaviors and worse health outcomes than many other groups. Rural communities are also typically served by local health departments (LHDs) that have fewer human and financial resources than their suburban and urban peers. As a result of history and need, rural LHDs are more likely than urban LHDs to provide direct health services, which may result in limited resources for population-based activities. This review examines the double disparity facing rural LHDs and their constituents: pervasively poorer health behaviors and outcomes and a historical lack of investment by local, state, and federal public health entities.