Issue Category: Health Equity/Social Determinants of Health

Ready or Not? 2017

«state» Achieved «score_num» of 10 Indicators in Report on Health Emergency Preparedness

«state»’s Flu Vaccination Rate is «fvr_num» Percent, «flu_rank_upper»

Washington, D.C., December 19, 2017 – In Ready or Not? Protecting the Public’s Health from Diseases, Disasters and Bioterrorism, «state» achieved «score_lower» of 10 key indicators of public health preparedness.

In total, 25 states scored a 5 or lower—Alaska scored lowest at 2 out of 10, and Massachusetts and Rhode Island scored the highest at 9 out of 10.

The report, issued today by the Trust for America’s Health (TFAH), found the country does not invest enough to maintain strong, basic core capabilities for health security readiness and, instead, is in a continued state of inefficiently reacting with federal emergency supplemental funding packages each time a disaster strikes.

According to Ready or Not?, federal funding to support the base level of preparedness has been cut by more than half since 2002, which has eroded advancements and reduced the country’s capabilities.

“While we’ve seen great public health preparedness advances, often at the state and community level, progress is continually stilted, halted and uneven,” said John Auerbach, president and CEO of TFAH.  “As a nation, we—year after year—fail to fully support public health and preparedness. If we don’t improve our baseline funding and capabilities, we’ll continue to be caught completely off-guard when hurricanes, wildfires and infectious disease outbreaks hit.”

No. Indicator «state» Number of States Receiving Points
A “Y” means the state received a point for that indicator
1 Public Health Funding Commitment: State increased or maintained funding for public health from FY 2015 to FY 2016 and FY 2016 to FY 2017. «phfc» 19 + D.C.
2 National Health Security Preparedness Index: State increased their overall preparedness scores based on the National Health Security Preparedness Index™ between 2015 and 2016. «nhspi» 33
3 Public Health Accreditation: The state public health department is accredited. «pha» 30 + D.C.
4 Antibiotic Stewardship Program for Hospitals:  State has 70 percent or more of hospitals reporting meeting Antibiotic Stewardship Program core elements in 2016. «asp» 20 + D.C.
5 Flu Vaccination Rate: State vaccinated at least half of their population (ages 6 months and older) for the seasonal flu from Fall 2016 to Spring 2017.* «fvr» 20
6 Enhanced Nurse Licensure Compact (eNLC): State participates in an eNLC. «enlc» 26
7 United States Climate Alliance: State has joined the U.S. Climate Alliance to reduce greenhouse gas emissions consistent with the goals of the Paris Agreement. «usca» 14
8 Public Health Laboratories: State laboratory provided biosafety training and/or provided information about biosafety training courses (July 1, 2016 to June 30, 2017). «lab_safety» 47 + D.C.
9 Public Health Laboratories: State laboratory has a Biosafety Professional (July 1, 2016 to June 30, 2017). «phl_staff» 47 + D.C.
10 Paid Sick Leave: State has paid sick leave law. «sick_leave» 8 + D.C.
Total «score_num»

Ready or Not? features six expert commentaries from public health officials who share perspectives on and experiences from the historic hurricanes, wildfires and other events of 2017, including from California, Florida, Louisiana and Texas.

The report also examines the nation’s ability to respond to public health emergencies, tracks progress and vulnerabilities, and includes a review of state and federal public health preparedness policies. Some key findings include:

  • Just 19 states and Washington, D.C. increased or maintained funding for public health from Fiscal Year (FY) 2015-2016 to FY 2016-2017.
  • The primary source for state and local preparedness for health emergencies has been cut by about one-third (from $940 million in FY 2002 to $667 million in FY 2017) and hospital emergency preparedness funds have been cut in half ($514 million in FY 2003 to $254 million in FY 2017).
  • In 20 states and Washington, D.C. 70 percent or more of hospitals reported meeting Antibiotic Stewardship Program core elements in 2016.
  • Just 20 states vaccinated at least half of their population (ages 6 months and older) for the seasonal flu from Fall 2016 to Spring 2017—and no state was above 56 percent.
  • 47 state labs and Washington, D.C. provided biosafety training and/or provided information about biosafety training courses (July 1, 2016 to June 30, 2017).

The Ready or Not? report provides a series of recommendations that address many of the major gaps in emergency health preparedness, including:

  • Communities should maintain a key set of foundational capabilities and focus on performance outcomes in exchange for increased flexibility and reduced bureaucracy.
  • Ensuring stable, sufficient health emergency preparedness funding to maintain a standing set of core capabilities so they are ready when needed. In addition, a complementary Public Health Emergency Fund is needed to provide immediate surge funding for specific action for major emerging threats.
  • Strengthening and maintaining consistent support for global health security as an effective strategy for preventing and controlling health crises. Germs know no borders.
  • Innovating and modernizing infrastructure needs – including a more focused investment strategy to support science and technology upgrades that leverage recent breakthroughs and hold the promise of transforming the nation’s ability to promptly detect and contain disease outbreaks and respond to other health emergencies.
  • Recruiting and training a next generation public health workforce with expert scientific abilities to harness and use technological advances along with critical thinking and management skills to serve as Chief Health Strategist for a community.
  • Reconsidering health system preparedness for new threats and mass outbreaks.  Develop stronger coalitions and partnerships among providers, hospitals and healthcare facilities, insurance providers, pharmaceutical and health equipment businesses, emergency management and public health agencies.
  • Preventing the negative health consequences of climate change and weather-related threats. It is essential to build the capacity to anticipate, plan for and respond to climate-related events.
  • Prioritizing efforts to address one of the most serious threats to human health by expanding efforts to stop superbugs and antibiotic resistance.
  • Improving rates of vaccinations for children and adults – which are one of the most effective public health tools against many infectious diseases.
  • Supporting a culture of resilience so all communities are better prepared to cope with and recover from emergencies, particularly focusing on those who are most vulnerable.   Sometimes the aftermath of an emergency situation may be more harmful than the initial event.  This must also include support for local organizations and small businesses to prepare for and to respond to emergencies.

The report was supported by a grant from the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation (RWJF) and is available on TFAH’s website at www.healthyamericans.org.

Score Summary:

A full list of all of the indicators and scores and the full report are available on TFAH’s website.  For the state-by-state scoring, states received one point for achieving an indicator or zero points if they did not achieve the indicator.  Zero is the lowest possible overall score, 10 is the highest.  The data for the indicators are from publicly available sources or were provided from public officials.

  • 9 out of 10: Massachusetts and Rhode Island
  • 8 out of 10: Delaware, North Carolina and Virginia
  • 7 out of 10: Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, Hawaii, Minnesota, New York, Oregon and Washington
  • 6 out of 10: California, District of Columbia, Florida, Illinois, Maryland, Nebraska, New Jersey, North Dakota, South Carolina, South Dakota, Utah, Vermont and West Virginia
  • 5 out of 10: Georgia, Idaho, Maine, Mississippi, Montana and Tennessee
  • 4 out of 10: Alabama, Arkansas, Iowa, Louisiana, Missouri, New Hampshire, Oklahoma and Pennsylvania
  • 3 out of 10: Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Michigan, Nevada, New Mexico, Ohio, Texas, Wisconsin and Wyoming
  • 2 out of 10: Alaska

 Trust for America’s Health is a non-profit, non-partisan organization dedicated to saving lives by protecting the health of every community and working to make disease prevention a national priority. www.healthyamericans.org

New York City’s Efforts to Prevent and Respond to Childhood Lead Exposure

Background

According to the New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene, lead paint, and the related dust, is the primary source of lead exposure for New York City children. Between November 2013 and January 2016, New York City’s Department of Housing Preservation and Development (HPD), which enforces the city’s housing code, issued more than 10,000 violations for dangerous lead paint conditions in units with children under 6-years-old.lead

Lead poisoning disproportionately affects lower-income individuals in New York City who live in older, poorly maintained housing. Half of the total violations were found in just 10 percent of the city’s ZIP codes in primarily low-income neighborhoods in northern Manhattan, Brooklyn, and the Bronx. And, more than three-quarters of all violations for lead paint hazards in units with children under age six were found in areas where the poverty rate exceeds the city’s average.

Rebuttable Presumption and Billing Noncompliant Landlords for Lead Hazard Control

In 2004, New York City introduced Local Law 1 amending its Administrative Code and replacing Local Law 38 of 1999 (additional information here). Local Law 1 requires building owners to identify and repair any unsafe lead paint conditions in units where young children live. The law applies to all buildings with three or more units built before 1960 (New York City prohibited the use of lead in residential paint in 1960 while the federal government did so in 1978). Buildings built between 1960 and 1978 are also subject to Local Law 1 if the owner knows that lead paint is present. Under the law, landlords must determine annually which units are home to children under age six and inspect them at least once a year for peeling paint.

The building owners must address whatever lead hazards they find promptly and safely. When fixing hazards and conducting general repair work that may disturb lead paint, they must use lead-safe work practices and trained workers. They are also responsible for repairing lead paint hazards in any apartment before turning it over to a new tenant. The law mandates that owners maintain records of all notices, inspections, lead paint hazard repairs, and other matters related to the law.

Local Law 1 requires the HPD to inspect deteriorated lead paint whenever they receive a complaint in any apartment occupied by young children. HPD may issue positive lead-based paint violations (if it tests the paint during the inspection) or presumed lead-based paint violations (if it is unable to test the paint during the inspection because the proper equipment is not available).

Under the law, once HPD issues a lead paint violation, the building owner has 21 days to repair the hazard or, if the presumed violation was issued, to contest the violation. If the owner either fails to meet the deadline for the repairs or is not given an extension (called a postponement), the city must try to perform, or contract for, the repairs at the owner’s expense. Repairs include remediation of peeling paint, the use of an EPA certified firm, and appropriate clearance testing.

Local Law 1 also mandates the New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene to investigate the potential sources of lead exposure. This includes, but is not limited to, paint inspections in a dwelling in response to a report of a person under 18 years of age with an elevated blood lead level of 15 mcg/dL or greater. The Health Department may issue a lead-based paint violation (notifying HPD), and, under the law, the building owner has to do the specified repairs. If the owner fails to complete the work, the dwelling is referred to the city’s emergency repair program as described above.

Functionally, the city’s Department of Finance bills the property for the cost of the emergency repair, related fees, and/or the cost of any repair attempts. It is likely to be far more expensive for the city to arrange repairs than if the owner had taken care of them in the first place. The added cost acts as an incentive for the owner to conduct the work before a violation is issued or, when a violation is issued, to complete it in a timely manner. This is likely the only regulation in the country in which the local government conducts lead remediation and bills the landlord if the landlord fails to do what is required.

Finally, if the owner fails to pay, the city files an interest-bearing tax lien against the property.

Results

Data from the New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene shows the number of children with a blood lead level of 5 µg/dL or greater has dropped over 80 percent since Local Law 1 was adopted, although in 2014, 6,550 New York City children younger than 6 still had blood lead levels at or above 5 mcg/dL.

 __________________________________________

In August, 2017, the Health Impact Project, a collaboration between the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation (RWJF) and Pew Charitable Trusts released: Ten Policies to Prevent and Respond to Childhood Lead Exposure. The Trust for America’s Health (TFAH), National Center for Healthy Housing (NCHH), Urban Institute, Altarum Institute, Child Trends and many researchers and partners contributed to the report. TFAH and NCHH worked with Pew, RWJF and local advocates and officials to put together the above case study about lead poisoning and prevention initiatives.

The case study does not attempt to capture everything a location is doing on lead, but aims to highlight some of the important work.

Access a story on New York State’s efforts here.

Access a story on Rochester’s efforts here. 

Public Health Leaders Make Urgent Joint Call to Protect Prevention and Healthcare

Joint Statement from American Public Health Association, Prevention Institute, Public Health Institute and Trust for America’s Health

June 20, 2017

The fight to protect public health is more important than ever.

The Senate is moving quickly—and secretively—on their version of legislation to repeal the Affordable Care Act (ACA). While we don’t know the content of the bill, we do know that the House-passed repeal bill—the American Health Care Act—would cause over 23 million people to lose their healthcare, restructure Medicaid, pare down essential benefits like maternity and newborn care, result in the loss of over a million American jobs, and zero out the Prevention and Public Health Fund. As leaders of organizations dedicated to protecting and advancing the public’s health, we call on Congress now to protect federal investments in public health funding, the Prevention and Public Health Fund, and affordable, high-quality healthcare.

Public health is at the very core of keeping our country safe, healthy, resilient, and secure. It works behind the scenes to ensure we have clean water to drink, safe food to eat, and healthy air to breathe. It works to safeguard us from infectious diseases like measles or Ebola by preventing the onset or spread of disease. It builds on time tested strategies to reduce the toll of chronic diseases and injuries. Public health works to redress long-standing inequities in health and safety, by investing in communities of greatest need. Through prevention, evidence-based treatment of substance use, prescription drug monitoring, and improved opioid prescribing, public health can solve the opioid epidemic, which kills ninety-one Americans a day. From opioid overdoses to rising infant and maternal mortality rates, Americans are seeing both the length and quality of their lives decline—and we need more, not fewer, investments in public health to turn the tide.

Repealing the ACA and its investments in public health and prevention dismantles the capacity of public health to do its work. The pain will be felt in every state, every congressional district, and every neighborhood, and those who are most vulnerable will suffer the most. If the Prevention Fund is eliminated, over the next five years states stand to lose over $3 billion they rely on to prevent chronic disease, halt the spread of infections, and invest in the community resources that support health and safety. Repealing the ACA and the Prevention Fund ensures there is no progress to reduce healthcare spending or improve the health of our workforce. Repealing the ACA will result in an America where preventable suffering and death are more widespread, and an America where the poorest and sickest communities fall even farther behind.

A strong public health infrastructure is at the very core of making our country safe, healthy, and secure. We need to act now to protect it.

How Embedding Health Access and Nurses in Schools Improves Health in Grand Rapids, Michigan

For more than 20 years, Grand Rapids Public Schools (GRPS) has partnered with Spectrum Health to improve educational and health outcomes for their students through Spectrum’s School Health Program. Started in 1995, the School Health Program will be expanded to its 14th additional school districts in 2017.

The GRPS Model

The GRPS program utilizes school health teams comprised of registered nurses (RNs), licensed practical nurses (LPNs), and health aides to provide direct services to students in 48 schools. GRPS’ branch of the School Health Program currently employs 34 RNs, 11 LPNs, and 34 health aides and operates four full-service school-based health centers.

In the GRPS model, school teams operate under the supervision of a school nurse whose primary responsibility is oversight of health care delivery to students during the school day. The district has established policies and procedures to describe how care is to be delivered by the team under the supervision of the Registered Nurse. The nurse may delegate care to other school staff.

School nurse responsibilities include: identification of students who have health conditions; developing a plan for care during the school day; training and oversight of staff for safe delivery of medications and treatments; providing services that cannot be delegated; establishing medical response teams to respond to emergencies; telephone triage and support; surveillance and reporting of communicable diseases; connecting students to medical, dental, and mental health care through referrals; promoting health; health education; health screenings and follow up; and assisting students in obtaining immunizations.

GRPS uses funds from a variety of sources to support their school nurses including:

  • the district budget;
  • their local intermediate school district;
  • the State Department of Education—including grants and 31A funds (for students deemed at high risk); and
  • Spectrum Health.

The full-time equivalent (FTE) for the nurses for each school is adjusted based on the health needs of the student population and the availability of funds. Even though some funding for school nurses is still provided through Title I, GRPS has largely moved to alternative funding streams due to cumbersome reporting requirements.

While RNs serve as the cornerstones in the model, GRPS also braids together funding streams from both public and private entities to allow for reimbursement and service provision under a variety of health delivery models beyond the traditional school nurse reimbursement model. Coordinating funds and services across the spectrum of health providers and sources enables GRPS to provide services outside of the traditional school nurse model—such as dental services.

GRPS has also partnered with Cherry Health Services a local Federally Qualified Health Center (FQHC) to deliver health services in their school-based health centers and through a traveling dental program. Because these services are provided through an FQHC, they are eligible for Medicaid reimbursement and receive the FQHC enhanced reimbursement rate.

While data systems and privacy concerns have hindered data sharing and integration in the past, GRPS is actively moving towards linking education and health data under one system. The new data system is built upon the district’s student record system and has the potential to more easily link school health metrics to attendance and academic data. These system improvements are crucial steps to helping Spectrum Health and GRPS track and accomplish both its short-term goals to improve attendance and reduce chronic absenteeism and its long-term goals to improve graduation rates, workplace readiness and college entry.

Consultative RN Hub Model

In more rural districts, Spectrum Health has developed a consultative RN hub model for service delivery. Nurses are able to serve students utilizing telemedicine through its MedNow program—reducing travel time for school nurses and costs for the district. The Regional program will serve 13 districts in 2017 with 14 RN and two LPN.

Results

The partnership between Spectrum Health and the school districts have produced significant improvements in important school health indicators. Key accomplishments from FY 2015 included:

  • 97 percent of students at participating schools met current immunization requirements to attend school;
  • 98 percent of problems identified were resolved on-site by the school health care team;
  • 195,092 visits occurred to the school health office; and
  • 28,864 students were served across 7 school districts.

 

For more information, please visit http://www.spectrumhealth.org/healthier-communities/our-programs/school-health-program

TFAH Statement: Strongly Opposed to the House Obamacare Replacement Bill

Washington, D.C., March 7, 2017 – The below is a statement from John Auerbach, president and CEO, of Trust for America’s Health (TFAH).

“We are strongly opposed to the House Obamacare Replacement bill, which would repeal significant portions of the Affordable Care Act (ACA), including the Prevention and Public Health Fund.

Under this plan, millions of people could lose health insurance—a devastating blow to the health of many of our nation’s most vulnerable individuals and families. Without affordable insurance coverage we will see increased levels of preventable illnesses, injuries and deaths.

In addition, eliminating the Prevention Fund would erase 12 percent of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC) budget. Of that investment, $625 million directly supports state and local public health efforts to fight preventable diseases such as diabetes, heart disease and cancer.

Losing this funding would wreak havoc on our efforts to reduce chronic disease rates, immunize our children, stop the prescription drug and opioid epidemic and prepare the public health system to prevent infectious disease outbreaks.

We know how to prevent many chronic and infectious illnesses—which make up a significant portion of the $3 trillion the nation spends yearly on healthcare.  If we lose access to health care coverage and to the Prevention Fund, our children, families and communities will suffer and ultimately costs will rise.

The bottom line? This Bill would make untold numbers of the American people less healthy.”

 

###

Trust for America’s Health is a non-profit, non-partisan organization dedicated to saving lives by protecting the health of every community and working to make disease prevention a national priority.