GSPH Presentations at APHA Annual Meeting November 4-6, 2006

By effectively reaching school nurses, important collaborations are formed to better prepare schools and communities for public health emergencies. The University of Pittsburgh, Graduate School of Public Health, Center for Public Health Preparedness (UP CPHP) provided a Disaster Preparedness for School Nurses curriculum in southwest Pennsylvania as a pilot program. This initial activity was so well-received by participants and planners, and generated so much interest that five additional trainings were carried out. In two months, 150 school nurses, state school health consultants, school dental hygienists, and physical education teachers completed the National Association of School Nurses (NASN) curriculum. Up to 120 more will be trained in Spring 2006.  UP CPHP provides the resources for a NASN certified instructor, learner materials, continuing education (CE), and evaluation services. These trainings produced, and benefit from, excellent partnerships between the UPCPHP, state health department, state department of education, school districts, hospitals, professional school nurse organizations, and school nurses. Partners serve on planning committees, process registrations, and provide CE, facilities, and lunch.  The partnerships have spawned several more activities including a CE-accredited online course (based on a training’s lunchtime speaker) and an action chart for school nurses based on Department of Homeland Security color codes. Evaluation data from the trainings indicates high-priority topics for future activities such as conducting more disaster scenarios and practice of triage, and new audiences such as school administrators, emergency management agency, fire, and police. UP CPHP and its partners are planning now for 2006 – 2007 based on this feedback.

Objectives
At the conclusion of this session, the participant will be able to:

1. Recognize the role of the school nurse in public health preparedness
2. Identify key partners in planning disaster preparedness trainings for school nurses

Margaret A. Potter, MS, JD and Tiffany Fitzpatrick. Center for Public Health Practice, University of Pittsburgh Graduate School of Public Health, Forbes-Allies Center, Suite 210, 3109 Forbes Avenue, Pittsburgh, PA 15260, 412-383-2400, potterm@edc.pitt.edu

This paper addresses the lack of nationally applicable classifications of state formulas for the funding of local public health activities – a deficit that has inhibited the development of an evidence-base for best practices and policy alternatives. The purpose is to lay a foundation for classifying state funding of local public health by systematically reviewing previously reported classification methods and by describing the funding formulas currently in use within selected states. Our thirty-year literature review of state-local public health systems relevant to financing local units has revealed alternative state classification systems based on: organizational type (centralized/decentralized); local control over programs and funding (high/low); legal authority for essential services; state/local distribution of public health responsibilities (top-down vs. bottom-up); use of performance-based funding; and proportion of local budget administered by state. Using a cross-section of these classifications, we selected seven states for in-depth review of formulas in use for funding local public health agencies including: per-capita allocations, state matching grants, federal block grants, federal competitive grants and earmarks, performance-based funding, state mandated funding “floors,” and population-density formulas. A case study for each state was developed from published sources and validated through the key-informant interviews. The case study analysis considers whether any particular essential services are associated with particular funding formulas; whether particular program types (i.e., block grants for maternal/child health programs) are associated with particular funding formulas; whether geographic areas are associated with particular funding formulas; and whether indicators of population health or agency performance are associated with particular funding formulas.

Learning Objectives: At the conclusion of this presentation, audience members will be able to

1)Compare selected states on the bases of consistencies and innovations in financing local public health activities and programs;

• Correlate the organizational characteristics of the public health systems and the funding formulas used for local public health programs and activities; and
• Recognize potential associations between funding approaches and such system characteristics as program types, population health, and performance effectiveness.

Keywords: Financing, Public Health Service

Presenting author 's disclosure statement:

Any relevant financial relationships? No

Financing Public Health Services: Research and Practice

The 134th Annual Meeting & Exposition (November 4-8, 2006) of APHA