Twenty Years After 9/11: The Public Health Preparedness We Need Now

Rapid evidence review: Policy actions for the integration of public health and health care in the United States

Objective

To identify policy actions that may improve the interface of public health and health care in the United States.

Methods

A rapid review of publicly-available documents informing the integration of public health and health care, and case examples reporting objective measures of success, with abstraction of policy actions, related considerations, and outcomes.

Results

Across 109 documents, there were a number of recurrent themes related to policy actions and considerations to facilitate integration during peace time and during public health emergencies. The themes could be grouped into the need for adequate and dedicated funding; mandates and shared governance for integration; joint leadership that has the authority/ability to mobilize shared assets; adequately staffed and skilled workforces in both sectors with mutual awareness of shared functions; shared health information systems with modernized data and IT capabilities for both data collection and dissemination of information; engagement with multiple stakeholders in the community to be maximally inclusive; and robust communication strategies and training across partners and with the public.

Conclusion

While the evidence does not support a hierarchy of policies on strengthening the interface of public health and health care, recurrent policy themes can inform where to focus efforts.

A COVID-19 Lesson: Better Health Emergency Preparedness Standards Are Needed

This article reports on an assessment of the value of 4 widely recognized standards of health sector emergency preparedness as predictors of effective preparedness for, and response to, the COVID-19 pandemic in the United States. The standards are sponsored by the National Health Security Preparedness Index (NHSPI), the Trust for America's Health (TFAH), the Emergency Management Accreditation Program (EMAP), and the Public Health Accreditation Board (PHAB). The measure of effectiveness was states' cumulative COVID-19 deaths per 100,000 population, from January 21, 2020, through January 20, 2022. Linear regression analysis found no statistically significant associations when controlling for 3 intervening variables. Cross-tabulation of states' preparedness status with their COVID-19 death rates found that high NHSPI and TFAH preparedness scores were generally, but not uniformly, associated with lower death rates. EMAP and PHAB accreditation had negligible association with low or high death rates. Lack of accreditation was associated with lower death rates. Higher prior state public health spending related to COVID-19 preparedness and higher state household income, an indicator of state economic strength, were associated with lower death rates. States with Democratic control of the legislative and executive branches of government generally had substantially lower death rates than states with Republican control. A science-based, practice-oriented research initiative is recommended to improve the predictive power of health sector preparedness standards and to enhance protection for US residents from large-scale future health threats.

Crisis leadership: a case for inclusion in accredited Master of Public Health program curricula

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the exposure to crisis leadership theory already present in Council on Education for Public Health (CEPH) accredited Master of Public Health (MPH) programs in the United States and provide a compelling case for its future inclusion.

STUDY DESIGN

This was a narrative review.

METHODS

We compiled a comprehensive list of 179 CEPH schools that offered an MPH program. During January through March 2021, we examined 179 websites for the core courses and elective courses offered in the MPH degree program to determine if any courses covered the topics of leadership, crisis leadership, or crisis management in either the course title or description.

RESULTS

Leadership courses were available in only 55.31% of CEPH-accredited schools. Only a single program (0.56%) offers a crisis leadership course.

CONCLUSIONS

The current global COVID-19 pandemic and reality of climate-induced disasters have brought crises to the forefront for health systems. Successful leadership for the future requires public health leaders to have training in crisis leadership. The evaluation and revision of public health curricula must focus on leadership competency development to prepare graduates to lead complex multiple crisis events and system shocks simultaneously.