The entrenched separation of primary care and public health in the United States has been damaging and self-perpetuating. As both sectors struggle to meet their own challenges, population health has deteriorated due to their failure to integrate. For the first time, The Practical Playbook offers professionals in primary care and public health a roadmap to integrating their work with the larger goals of population health.
More than 50 population health experts have come together to provide key insights into how to address population health issues and challenges in a collaborative way in the new book, Solving Population Health Problems through Collaboration. This work, released in March 2017, is edited by Ron Bialek, Leslie Beitsch, and John Moran from the Public Health Foundation (PHF), who share a combined 80 years of experience in public health and population health.
This report summarizes key findings from these regional dialogues and presents recommendations to carry PH3.0 forward, organized in the following five themes:
he Public Health Foundation and Association for Community Health Improvement are collaborating to develop a set of Priority Competencies for Population Health Professionals. Based on the Core Competencies for Public Health Professionals (Core Competencies), the Priority Competencies for Population Health Professionals describe desired skills for population health professionals and are primarily designed for non-clinical hospital, health system, public health, and healthcare professionals engaged in assessment of population health needs and development, delivery, and improvement of population health programs, services, and practices. This may include activities related to community health needs assessments, community health improvement plans, and implementation of community-based interventions.
With support from the Blue Shield of California Foundation, the California Healthcare Foundation, and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, the Institute of Medicine (IOM) convened a committee to identify core measures for health and health care. In VITAL SIGNS: Core Metrics for Health and Health Care Progress, the committee proposes a streamlined set of 15 standardized measures, with recommendations for their application at every level and across sectors. Ultimately, the committee concludes that this streamlined set of measures could provide consistent benchmarks for health progress across the nation and improve system performance in the highest-priority areas.
The Region VII Health Equity Council, known as the Heartland RHEC, conducted an environmental scan designed to collect data on our regions and describe challenges and opportunities. This scan will be used to demonstrate why the RHEC is pursuing particular priorities and show the extent of health disparities throughout the region.
Abstract: An ideal population health outcome metric should reflect a population’s dynamic state of physical, mental, and social well-being. Positive health outcomes include being alive; functioning well mentally, physically, and socially; and having a sense of well-being. Negative outcomes include death, loss of function, and lack of well-being. In contrast to these health outcomes, diseases and injuries are intermediate factors that influence the likelihood of achieving a state of health. On the basis of a review of outcomes metrics currently in use and the availability of data for at least some US counties, I recommend the following metrics for population health outcomes: 1) life expectancy from birth, or age-adjusted mortality rate; 2) condition-specific changes in life expectancy, or condition-specific or age-specific mortality rates; and 3) selfreported level of health, functional status, and experiential status. When reported, outcome metrics should present both the overall level of health of a population and the distribution of health among different geographic, economic, and demographic groups in the population.
Ensuring that members of society are healthy and reaching their full potential requires the prevention of disease and injury; the promotion of health and well-being; the assurance of conditions in which people can be healthy; and the provision of timely, effective, and coordinated health care. Achieving substantial and lasting improvements in population health will require a concerted effort from all these entities, aligned with a common goal. The Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) requested that the Institute of Medicine (IOM) examine the integration of primary care and public health.
Primary Care and Public Health identifies the best examples of effective public health and primary care integration and the factors that promote and sustain these efforts, examines ways by which HRSA and CDC can use provisions of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act to promote the integration of primary care and public health, and discusses how HRSA-supported primary care systems and state and local public health departments can effectively integrate and coordinate to improve efforts directed at disease prevention.
This report is essential for all health care centers and providers, state and local policy makers, educators, government agencies, and the public for learning how to integrate and improve population health.