Buehler James W, Holtgrave David R
Department of Epidemiology and Center for Public Health Preparedness and Research, Rollins School of Public Health, Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia, USA.
BMC Public Health. 2007 Mar 29;7:44. doi: 10.1186/1471-2458-7-44.
Controversy and debate can arise whenever public health agencies determine how program funds should be allocated among constituent jurisdictions. Two common strategies for making such allocations are expert review of competitive applications and the use of funding formulas. Despite widespread use of funding formulas by public health agencies in the United States, formula allocation strategies in public health have been subject to relatively little formal scrutiny, with the notable exception of the attention focused on formula funding of HIV care programs. To inform debates and deliberations in the selection of a formula-based approach, we summarize key challenges to formula-based funding, based on prior reviews of federal programs in the United States.
The primary challenge lies in identifying data sources and formula calculation methods that both reflect and serve program objectives, with or without adjustments for variations in the cost of delivering services, the availability of local resources, capacity, or performance. Simplicity and transparency are major advantages of formula-based allocations, but these advantages can be offset if formula-based allocations are perceived to under- or over-fund some jurisdictions, which may result from how guaranteed minimum funding levels are set or from "hold-harmless" provisions intended to blunt the effects of changes in formula design or random variations in source data. While fairness is considered an advantage of formula-based allocations, the design of a formula may implicitly reflect unquestioned values concerning equity versus equivalence in setting funding policies. Whether or how past or projected trends are taken into account can also have substantial impacts on allocations.
Insufficient attention has been focused on how the approach to designing funding formulas in public health should differ for treatment or service versus prevention programs. Further evaluations of formula-based versus competitive allocation methods are needed to promote the optimal use of public health funds. In the meantime, those who use formula-based strategies to allocate funds should be familiar with the nuances of this approach.
每当公共卫生机构决定如何在各辖区分配项目资金时,争议和辩论就可能出现。进行此类分配的两种常见策略是对竞争性申请进行专家评审和使用资金分配公式。尽管美国公共卫生机构广泛使用资金分配公式,但公共卫生领域的公式分配策略相对较少受到正式审查,值得注意的例外是对艾滋病护理项目公式资金的关注。为了为关于选择基于公式的方法的辩论和审议提供信息,我们根据对美国联邦项目的先前审查,总结了基于公式的资金分配的关键挑战。
主要挑战在于确定既反映项目目标又服务于项目目标的数据来源和公式计算方法,无论是否针对服务提供成本、当地资源可用性、能力或绩效的差异进行调整。简单性和透明度是基于公式的分配的主要优点,但如果基于公式的分配被认为对某些辖区资金不足或资金过剩,这些优点可能会被抵消,这可能是由于保证最低资金水平的设定方式,或者是由于旨在减轻公式设计变化或源数据随机变化影响的“不受损失”条款。虽然公平被认为是基于公式的分配的一个优点,但公式的设计可能在设定资金政策时隐含地反映了关于公平与等效性的未经质疑的价值观。是否以及如何考虑过去或预计的趋势也会对分配产生重大影响。
对于公共卫生领域中治疗或服务项目与预防项目在设计资金分配公式的方法上应如何不同,关注不足。需要对基于公式的分配方法与竞争性分配方法进行进一步评估,以促进公共卫生资金的最佳使用。与此同时,那些使用基于公式的策略分配资金的人应该熟悉这种方法的细微差别。