Leider Jonathon P
De Beaumont Foundation, Bethesda; and Office of Public Health Practice and Training, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, Maryland.
J Public Health Manag Pract. 2016 Mar-Apr;22(2):E1-11. doi: 10.1097/PHH.0b013e3182941a7b.
Accurate information on how much the United States spends on public health is critical. These estimates affect planning efforts; reflect the value society places on the public health enterprise; and allows for the demonstration of cost-effectiveness of programs, policies, and services aimed at increasing population health. Yet, at present, there are a limited number of sources of systematic public health finance data. Each of these sources is collected in different ways, for different reasons, and so yields strikingly different results. This article aims to compare and contrast all 4 current national public health finance data sets, including data compiled by Trust for America's Health, the Association of State and Territorial Health Officials (ASTHO), the National Association of County and City Health Officials (NACCHO), and the Census, which underlie the oft-cited National Health Expenditure Account estimates of public health activity. In FY2008, ASTHO estimates that state health agencies spent $24 billion ($94 per capita on average, median $79), while the Census estimated all state governmental agencies including state health agencies spent $60 billion on public health ($200 per capita on average, median $166). Census public health data suggest that local governments spent an average of $87 per capita (median $57), whereas NACCHO estimates that reporting LHDs spent $64 per capita on average (median $36) in FY2008. We conclude that these estimates differ because the various organizations collect data using different means, data definitions, and inclusion/exclusion criteria--most notably around whether to include spending by all agencies versus a state/local health department, and whether behavioral health, disability, and some clinical care spending are included in estimates. Alongside deeper analysis of presently underutilized Census administrative data, we see harmonization efforts and the creation of a standardized expenditure reporting system as a way to meaningfully systematize reporting of public health spending and revenue.
准确了解美国在公共卫生方面的支出情况至关重要。这些估计数会影响规划工作;反映社会对公共卫生事业的重视程度;并有助于证明旨在提高人口健康水平的项目、政策和服务的成本效益。然而,目前系统性公共卫生财政数据的来源有限。这些来源中的每一个都是以不同的方式、出于不同的原因收集的,因此得出的结果差异显著。本文旨在比较和对比当前所有4个国家公共卫生财政数据集,包括美国健康信托组织、州和领地卫生官员协会(ASTHO)、县和城市卫生官员全国协会(NACCHO)以及人口普查局汇编的数据,这些数据构成了经常被引用的国家卫生支出账户对公共卫生活动的估计基础。在2008财年,ASTHO估计州卫生机构支出240亿美元(人均平均94美元,中位数79美元),而人口普查局估计包括州卫生机构在内的所有州政府机构在公共卫生方面支出600亿美元(人均平均200美元,中位数166美元)。人口普查局的公共卫生数据表明,地方政府人均平均支出87美元(中位数57美元),而NACCHO估计,在2008财年,报告的地方卫生部门人均平均支出64美元(中位数36美元)。我们得出结论,这些估计数存在差异是因为各组织使用不同的方法、数据定义和纳入/排除标准来收集数据——最显著的是围绕是否包括所有机构的支出与州/地方卫生部门的支出,以及行为健康、残疾和一些临床护理支出是否包含在估计数中。除了对目前未充分利用的人口普查行政数据进行更深入的分析外,我们认为协调努力和创建标准化支出报告系统是有意义地系统化公共卫生支出和收入报告的一种方式。