Assessment of Population Health Risks of Policies Gabriel Guliš, Odile Mekel, Balázs Ádám, and Liliana Cori, editors Public health continues to evolve as professionals work not only to prevent disease and promote well-being but also to reduce health disparities and protect the environment. To a greater extent, policy is intimately linked to this process, a reality that is gaining traction in the public health sector. With this understanding in mind, Assessment of Population Health Risks of Policies introduces an international set of guidelines, Risk Assessment from Policies to Impact Dimension (RAPID). In keeping with widely recognized models of public health operations, this innovative methodology factors in social, environmental, and economic health determinants to predict adverse outcomes to populations arising from large-scale policy decisions. Case studies from across the European Union illustrate both the intricacies of risk quantification and other components of assessment and possible relationships between policy and health outcomes. And contributors suggest how international health standards may be implemented despite significant cultural and political differences among nations. Included in the coverage: Public health, policy analysis, risk assessment and impact assessment Risk assessment, impact assessment and evaluation Top-down versus bottom-up policy risk assessment Quantification of health risks Application of RAPID guidance on an international policy Use of policy risk assessment results in political decision making Assessment of Population Health Risks of Policies is an essential and proactive read for researchers and practitioners in impact assessment, public policy, public health, and epidemiology.

The anthrax incidents following the 9/11 terrorist attacks put the spotlight on the nation's public health agencies, placing it under an unprecedented scrutiny that added new dimensions to the complex issues considered in this report. The Future of the Public's Health in the 21st Century reaffirms the vision of Healthy People 2010, and outlines a systems approach to assuring the nation's health in practice, research, and policy. This approach focuses on joining the unique resources and perspectives of diverse sectors and entities and challenges these groups to work in a concerted, strategic way to promote and protect the public's health. Focusing on diverse partnerships as the framework for public health, the book discusses: The need for a shift from an individual to a population-based approach in practice, research, policy, and community engagement. The status of the governmental public health infrastructure and what needs to be improved, including its interface with the health care delivery system. The roles nongovernment actors, such as academia, business, local communities and the media can play in creating a healthy nation. Providing an accessible analysis, this book will be important to public health policy-makers and practitioners, business and community leaders, health advocates, educators and journalists.

Prevention, Policy, and Public Health provides a basic foundation for students, professionals, and researchers to be more effective in the policy arena. It offers information on the dynamics of the policymaking process, theoretical frameworks, analysis, and policy applications. It also offers coverage of advocacy and communication, the two most integral aspects of shaping policies for public health.

"The Nation has lost sight of its public health goals and has allowed the system of public health to fall into 'disarray'," from The Future of Public Health. This startling book contains proposals for ensuring that public health service programs are efficient and effective enough to deal not only with the topics of today, but also with those of tomorrow. In addition, the authors make recommendations for core functions in public health assessment, policy development, and service assurances, and identify the level of government--federal, state, and local--at which these functions would best be handled.

The Global Burden of Disease (GBD) provides systematic epidemiological estimates for an unprecedented 150 major health conditions. The GBD provides indispensable global and regional data for health planning, research, and education.

In fact, with the control and containment of most infectious conditions and diseases of the past millennium having been achieved in most developed countries, and with the resultant increase in life expectancies, much more attention seems to have shifted to degenerative health problems. Many of the degenerative health conditions have been linked to thousands of chemicals regularly encountered in human living and occupational/work environments. It is important, therefore, that human health risk assessments are undertaken on a consistent basis - in order to determine the potential impacts of the target chemicals on public health.

In the United States, some populations suffer from far greater disparities in health than others. Those disparities are caused not only by fundamental differences in health status across segments of the population, but also because of inequities in factors that impact health status, so-called determinants of health. Only part of an individual's health status depends on his or her behavior and choice; community-wide problems like poverty, unemployment, poor education, inadequate housing, poor public transportation, interpersonal violence, and decaying neighborhoods also contribute to health inequities, as well as the historic and ongoing interplay of structures, policies, and norms that shape lives. When these factors are not optimal in a community, it does not mean they are intractable: such inequities can be mitigated by social policies that can shape health in powerful ways. Communities in Action: Pathways to Health Equity seeks to delineate the causes of and the solutions to health inequities in the United States. This report focuses on what communities can do to promote health equity, what actions are needed by the many and varied stakeholders that are part of communities or support them, as well as the root causes and structural barriers that need to be overcome.

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) have been moving from volume-based, fee-for-service payment to value-based payment (VBP), which aims to improve health care quality, health outcomes, and patient care experiences, while also controlling costs. Since the passage of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010, CMS has implemented a variety of VBP strategies, including incentive programs and risk-based alternative payment models. Early evidence from these programs raised concerns about potential unintended consequences for health equity. Specifically, emerging evidence suggests that providers disproportionately serving patients with social risk factors for poor health outcomes (e.g., individuals with low socioeconomic position, racial and ethnic minorities, gender and sexual minorities, socially isolated persons, and individuals residing in disadvantaged neighborhoods) may be more likely to fare poorly on quality rankings and to receive financial penalties, and less likely to receive financial rewards. The drivers of these disparities are poorly understood, and differences in interpretation have led to divergent concerns about the potential effect of VBP on health equity. Some suggest that underlying differences in patient characteristics that are out of the control of providers lead to differences in health outcomes. At the same time, others are concerned that differences in outcomes between providers serving socially at-risk populations and providers serving the general population reflect disparities in the provision of health care. Systems Practices for the Care of Socially At-Risk Populations seeks to better distinguish the drivers of variations in performance among providers disproportionately serving socially at-risk populations and identifies methods to account for social risk factors in Medicare payment programs. This report identifies best practices of high-performing hospitals, health plans, and other providers that serve disproportionately higher shares of socioeconomically disadvantaged populations and compares those best practices of low-performing providers serving similar patient populations. It is the second in a series of five brief reports that aim to inform the Office of the Assistant Secretary of Planning and Evaluation (ASPE) analyses that account for social risk factors in Medicare payment programs mandated through the Improving Medicare Post-Acute Care Transformation (IMPACT) Act.

Many Americans believe that people who lack health insurance somehow get the care they really need. Care Without Coverage examines the real consequences for adults who lack health insurance. The study presents findings in the areas of prevention and screening, cancer, chronic illness, hospital-based care, and general health status. The committee looked at the consequences of being uninsured for people suffering from cancer, diabetes, HIV infection and AIDS, heart and kidney disease, mental illness, traumatic injuries, and heart attacks. It focused on the roughly 30 million-one in seven-working-age Americans without health insurance. This group does not include the population over 65 that is covered by Medicare or the nearly 10 million children who are uninsured in this country. The main findings of the report are that working-age Americans without health insurance are more likely to receive too little medical care and receive it too late; be sicker and die sooner; and receive poorer care when they are in the hospital, even for acute situations like a motor vehicle crash.

This volume is for students and practitioners interested in improving their understanding and skills in the area of needs assessment. The text follows the typical sequence of an actual needs assessment process. Case studies are used to illustrate conceptualization of the task through the application of needs-based data to effective public health solutions. Examples are drawn from myriad public health efforts, recognizing that not all public health sector agencies bear direct responsibility for all activities that could be considered part of public health.