Empowerment for Healthy Cities and Communities in Korea

The Healthy Cities project started in 1998 in Korea. Around the world, public health and healthy cities are becoming bigger and bigger priorities. Capacity mapping is an important tool for improving a country’s health status. This study aims to review the initiation of the Korean “Healthy City” project. Korea follows a bottom-up approach for the development of Healthy City policies and has implemented plans accordingly. Korea has created a unique program through Healthy Cities; it has developed a Healthy City act, indicators for evaluating the program, a health impact assessment program, an award system, and a domestic networking system.     

Health for all: a public health vision.

The approach of a millennial passage invites public health to a review of past performance and a preview of future prospects toward assuring a healthy public. Since the 1974 Canadian Lalonde report, the best national plans for health progress have emphasized disease prevention and health promotion. WHO's multinational Health for All by the Year 2000 promotes basic health services essential to leading a socially and economically productive life. Healthy People 2000, the latest US guide, establishes three goals: increase healthy life span, reduce health disparities, and achieve universal access to preventive services. Its objectives can be used to excite public understanding, equip program development, evaluate progress, and encourage public accountability for health initiatives. Needed is federal leadership in defining requisite action and securing necessary resources. Elsewhere a "new public health" emphasizes community life-style and multisectoral "healthy public policy." In the United States, a national health program is needed to achieve equity in access to personal health care. Even more essential is equitable sharing in basic health determinants in society--nutritious food, basic education, safe water, decent housing, secure employment, adequate income, and peace. Vital to such a future is able and active leadership now from governments and public health professionals.     

Results of the 2004 National Worksite Health Promotion Survey

Objectives. We examined worksite health promotion programs, policies, and services to monitor the achievement of the Healthy People 2010 worksite-related goal of 75% of worksites offering a comprehensive worksite health promotion program.Methods. We conducted a nationally representative, cross-sectional telephone survey of worksite health promotion programs stratified by worksite size and industry type. Techniques appropriate for analyzing complex surveys were used to compute point estimates, confidence intervals, and multivariate statistics.Results. Worksites with more than 750 employees consistently offered more programs, policies, and services than did smaller worksites. Only 6.9% of responding worksites offered a comprehensive worksite health promotion program. Sites with a staff person dedicated to and responsible for health promotion were significantly more likely to offer a comprehensive program, and sites in the agriculture and mining or financial services sector were significantly less likely than those in other industry sectors to offer such a program.Conclusions. Increasing the number, quality, and types of health promotion programs at worksites, especially smaller worksites, remains an important public health goal.Worksites are important public health settings because the majority of US adults spend considerable amounts of time at work, and the work environment exerts an independent influence on employee health. Addressing both the work environment and individual health behavior is essential to producing gains in employee health.1^–3 In addition, the “health” of a business depends on strategies that manage both business costs and employee health care costs. Thus, tracking employer efforts to promote health is warranted.In the United States, the first national worksite health promotion survey was conducted in 1985, and follow-up surveys were conducted in 1992, 1999, and 2004. These surveys serve as national benchmarks and as indicators of change over time. One major worksite health–related goal included in Healthy People 2010 is to increase to at least 75% the number of employers that offer a comprehensive health promotion program for employees.4^,5 We examined data form the 2004 National Worksite Health Promotion Survey to monitor the prevalence of worksite health promotion programs, policies, services, and supportive environments and to assess the implications of the survey’s results for public health practice and research.     

Hospital health promotion: swimming or sinking in an upstream business?

Healthy People 2000 (HP 2000) calls on hospitals to offer health promotion programs addressing priority health needs of the community. Historically, this upstream initiative has not been present in health care. With the increasing provision of these programs, this case study examined their content to further understand potential public health impact. The health promotion programs offered to the community--both the general public and corporate employees--by an urban Midwest hospital were assessed over 1 year. This article presents a content analysis of 216 programs that was conducted by measuring seven variables: target group, presentation format, fee, health focus, program providers, contact frequency, and activity. Based on this single case study, hospitals appear to be addressing objectives set forth by HP 2000 for community hospitals. Although moving upstream with health promotion, an analysis of program content suggests modifications may be necessary in order to serve as effective interventions for health priorities.     

Health priorities in Brazil in the 1990s: three policies, many lessons]

This paper, which focuses on the Brazilian Ministry of Health's agenda as the national health authority between 1990 and 2002, identifies and analyzes Ministry priorities. Three main policies were identified for the period: decentralization, establishment of a family health program, and the policy to combat AIDS. In general, the initial design of these policies was consistent with the guidelines of the Brazilian public health system (SUS). However, discrepancies were found between the universalistic agenda of the Brazilian health reform carried out in the 1980s and the hegemonic agenda of state reform that prevailed in the country in the 1990s, which had liberal roots and did not favor the expansion of government actions and comprehensive social policies. Within this unfavorable political and economic context, the development of specific health policies prioritized by the Brazilian Ministry of Health revealed unsolved problems and gaps in the public health system and limitations in the Ministry's ability to exercise its role as national health authority.     

公共卫生在健康中国建设中的地位和作用

健康中国建设是国家战略,是建成全面小康社会的重要基础,具有重大意义。公共卫生在健康中国建设中具有重要地位和作用。健康中国建设必须坚持把人民健康放在优先发展的战略位置;坚持把建设健康中国作为奋斗目标;坚持正确的卫生与健康工作方针;坚持“大健康”的发展理念;坚持卫生与健康事业发展的公益性;坚持以改革创新为推进健康中国建设的根本动力;坚持把人才队伍建设作为核心要素。健康中国建设要坚持预防为主,全面提高人民健康水平,加强慢性病防控;加强健康教育;塑造自主自律的健康行为;提高全民身体素质;强化覆盖全民的公共卫生服务;充分发挥中医药独特优势;加强重点人群健康服务;深入开展爱国卫生运动;加强影响健康的环境问题治理。公共卫生在健康中国建设中必须坚持政府主导,预防为主方针;坚持大卫生观念和国家公共卫生的基本职能;坚持大众生态健康模型,推进医学整合发展;坚持人才战略,加强公共卫生队伍的能力建设;坚持科研为依托,切实抓好公共卫生基础研究;坚持科学、规范、有序,抓好常规公共卫生工作,确保常规与应急协调发展;坚持循证决策,早日实现公共卫生服务均等化。健康中国、健康一生都需要健康的环境支持。要携手共同应对全球的公共卫生问题,促进全球健康。在健康中国建设的新时代,要全方位、全周期保障人民健康,走出一条中国特色卫生与健康发展道路,为新时代中国特色社会主义伟大实践做出贡献。     

Transforming a traditional safety net into a coordinated care system: lessons from healthy San Francisco

Since 2007, San Francisco, California, has transformed its traditional safety-net health care "system"-in reality, an amalgam of a public hospital, private nonprofit hospitals, public and private clinics, and community health centers-into a comprehensive health care program called Healthy San Francisco. The experience offers lessons in how other local safety-net systems can prepare for profound changes under health reform. By July 2010, 53,546 adults had enrolled (70-89 percent of uninsured adults in San Francisco), and satisfaction is high (94 percent). Unnecessary emergency department visits were less common among enrollees (7.9 percent) than among Medicaid managed care recipients (15 percent). These findings indicate that other safety-net systems would do well to invest in information technology, establish primary care homes, increase coordination of care, and improve customer service as provisions of the national health care reform law phase in.     

Program,Policy, and Price Interventions for Tobacco Control: Quantifying the Return on Investment of a State Tobacco Control Program

Objectives. We examined health effects associated with 3 tobacco control interventions in Washington State: a comprehensive state program, a state policy banning smoking in public places, and price increases.Methods. We used linear regression models to predict changes in smoking prevalence and specific tobacco-related health conditions associated with the interventions. We estimated dollars saved over 10 years (2000–2009) by the value of hospitalizations prevented, discounting for national trends.Results. Smoking declines in the state exceeded declines in the nation. Of the interventions, the state program had the most consistent and largest effect on trends for heart disease, cerebrovascular disease, respiratory disease, and cancer. Over 10 years, implementation of the program was associated with prevention of nearly 36 000 hospitalizations, at a value of about $1.5 billion. The return on investment for the state program was more than $5 to $1.Conclusions. The combined program, policy, and price interventions resulted in reductions in smoking and related health effects, while saving money. Public health and other leaders should continue to invest in tobacco control, including comprehensive programs.Price increases, policies establishing smoke-free public places, and comprehensive tobacco control programs are all proven strategies for reducing smoking prevalence.1,2 Furthermore, implementation of comprehensive programs that reduce smoking have been shown to reduce tobacco-related health conditions, such as heart disease3 and cancer.4,5 Laws mandating smoke-free air have also been associated with a reduction in health conditions caused by smoking or environmental tobacco smoke exposure.6–13 A recent review of specific tobacco control interventions found that most are cost effective.14In the face of current economic conditions and limited budgets, policymakers may wonder whether implementing a tax on tobacco can produce revenue and decrease smoking without the cost of a program. Similarly, they may wonder whether a smoke-free policy may improve public health at little cost, while generating revenue.15 They may also question the return on investment from tobacco control programs. State programs have declined in priority in recent years, and state funding remains substantially lower than levels recommended by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.16Washington State has effectively used all 3 cornerstone tobacco control interventions: program, policy, and price. The state has had a well-funded comprehensive tobacco prevention and control program since late 2000, a statewide smoke-free public places law since December 2005,17 and multiple cigarette tax increases. A previous study reported that significant declines in smoking were achieved by the state''s total tobacco control effort.18We examined the relative magnitude of effect on smoking and health from the 3 cornerstone tobacco control interventions and assessed the return on investment (ROI) for the state''s tobacco control program after 10 years. Our study was the first that we are aware of to comprehensively examine the association between multiple specific health conditions and multiple proven tobacco control interventions.     

Bringing comprehensive health education to the New York City Public Schools: a private-public success story.

The New York Academy of Medicine has pioneered a far-sighted effort which successfully introduced two model health education curricula into the New York City Public Schools at both the elementary and middle school levels. The curriculums for kindergarten through sixth grades, Growing Healthy, are currently being used in 525 of New York''s 625 elementary schools, and the curriculum for seventh and eighth grades, Being Healthy, is in place in 60 of 200 junior high schools. These curricula offer a comprehensive approach to health education that promotes emotional well-being as well as physical health by improving health behaviors, attitudes, and academic performance of students through hands-on and interactive activities which develop decision-making skills and the ability to make healthful choices. The program has met with ongoing success and expanding influence, as the result of several important factors. First, the New York Academy of Medicine took a leadership role in supporting a venture outside its own walls and became an active advocate for comprehensive health education in the public schools. The Academy''s standing as a prestigious yet independent medical association brought influence to the organizing efforts and contributed the credibility needed to get the program off the ground. Second, the Division of Student Support Services of the New York City Public Schools gave strong acceptance and cooperation leading to ongoing financial support and institutionalization of the program. Added to that is the enthusiasm of teachers, administrators, and other in-school personnel who have made the lessons of Growing Healthy and Being Healthy meaningful by reaching hundreds of thousands of students across New York City. Another important factor is the oversight and longevity which has been provided by the unusual gathering of doctors, educators, public health specialists, funders, and city administrators who created an effective private-public coalition 15 years ago and have remained committed to working together. Last through its ongoing efforts, the Academy''s Office of School Health Programs has stayed at the forefront of developments in health education. By continuing to evaluate their activities and by constantly integrating new materials into the existing curricular framework, they have demonstrated that a comprehensive health education program can be both meaningful to children and responsive to community needs by reflecting current public health issues and concerns.     

Leveraging Geospatial Data,Technology, and Methods for Improving the Health of Communities: Priorities and Strategies from an Expert Panel Convened by the CDC

In 2008, CDC convened an expert panel to gather input on the use of geospatial science in surveillance, research and program activities focused on CDC’s Healthy Communities Goal. The panel suggested six priorities: spatially enable and strengthen public health surveillance infrastructure; develop metrics for geospatial categorization of community health and health inequity; evaluate the feasibility and validity of standard metrics of community health and health inequities; support and develop GIScience and geospatial analysis; provide geospatial capacity building, training and education; and, engage non-traditional partners. Following the meeting, the strategies and action items suggested by the expert panel were reviewed by a CDC subcommittee to determine priorities relative to ongoing CDC geospatial activities, recognizing that many activities may need to occur either in parallel, or occur multiple times across phases. Phase A of the action items centers on developing leadership support. Phase B focuses on developing internal and external capacity in both physical (e.g., software and hardware) and intellectual infrastructure. Phase C of the action items plan concerns the development and integration of geospatial methods. In summary, the panel members provided critical input to the development of CDC’s strategic thinking on integrating geospatial methods and research issues across program efforts in support of its Healthy Communities Goal.     

Planning for the North Carolina healthy homes initiative

Substandard housing conditions have been linked to widespread childhood environmental health ailments, including two of the leading causes of childhood morbidity: lead poisoning and asthma. In 2009, the United States Surgeon General called for action around healthy homes. Improving home health environments can alleviate the cycle of childhood morbidity and mortality. The North Carolina (NC) Department of Environment and Natural Resources Children's Environmental Health Branch is working to build capacity at the State level to expand the childhood lead poisoning prevention program to respond to additional in-home environmental health issues. To achieve this objective, North Carolina must consider recommendations for assessment, management, and evaluation. This paper will situate healthy homes on the national public health agenda; discuss ways that healthy homes programs address children's environmental health disparities; introduce the NC Healthy Homes Initiative; explore current healthy housing efforts in North Carolina through an examination of the Guilford County Healthy Homes Initiative; and provide recommendations for the NC Healthy Homes Initiative to address children's environmental health disparities.     

Impact of the China Healthy Cities Initiative on Urban Environment

The China Healthy Cities initiative, a nationwide public health campaign, has been implemented for 25 years. As “Healthy China 2030” becomes the key national strategy for improving population health, this initiative is an important component. However, the effects of the initiative have not been well studied. This paper aims to explore its impact on urban environment using a multiple time series design. We adopted a stratified and systematic sampling method to choose 15 China healthy cities across the country. For the selected healthy cities, 1:1 matched non-healthy cities were selected as the comparison group. We collected longitudinal data from 5 years before cities achieved the healthy city title up to 2012. We used hierarchical models to calculate difference-in-differences estimates for examining the impact of the initiative. We found that the China Healthy Cities initiative was associated with increases in the proportion of urban domestic sewage treated (32 percentage points), the proportion of urban domestic garbage treated (30 percentage points), and the proportion of qualified farmers’ markets (40 percentage points), all of which are statistically significant (P?<?0.05). No significant change was found for increases in green coverage of urban built-up area (5 percentage points), green space per capita (2 square meter), and days with Air Quality Index/Air Pollution Index?≤?100 (25 days). In conclusion, the China Healthy Cities initiative was associated with significant improved urban environment in terms of infrastructure construction, yet had little impact on green space and air quality.     

Who Would Pay Higher Taxes for Better Mental Health? Results of a Large‐Sample National Choice Experiment

Policy Points

•  Public funding for mental health programs must compete with other funding priorities in limited state budgets.
•  Valuing state‐funded mental health programs in a policy‐relevant context requires consideration of how much benefit from other programs the public is willing to forgo to increase mental health program benefits and how much the public is willing to be taxed for such program benefits.
•  Taxpayer resistance to increased taxes to pay for publicly funded mental health programs and perceived benefits of such programs vary with state population size.
•  In all states, taxpayers seem to support increased public funding for mental health programs such as state Medicaid services, suggesting such programs are underfunded from the perspective of the average taxpayer.

ContextThe direct and indirect impacts of serious mental illness (SMI) on health care systems and communities represents a significant burden. However, the value that community members place on alleviating this burden is not known, and SMI treatment must compete with a long list of other publicly funded priorities. This study defines the value of public mental health interventions as what the public would accept, either in the form of higher taxes or in reductions in nonhealth programs, in return for increases in the number of mental health program beneficiaries.MethodsWe developed and fielded a best‐practice discrete‐choice experiment survey to quantify respondents’ willingness to be taxed for increased spending among several competing programs, including a program for treating severe mental health conditions. A realistic decision frame was used to elicit respondents’ willingness to support expanded state budgets for mental health programs if that expansion required either cuts in the competing publicly financed programs or tax increases. The survey was administered to a general population national sample of 10,000 respondents.FindingsNearly half the respondents in our sample either chose “no budget increase” for all budget scenarios or had preferences that were too disordered to estimate trade‐off values. Including zero values for those respondents, we found that the mean (median) amount that all respondents were willing to be taxed annually for public mental health programs ranged between $156 ($99) per year for large‐population states and $343 ($181) per year for small‐population states. Respondents would accept reductions of between 1.6 and 3.4 beneficiaries in other programs in return for 1 additional mental health program beneficiary.ConclusionsOur results are consistent with findings that a substantial portion of the US public is unwilling to pay higher taxes. Nevertheless, even including the substantial number of respondents who opposed any tax increase, the willingness of both the mean and median respondent to be taxed for mental health program expansions implies that programs providing mental health services such as state Medicaid are underfunded.     

Healthy Cities projects

This is a review article on "Healthy Cities". The Healthy Cities programme has been developed by the World Health Organization (WHO) to tackle urban health and environmental issues in a broad way. It is a kind of comprehensive policy package to carry out individual projects and activities effectively and efficiently. Its key aspects include healthy public policy, vision sharing, high political commitment, establishment of structural organization, strategic health planning, intersectoral collaboration, community participation, setting approach, development of supportive environment for health, formation of city health profile, national and international networking, participatory research, periodic monitoring and evaluation, and mechanisms for sustainability of projects. The present paper covered the Healthy Cities concept and approaches, rapid urbanization in the world, developments of WHO Healthy Cities, Healthy Cities developments in the Western Pacific Region, the health promotion viewpoint, and roles of research.     

Rural healthy people 2010--evolving interactive practice

The objectives of the Rural Healthy People 2010 project are to employ a survey of state and local rural health leaders to identify rural health priorities, to synthesize available research and other publications on these priorities, to identify and describe models for practice employed by rural communities to address these priorities, and to disseminate this information to rural communities. We describe these priorities; the content of Rural Healthy People 2010 products, methods, and target audiences; and the continuing evolution of the program. Rural Healthy People 2010 encourages rural support of Healthy People 2010 goals and invites state and local rural health leaders to share their successful models with others.     

Financial impact of population health management programs: reevaluating the literature

Although many employers offer some components of worksite-based population health management (PHM), most do not yet invest in comprehensive programs. This hesitation to invest in comprehensive programs may be attributed to numerous factors, such as other more pressing business priorities, reluctance to intervene in the personal health choices of employees, or insufficient funds for employee health. Many decision makers also remain skeptical about whether investment in comprehensive programs will produce a financial return on investment (ROI). Most peer-reviewed studies assessing the financial impact of PHM were published before 2000 and include a broad array of program and study designs. Many of these studies have also included indirect productivity savings in their assessment of financial outcomes. In contrast, this review includes only peer-reviewed studies of the direct health care cost impact of comprehensive PHM programs that meet rigorous methodological criteria. A systematic search of health sciences databases identified only 5 studies with program designs and study methods meeting these selection criteria published after 2007. This focused review found that comprehensive PHM programs can yield a positive ROI based on their impact on direct health care costs, but the level of ROI achieved was lower than that reported by literature reviews with less focused and restrictive qualifying criteria. To yield substantial short-term health care cost savings, the longer term financial return that can credibly be associated with a comprehensive, prevention-oriented population health program must be augmented by other financial impact strategies.     

Skin cancer prevention: the problem, responses, and lessons learned.

Skin cancer is one of the most common forms of cancer and has rapidly increased during the past three decades in the United States. More than 1 million new cases of skin cancer are estimated to be diagnosed in the United States each year. The National Skin Cancer Prevention Education Program (NSCPEP) was launched by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) in 1994 as a national effort to address the Healthy People 2000 objectives for skin cancer prevention. The NSCPEP is a comprehensive, multidimensional public health approach that includes (1) primary prevention interventions; (2) coalition and partnership development; (3) health communications and education; and (4) surveillance, research, and evaluation. In 1994, through support from the CDC, state health departments in Arizona, California, Georgia, Hawaii, and Massachusetts initiated primary prevention intervention projects to conduct and evaluate skin cancer prevention education. This article discusses the comprehensive, multidimensional public health approach highlighting examples from the state demonstration projects.