Family planning funding through four federal-state programs, FY 1997.

CONTEXT: The maternal and child health (MCH) and the social services block grants have long played an important role in the provision of family planning services in the United States. The extent to which states have incorporated family planning services into the newer federally funded, but state-controlled, programs--Temporary Aid to Needy Families (TANF) and the State Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP)--has yet to be identified. METHODS: The health and social services agencies in all U.S. states, the District of Columbia and five federal jurisdictions were queried regarding their family planning expenditures and activities through the MCH and social services block grants and the TANF program in FY 1997. In addition, the states' CHIP plans were analyzed following their approval by the federal government. Because of differences in methodology, these findings cannot be compared with those of previous attempts to determine public expenditures for contraceptive services and supplies. RESULTS: In FY 1997, 42 states, the District of Columbia and two federal jurisdictions spent $41 million on family planning through the MCH program. Fifteen states reported spending $27 million through the social services block grant. Most of these jurisdictions indicated that they provide direct patient care services, most frequently contraceptive services and supplies. Indirect services--most often population-based efforts such as outreach and public education--were reported to have been provided more often through the MCH program than through the social services program. MCH block grant funds were more likely to go to local health departments, while social services block grant funds were more likely to be channeled through Planned Parenthood affiliates. Four states reported family planning activities funded under TANF in FY 1997, the first year of the program's operation. Virtually all state plans for the implementation of the CHIP program appear to include coverage of family planning services and supplies for the adolescents covered under the program, even when not specifically required to do so by federal law. CONCLUSIONS: Joining two existing--but frequently overlooked--block grants, two new, largely state-controlled programs are poised to become important sources of support for publicly funded family planning services. Now more than ever, supporters of family planning services need to look beyond the traditional sources of support--Title X and Medicaid--as well as beyond the federal level to the states, where important program decisions are increasingly being made.     

Public funding of contraceptive, sterilization and abortion services, 1982

The federal government and the states spent $328 million to support the provision of contraceptive services in fiscal 1982, 13 percent less than they had spent the previous year. Federal funds for family planning services came from Title X of the Public Health Service Act, Title XIX of the Social Security Act (Medicaid), and the Maternal and Child Health (MCH) and Social Services block grants, which are administered by the states. Title X continued to provide the largest, although a diminishing, share of public funds for contraceptive services--36 percent of all such funds in 1982. (In 1980, Title X had accounted for 44 percent of public funding.) Medicaid expenditures for family planning totaled $94 million; $17 million was spent under the MCH block grant, and $46 million under the Social Services block grant. State governments contributed an additional $53 million, about the same figure reported for the previous year, indicating that the states did not use their own funds to soften the impact of cuts in federal expenditures for contraceptive services in 1982. The federal government and the states spent an estimated $55 million, almost all of it through Medicaid, to provide sterilization services for poor women. The states spent $67 million and the federal government spent $1 million to provide abortions for 210,000 indigent women. These figures come from the 11th annual survey of state health and welfare agencies and state Medicaid programs by The Alan Guttmacher Institute (AGI). The AGI conducted this survey in January 1983 to determine the levels and sources of public funding for contraceptive, sterilization and abortion services in each state during FY 1982.     

State administration and financing of family planning services

A 1971 survey by the Center for Family Planning Program Development consisted of a questionnaire mailed to health and welfare directors in 50 states and 5 federal jurisdictions concerning their family planning policies and administrative practices. 52 agencies responded; Guam, Mississippi, and Louisiana did not. The major funding for state health agencies was allocated by HEW and by maternal and child health (MCH) formula grants under Title 5 of the Social Security Act. 11 states made additional expenditures of $1.7 million for a variety of purposes. 21 states required local welfare departments to purchase services under the Medicaid program established by Title 19 of the Social Security Act. Administration was assigned to specific organizations within the state health agencies. 31 states reported a total of 128 full-time professional personnel, with 90 assigned at state headquarters level. In general, on a state-by-state basis, the full-time staff does not correspond to the size of the appropriations. Survey findings were useful measures of resource commitments to family planning services by state health and welfare agencies and provided data on future levels of resource requirements.     

The program implications of administrative relationships between local health departments and state and local government.

A typology of organizational arrangements between state and local public health agencies was used as a framework within which the organizational environment of the local health department was studied for its effects on program development and implementation by local public health departments. Data collected in a national sample of local health officers were used in measuring the effect of four different patterns of administrative relationships on the selected characteristics of local health department programs. Important differences were observed among the four organizational types with regard to constraints on programs and program priorities, and health officers' perceptions of the primary functions of local health departments and sources of local health department funding. These findings were then used as a baseline from which to consider the possible impact of recent federal health budgetary proposals (specifically, block grants) both on existing patterns of intergovernmental relations and on the funding and operation of local health department programs. It was determined that the most likely general development arising from these proposed changes in federal budgetary policy is that the administrative control of state health agencies over those at the local level is likely to be enhanced. Other likely developments include changes in the programs and priorities of local health departments related to reductions in overall funding levels for human services and forced competition for fewer dollars by an enlarged constituency.     

Local public health agency funding: money begets money.

Local public health agencies are funded federal, state, and local revenue sources. There is a common belief that increases from one source will be offset by decreases in others, as when a local agency might decide it must increase taxes in response to lowered federal or state funding. This study tests this belief through a cross-sectional study using data from Missouri local public health agencies, and finds, instead, that money begets money. Local agencies that receive more from federal and state sources also raise more at the local level. Given the particular effectiveness of local funding in improving agency performance, these findings that nonlocal revenues are amplified at the local level, help make the case for higher public health funding from federal and state levels.     

Public funding of contraceptive, sterilization and abortion services, 1985

In FY 1985, the federal and state governments spent $398 million to provide contraceptive services and supplies. The two leading sources of funding were the Medicaid program and Title X of the Public Health Service Act. The former accounted for $137 million, or 34 percent of all public expenditures; and the latter program accounted for $133 million, also 34 percent. Two blockgrant programs--Social Services and Maternal and child Health--provided $40 million and $23 million, respectively; together, they were responsible for 16 percent of public support for contraceptive services. State governments, which spent $64 million of their own revenues, accounted for another 16 percent of funding. The federal and state governments together spent $64 million to subsidize sterilizations in FY 1985. The federal government provided 94 percent of the funding--84 percent through the Medicaid program. In addition, the states and the federal government spent $66 million to subsidize 188,000 abortions; in this case, however, the federal government contributed less than one percent of the funds used. These data come from a survey of state agencies, and should be viewed as approximations rather than as precise figures.     

Collaborative studies program on maternal and child health in New York State, 1981-83

With the passage of the Omnibus Reconciliation Act and the establishment of the block grant system in 1981, responsibility for the direction of many public health programs shifted from Federal to State government. This shift, coupled with funding cutbacks and the constraints of the current economic status of the country, has had an impact on the ability of the service delivery network to maintain service delivery programs. In the implementation of the Maternal and Child Health (MCH) Services Block Grant, collaboration among service, research, and training programs has been emphasized as an essential component to respond to the needs of service agencies and to provide relevant field experience for public health students. A program of projects centered on joint collaboration and support is described in this paper. Two of the 13 projects implemented over a 2-year period are highlighted. In 1981, the MCH Collaborative Studies Program was established, linking Columbia University School of Public Health, the New York State Health Department, and MCH service providers in New York City in an effort to identify underserved MCH populations, assess the impact of funding cutbacks, and define new strategies for service delivery programs. Graduate research assistants are assigned to participating agencies to coordinate the activities of each project.     

A comparative analysis of agencies providing home health services.

This study analyzed hospital-based and community-based home health care agencies by means of a small purposive comparative case analysis. The results revealed that hospital-based agencies were different from community-based agencies in terms of agency organization, management, personnel, revenues and expenditures. The voluntary community-based agencies examined were free-standing, single purpose agencies providing the lion's share of direct services to the home health care population. The hospital-based agencies (and public community-based agencies) examined were components of larger organizational structures. Hospital-based agencies concentrate their activities on case finding, case management, and the coordination of patient services, as well as the direct provision of medical therapy and social services. The type of home health agency, community-based or hospital-based, or those examined has been found to define this agency's primary function. This also determined its personnel/staffing pattern and consequently, to a large extent, its expenditure pattern. Additionally, most revenues for certified home health agencies are derived from cost-based reimbursement methodologies of public funding sources. Therefore, agency surpluses or shortages are primarily associated with personnel expenditures and therefore with agency mission and agency type. This study concludes with a discussion of some trends and events that are likely to affect the home health care agencies of the future.     

MCH Functions Framework: A Guide to the Role of Government in Maternal and Child Health in the 21st Century

Objectives: At the close of the 20th century, the government's role in maternal and child health is in a state of transition. What is needed is a framework defining roles and responsibilities and guidance on how to operationalize these functions. This article presents the Maternal and Child Health (MCH) Functions Framework and discusses its value as an advocacy, planning, evaluation, and educational tool. Methods: The Johns Hopkins Child and Adolescent Health Policy Center developed the Framework in collaboration with leading public health organizations. The process entailed formulating a conceptual approach and facilitating consensus among the relevant organizations. Results: The Framework consists of three main components: (a) a list of ten essential public health services to promote maternal and child health, (b) an outline detailing program functions specific to MCH that apply to all levels of government and to all MCH populations, and (c) selected examples of local, state, and federal activities for implementing MCH program functions. Conclusions: The MCH Functions Framework can be used in advocacy, policy development, program planning, organizational assessment, education, and training. To date, it has been used by several state and local MCH agencies and in MCH education and training programs.     

Capacity of state health agencies to meet nutrition objectives in maternal and child health

Public health nutritionists in 54 official state health agencies were surveyed in 1987 to determine to what extent they were prepared to implement the Model State Nutrition Objectives developed by the Association of State and Territorial Public Health Nutrition Directors. Objectives related to services to the maternal and child health (MCH) population were the focus of one part of the survey. One half of all states have plans for nutrition services integrated into their state MCH plans. More than 75% of state agencies collect data on the nutritional status of pregnant and lactating women, infants, and preschool children. Fewer than half collect data on dietary intake patterns or nutrition knowledge. Thirty-one agencies reported a formal quality assurance program for one or more subsets of the MCH population. At least 75% of all states provide dietary intake recommendations, screening and assessment protocols, and policies concerning referrals to maternal and infant health programs. State health agencies are already involved in activities that will facilitate adoption of the model state nutrition objectives.     

Bringing it All Together: Effective Maternal and Child Health Practice as a Means to Improve Public Health

Effective maternal and child health (MCH) practice requires skillfully combining a number of theoretical models and frameworks to support systems addressing the health needs of women, children, and families. This paper describes three perspectives relevant to current MCH practice: the federal Maternal & Child Health Bureau’s Pyramid of MCH Health Services [1], Frieden’s Health Impact Pyramid [Frieden in Am J Public Health 100(4):590–595, (2010)], and life course theory [Halfon in Milbank Quart, 80:433–79, (2002); Kotelchuck in Matern Child Health J, 7:5–11, (2003); Pies (2009)], an emerging conceptual framework that addresses a number of pressing maternal and child health issues including health disparities and the social determinants of health. While developed independently, a synthesis of these three frameworks provides an important analytical perspective to assess the adequacy and comprehensiveness of current public health programs and systems supporting maternal and child health improvement. Synthesizing these frameworks from the specific vantage point of MCH practice provides public health practitioners with important and dynamic opportunities to promote improvements in health, especially for state and local governmental health agencies with the statutory authority and public accountability for improving the health of women, children, and families in their jurisdictions. A crucial finding of this synthesis is that significant improvements in MCH outcomes at the state and local levels are the result of collaborative, integrated, and synergistic implementation of many different interventions, programs and policies that are carried out by a number of stakeholders, and administered in many different settings. MCH programs have a long history of coordinating disparate sectors of the health care and public health enterprise to create systems of services that improve maternal and child health. Future improvements in MCH build on this legacy but will come from a “paradigm shift” in MCH practice that blends (1) evidence-based interventions and best practices that improve the health of individuals, communities, and populations, and crosscuts health service settings with (2) public policies that promote and improve maternal and child health needs at the local, state, and national levels, and (3) supports MCH leadership to implement such changes in MCH systems nationwide. As such, the challenge presented by this synthesis is not merely technical, i.e. having the scientific and organizational capacity to address identified MCH needs. Instead, a more pressing challenge is providing effective leadership in the coordination and integration of these frameworks and using them in practice to develop a vision that guides programs and policies to improve maternal and child health nationwide.     

Public funding of contraceptive, sterilization and abortion services, fiscal year 1990.

In FY 1990, the federal and state governments spent $504 million to provide contraceptive services and supplies, according to results of a survey of state health, social services and Medicaid agencies conducted by The Alan Guttmacher Institute. Medicaid accounted for 38 percent of all public funds spent on contraceptive services, Title X provided 22 percent, and two federal block-grant programs--Social Services and Maternal and Child Health--together were responsible for 12 percent of public expenditures. State governments accounted for the remaining 28 percent of public funding. Although public expenditures for contraceptive services have risen by $154 million over the past decade, when inflation is taken into account, expenditures have actually fallen by one-third. Since 1980, the proportion of public contraceptive expenditures contributed by Title X has been cut virtually in half, while the proportion contributed by state governments has nearly doubled. When inflation is taken into account, Title X expenditures for contraceptive services have fallen by almost two-thirds since 1980. The federal and state governments together spent $95 million to subsidize sterilization services in 1990, and $65 million to provide abortion services. The federal government was the major source of funding for sterilization services but provided less than one percent of the cost of abortion services. Because of changes over time in survey methodology and the difficulties some states had in separating out expenditures by type of care, these data are approximations.     

Integrating the Life Course into MCH Service Delivery: From Theory to Practice

To describe the efforts of a community-based maternal and child health coalition to integrate the life course into its planning and programs, as well as implementation challenges and results of these activities. Jacksonville-Duval County has historically had infant mortality rates that are significantly higher than state and national rates, particularly among its African American population. In an effort to address this disparity, the Northeast Florida Healthy Start Coalition embraced the life course approach as a model. This model was adopted as a framework for (1) community needs assessment and planning; (2) delivery of direct services, including case management, education and support in the Magnolia Project, its federal Healthy Start program; (3) development of community collaborations, education and awareness; and, (4) advocacy and grass roots leadership development. Implementation experience as well as challenges in transforming traditional approaches to delivering maternal and child health services are described. Operationalizing the life course approach required the Coalition to think differently about risks, levels of intervention and the way services are organized and delivered. The organization set the stage by using the life course as a framework for its required local planning and needs assessments. Based on these assessments, the content of case management and other key services provided by our federal Healthy Start program was modified to address not only health behaviors but also underlying social determinants and community factors. Individual interventions were augmented with group activities to build interdependence among participants, increasing social capital. More meaningful inter-agency collaboration that moved beyond the usual referral relationships were developed to better address participants’ needs. And finally, strategies to cultivate participant advocacy and community leadership skills, were implemented to promote social change at the neighborhood-level. Transforming traditional approaches to delivering maternal and child health services and sustaining change is a long and laborious process. The Coalition has taken the first steps; but its efforts are far from complete. Based on the agency’s initial implementation experience, three areas presented particular challenges: staff, resources and evaluation. The life course is an important addition to the MCH toolbox. Community-based MCH programs should assess how a life course approach can be incorporated into existing programs to broaden their focus, and, potentially, their impact on health disparities and birth outcomes. Some areas to consider include planning and needs assessment, direct service delivery, inter-agency collaboration, and community leadership development. Continued disparities for people of color, despite medical advances, demand new interventions that purposefully address social inequities and promote advocacy among groups that bear a disproportionate burden of infant mortality. Successful transformation of current approaches requires investment in staff training to garner buy-in, flexible resources and the development of new metrics to measure the impact of the life course approach on individual and programmatic outcomes.     

Comparison of FIMR Programs with Other Perinatal Systems Initiatives

OBJECTIVES: While the goals of fetal and infant mortality review (FIMR) programs and other perinatal systems initiatives (PSI) are similar, our knowledge of the processes they use to meet their goals is limited. This article compares a nationwide sample of FIMR programs and PSIs with regard to their roles and involvement in performance of eight essential maternal and child health services (EMCHS) as part of a national evaluation of FIMR. METHODS: The evaluation was a cross-sectional observational study in which geographic units were sampled based on the presence or absence of a FIMR or other PSI using FIMRs as the sampling frame of reference. Telephone interviews were conducted with 74 FIMR and 62 PSI directors in the sampled communities. RESULTS: Both programs performed several of the essential MCH services. FIMRs were significantly more likely to be located in a local health department than were PSIs. The results of multiple logistic regression analyses indicate that the performance of the essential MCH services by the programs was increased when both a FIMR and a PSI were in the community. FIMR programs alone had reduced odds of performing several essential MCH services than did PSIs alone. The findings also indicate that performance of some essential MCH services was reduced for FIMR programs and PSIs located in a local health department. CONCLUSIONS: Comparisons between FIMR and other PSIs suggest that both programs are currently engaged in diverse efforts to attain their goal of improving the health and health care delivery system for pregnant women, infants, and their families. FIMR programs appear to be more circumscribed in their activities than PSIs, but the presence of both programs in a community appears to enhance the programs' performance of the essential MCH services.     

Treading Water: The No-Growth Investment in Health Services Research

There is a “perfect storm” brewing in the American healthcare system. Healthcare spending has grown faster than our economy for many years and is projected to double in as little as 10 years. In spite of what we spend on healthcare, research tells us that we only receive appropriate care half the time. We are simply not getting what we are paying for. Health services research provides the data and the evidence needed to make better decisions, design healthcare benefits, and develop effective policies to optimize healthcare financing, facilitate access to healthcare services, and improve healthcare outcomes. Despite what we know and what we can learn from health services research, federal funding for this important field continues to erode. This article provides a primer on the federal budget process and summarizes findings from the Federal Funding for Health Services Research 2007.Health services research (HSR) explores healthcare costs, quality, and access and seeks ways to improve healthcare delivery, safety, availability, and affordability. HSR has been defined as a “multidisciplinary field of scientific investigation that studies how social factors, financing systems, organizational structures and processes, health technologies, and personal behaviors affect access to healthcare, the quality and cost of healthcare, and ultimately our health and well-being.”1 In particular, HSR identifies what treatments work best when, for whom, and at what sites of service; it evaluates how best to finance healthcare and control spending; it helps inform healthcare benefit design; it translates the innovations from basic bench science into medical practice, allowing providers, health plans, and patients to make more informed health choices. HSR is the link between research and patient care.Since 2003, the Coalition for Health Services Research (coalition) has been tracking the federal government''s investment in HSR by collecting budgetary data from federal agencies that principally fund HSR. The coalition has been collecting annual budgetary data from the federal agencies that fund HSR. In the past 5 years, we have found that despite what we can learn from HSR, there has been an erosion of federal funding for this field, in part because of competing federal priorities, a constrained fiscal climate, and polarizing partisan politics. These trends have likely hindered the ability of the researchers to examine the healthcare system and identify innovative and effective solutions. If left unchecked, the declining investment in HSR may have further implications for the study of health and patient care in the future.This article provides a primer on the federal budget process and summarizes findings from Federal Funding for Health Services Research 2007, the fifth annual report of HSR expenditures.2Federal agencies have not developed or adopted a uniform definition for HSR or standard categories for collecting and reporting data about reimbursement and funding methodologies, health disparities, patient safety, and chronic disease management. Therefore, questions remain about the breadth and scope of activities included in the funding totals presented in this article. Investments in what any one agency has self-reported as “health services research” may not be equivalent to what is reported by another agency. For example, budget numbers can reflect entire agency budgets, including overhead costs or a rough estimate of dollars spent on HSR. Nevertheless, our data offer the best available estimate on the federal government''s investment in this area.     

Federal Sponsorship of Cost-Effectiveness and Related Research in Health Care: 1997–2001

OBJECTIVES: To describe recent federal sponsorship of cost-effectiveness and related health economics research to provide insight into the functioning of existing research support systems and assess the roles of federal health agencies. METHODS: Using the PubMed database, we identified cost-effectiveness and related publications citing support from a US government entity and published during the period of 1997 through 2001, and audited them for information on funding sources, study type, and content focus. RESULTS: Five Department of Health and Human Services agencies and centers and the Veterans Administration are cited as funders in 74% of 520 federally supported health economics publications we identified. Three-fourths of federally supported publications address five areas of high disease burden: infections, cancer, HIV/AIDS, cardiovascular disease, and substance abuse. Other high burden diseases, including mental health, diabetes, and injuries, receive less attention. Federal support of health economics studies of health education and care delivery-intervention types underexamined in the field-is relatively strong but most often focuses on substance abuse or mental health services. Each of the top federal funders has a distinct funding pattern, but there are substantial areas of overlap within which we could not identify content domains specific to one funder or another. CONCLUSIONS: Federal support of health economics research has paralleled growth in the field. Federal funders support projects consistent with their mission and focus on high-burden disease areas. However, overlapping funding areas, ambiguity concerning agency interests within overlapping content areas, and gaps in some disease and intervention areas suggest that the coordination of health economics research funding could be improved.     

Effective MCH Epidemiology in State Health Agencies: Lessons from an Evaluation of the Maternal and Child Health Epidemiology Program (MCHEP)

Objectives: The Maternal and Child Health Epidemiology Program (MCHEP), jointly sponsored by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA), was evaluated in 1996–1997. As part of this evaluation, an effort was undertaken to identify components of effective MCH epidemiology, to examine their prevalence across participating states, and to assess differences with respect to these components between MCHEP and non-MCHEP states. Methods: A case-study evaluation was undertaken in which nine states (five MCHEP and four non-MCHEP) rated themselves on a benchmark questionnaire and participated in interviews conducted during site visits. At the completion of the evaluation, 16 components of effective MCH epidemiology in state health agencies were identified. The nine states were rated by the evaluation team on each component. Ratings across all states and between MCHEP and non-MCHEP states were compared. Results: There was a great deal of variability among the nine states with respect to the presence of the components of effective MCH epidemiology. Components on which the states appeared weakest overall were the presence of adequately trained personnel, the presence of adequate management information systems to support MCH programs, and whether the state health agency's epidemiologic unit understands the MCH planning cycle. States with an MCHEP assignee had a higher overall mean score than non-MCHEP states across all components. There were seven components on which the two groups of states differed. These include whether the MCH director is empowered in the state health agency, whether the state health agency has identified internal epidemiologic capacity building as a priority, and whether analytic leadership is available for MCH epidemiologic activities. Conclusions: Building and maintaining MCH epidemiologic capacity in state health agencies requires attention to a variety of factors. While the presence of an MCH epidemiologist is important, this is only one of many components that must be considered as both the federal and state governments seek to promote and institutionalize effective MCH epidemiology in state health agencies.     

Contributions of public hospitals to regional health care: a population-based analysis of the county health care system serving metropolitan Chicago

To determine the proportions of countywide expenditures and service delivery for the Cook County Health and Hospitals System (CCHHS), we obtained data from the CCHHS budget; CCHHS registration, program, and pharmacy databases; public health departments and organization reports; and federal agency estimates. The annual CCHHS budget of $1.2B represents 3.4% of total Cook County health care expenditures. Eight of the nine population-based proportions of health care services delivered by the CCHHS exceeded this proportion of health expenditures by factors of 1.3-8 times. These services include diagnosis of tuberculosis, sexually transmitted diseases, and cancers; care of very low birth weight babies; primary care for HIV and diabetes; and emergency room and ambulatory visits. This county health care system is a productive contributor to overall health service delivery in Cook County, and its contributions exceed its proportionate funding in eight of nine priority health areas.