Government Spending In Health And Nonhealth Sectors Associated With Improvement In County Health Rankings

McCullough, J. Mac; Leider, Jonathon P.

doi:10.1377/hlthaff.2016.0708

Cited by 62 publications

(63 citation statements)

References 20 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Public programs of social protection register more relative importance than public health care expenditure in explaining life expectancy at birth. The positive influence of social expenditure on health outcomes has been identified previously by Stuckler et al [86], Bradley et al [40,87], Vavken et al [88], and McCullough and Leider [89]. On the other hand, health expenditure financed by the government is in the last position in terms of relative importance.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 62%

Life Expectancy at Birth in Europe: An Econometric Approach Based on Random Forests Methodology

2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The objective of this work is to identify and classify the relative importance of several socioeconomic factors which explain life expectancy at birth in the European Union (EU) countries in the period 2008–2017, paying special attention to greenhouse gas emissions and public environmental expenditures. Methods: The Random Forests methodology was employed, which allows classification of the socioeconomic variables considered in the analysis according to their relative importance to explain health outcomes. Results: Per capita income, the educational level of the population, and the variable AREA (which reflects the subdivision of Europe into four relatively homogeneous areas), followed by the public expenditures on environmental and social protection, are the variables with the highest relevance in explaining life expectancy at birth in Europe over the perip.1 he peusto el correo e inciod 2008–2017. Conclusions: We have identified seven sectors as the main sources of greenhouse gas emissions: Electricity, gas, steam, and air conditioning supply; manufacturing; transportation and storage; agriculture, forestry, and fishing; construction; wholesale and retail trade, repair of motor vehicles and motorcycles; and mining and quarrying. Therefore, any public intervention related to environmental policy should be aimed at these economic sectors. Furthermore, it will be more effective to focus on public programs with higher relevance to the health status of the population, such as environmental and social protection expenditures.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 62%

Life Expectancy at Birth in Europe: An Econometric Approach Based on Random Forests Methodology

2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…McCullough & Leider (71) have recently shown that annual county-level estimates may be constructed by interpolating missing data for each government within a county area. Larger governments are sampled more frequently than smaller ones; most report yearly.…”

Section: Per Capita Expenditure (Dollars)mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Larger governments are sampled more frequently than smaller ones; most report yearly. As such, the approach may be reliable over time and is shown in Figure 3 (71).…”

Section: Per Capita Expenditure (Dollars)mentioning

confidence: 99%

How Much Do We Spend? Creating Historical Estimates of Public Health Expenditures in the United States at the Federal, State, and Local Levels

Leider

Resnick

Bishai

et al. 2024

Annual Review of Public Health

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The United States has a complex governmental public health system. Agencies at the federal, state, and local levels all contribute to the protection and promotion of the population's health. Whether the modern public health system is well situated to deliver essential public health services, however, is an open question. In some part, its readiness relates to how agencies are funded and to what ends. A mix of Federalism, home rule, and happenstance has contributed to a siloed funding system in the United States, whereby health agencies are given particular dollars for particular tasks. Little discretionary funding remains. Furthermore, tracking how much is spent, by whom, and on what is notoriously challenging. This review both outlines the challenges associated with estimating public health spending and explains the known sources of funding that are used to estimate and demonstrate the value of public health spending.

show abstract

“…Compared with the United States, other high-income country populations also tend to have better access (i.e., availability and affordability) to the health care system, and they use [30,31] and invest comparatively more in social services and public policies to promote health. Such investment in health and social services is associated with better population health in peer countries [35], as well as among specific U.S. subpopulations with these investments [36].…”

Section: Understanding the Us Health Disadvantagementioning

confidence: 99%

Implementation Research to Address the United States Health Disadvantage: Report of a National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute Workshop

Engelgau

Narayan

Ezzati

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Four decades ago, U.S. life expectancy was within the same range as other high-income peer countries. However, during the past decades, the United States has fared worse in many key health domains resulting in shorter life expectancy and poorer health-a health disadvantage. The National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute convened a panel of national and international health experts and stakeholders for a Think Tank meeting to explore the U.S. health disadvantage and to seek specific recommendations for implementation research opportunities for heart, lung, blood, and sleep disorders. Recommendations for National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute consideration were made in several areas including understanding the drivers of the disadvantage, identifying potential solutions, creating strategic partnerships with common goals, and finally enhancing and fostering a research workforce for implementation research. Key recommendations included exploring why the United States is doing better for health indicators in a few areas compared with peer countries; targeting populations across the entire socioeconomic spectrum with interventions at all levels in order to prevent missing a substantial proportion of the disadvantage; assuring partnership have high-level goals that can create systemic change through collective impact; and finally, increasing opportunities for implementation research training to meet the current needs. Connecting with the research community at large and building on ongoing research efforts will be an important strategy. Broad partnerships and collaboration across the social, political, economic, and private sectors and all civil society will be critical-not only for implementation research but also for implementing the findings to have the desired population impact. Developing the relevant knowledge to tackle the U.S. health disadvantage is the necessary first step to improve U.S. health outcomes.

show abstract

Government Spending In Health And Nonhealth Sectors Associated With Improvement In County Health Rankings

Cited by 62 publications

References 20 publications

Life Expectancy at Birth in Europe: An Econometric Approach Based on Random Forests Methodology

Life Expectancy at Birth in Europe: An Econometric Approach Based on Random Forests Methodology

How Much Do We Spend? Creating Historical Estimates of Public Health Expenditures in the United States at the Federal, State, and Local Levels

Implementation Research to Address the United States Health Disadvantage: Report of a National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute Workshop

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About