State Public Health Enabling Authorities: Results of a Fundamental Activities Assessment Examining Core and Essential Services

Abstract

Context Public health enabling authorities establish the legal foundation for financing, organizing, and delivering public health services. State laws vary in terms of the content, depth, and breadth of these fundamental public health activities. Given this variance, the Institute of Medicine has identified state public health laws as an area that requires further examination. To respond to this call for further examination, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Public Health Law Program conducted a fundamental activities legal assessment on state public health laws. Objective The goal of the legal assessment was to examine state laws referencing frameworks representing public health department fundamental activities (ie, core and essential services) in an effort to identify, catalog, and describe enabling authorities of state governmental public health systems. Design In 2013, Public Health Law Program staff compiled a list of state statutes and regulations referencing different commonly-recognized public health frameworks of fundamental activities. The legal assessment included state fundamental activities laws available on WestlawNext as of July 2013. The results related to the 10 essential public health services and the 3 core public health functions were confirmed and updated in June 2016. Results Eighteen states reference commonly-recognized frameworks of fundamental activities in their laws. Thirteen states have listed the 10 essential public health services in their laws. Eight of these states have also referenced the 3 core public health functions in their laws. Five states reference only the core public health functions. Conclusions Several states reference fundamental activities in their state laws, particularly through use of the essential services framework. Further work is needed to capture the public health laws and practices of states that may be performing fundamental activities but without reference to a common framework.

Current situation and distribution equality of public health resource in China

“…Public health system is usually defined as “all public, private, and voluntary entities that contribute to the delivery of essential public health services within a jurisdiction” [ 1 ]. In the past 71 years, China has got enviable success in building a completed public health system.…”

Regarding Investment in a Healthier Future: Impact of the 2012 Institute of Medicine Finance Report

“…A majority of the included materials, 34 of 56, referenced the endorsement of the minimum package concept, with many considering it beneficial toward defining necessary services 17–23. Multiple studies investigated the value of the concept, both in theory and in practice, and a small number investigated the prevalence of state minimum package frameworks, their adoption, and individualization within those states 15,18–21,24,25…”

“…15,[18][19][20][21]24,25 E320Orr, et al • 28(1), E316-E323Regarding Investment in a Healthier Future: A Rapid Review of the Literature…”

A scoping review of strategies to support public health recovery in the transition to a “new normal” in the age of COVID-19

“…Given international contextual variation, there are various perspectives on specific essential or core programs/service. However, examples across different countries have included immunization, chronic disease prevention, environmental health [ 8 , 9 ], substance use, and school health [ 10 ]. Complexity emerges when in disaster response, some essential services may be compromised and health departments must make critical internal adaptations to staffing (e.g., reallocation, surge capacity), function, and organizational structure to divert resources appropriately [ 1 , 3 , 11 ].…”