Budget-and priority-setting criteria at state health agencies in times of Austerity: A mixed-methods study

Jonathon P. Leider, Beth Resnick, Nancy Kass, Katie Sellers, Jessica Young, Patrick Bernet, Paul Jarris

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

Objectives. We examined critical budget and priority criteria for state health agencies to identify likely decision-making factors, pressures, and opportunities in times of austerity. Methods. We have presented findings from a 2-stage, mixed-methods study with state public health leaders regarding public health budget- and prioritysetting processes. In stage 1, we conducted hour-long interviews in 2011 with 45 health agency executive and division or bureau leaders from 6 states. Stage 2 was an online survey of 207 executive and division or bureau leaders from all state health agencies (66% response rate). Results. Respondents identified 5 key criteria: whether a program was viewed as "mission critical," the seriousness of the consequences of not funding the program, financing considerations, external directives and mandates, and the magnitude of the problem the program addressed. Conclusions. We have presented empirical findings on criteria used in state health agency budgetary decision-making. These criteria suggested a focus and interest on core public health and the largest public health problems with the most serious ramifications.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)1092-1099
Number of pages8
JournalAmerican journal of public health
Volume104
Issue number6
DOIs
StatePublished - Jun 2014

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health

Fingerprint Dive into the research topics of 'Budget-and priority-setting criteria at state health agencies in times of Austerity: A mixed-methods study'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

  • Cite this