Tradeoffs in resource allocation at state health agencies

Jonathon P. Leider, Beth Resnick, Nancy E Kass

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

Methods: To characterize these tradeoffs, we engaged in a mixed-methods project where we first conducted 45 semistructured interviews with public health leaders across 6 state health agencies. Tradeoffs were elicited through open-ended questions and probes and qualitatively coded and analyzed. Next, we conducted a national survey across all state health agencies, receiving 207 responses (66% response rate). Survey respondents were asked to rate how frequently they encountered particular tradeoffs and how difficult they were to resolve.

Background: Priority setting is at the core of resource allocation. In recent years, priority setting in public health has occurred in the context of a difficult authorizing environment, one in which politicians have shown increasing interest in reducing the footprint of government, even during times of increased demand for social services. In this context of austerity, tradeoffs abound. These tradeoffs may occur not only within a single programmatic area in public health (eg, cutting an infant mortality program vs a "Children With Special Health Care Needs" program) but also at a broader, more abstract level (eg, favoring programs that are relatively more efficient for one population vs less efficient for programs serving a population in greater need of services).

Objectives: This project was undertaken to provide more insight into tradeoffs within state health agencies with regard to what types of tradeoffs exist and how often they occur.

Results: The most frequently encountered tradeoffs were "insufficient funding for a program versus no funding for a program" (84% rating as frequently/very frequently encountered) and prioritizing "current versus future need" (80% rating as frequently/very frequently). More than 50% of respondents said that they encountered 7 of the 11 tradeoffs frequently or very frequently and found 10 of the 11 difficult or very difficult to resolve. Forty-two percent of respondents rated "services for younger groups versus services for older groups" as difficult/very difficult to resolve.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)566-579
Number of pages14
JournalJournal of Public Health Management and Practice
Volume20
Issue number6
DOIs
StatePublished - Dec 8 2014

Fingerprint

Resource Allocation
Health
Public Health
Infant Mortality
Social Work
Population
Surveys and Questionnaires
Interviews
Delivery of Health Care

Keywords

  • Budget setting
  • Priority setting
  • Public health practice
  • Resource allocation
  • Setting budgets and priorities
  • State health agencies
  • Tradeoffs

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health
  • Health Policy

Cite this

Tradeoffs in resource allocation at state health agencies. / Leider, Jonathon P.; Resnick, Beth; Kass, Nancy E.

In: Journal of Public Health Management and Practice, Vol. 20, No. 6, 08.12.2014, p. 566-579.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{46b3e7cd025b4e69bdf2b34b890e08c8,
title = "Tradeoffs in resource allocation at state health agencies",
abstract = "Methods: To characterize these tradeoffs, we engaged in a mixed-methods project where we first conducted 45 semistructured interviews with public health leaders across 6 state health agencies. Tradeoffs were elicited through open-ended questions and probes and qualitatively coded and analyzed. Next, we conducted a national survey across all state health agencies, receiving 207 responses (66{\%} response rate). Survey respondents were asked to rate how frequently they encountered particular tradeoffs and how difficult they were to resolve.Background: Priority setting is at the core of resource allocation. In recent years, priority setting in public health has occurred in the context of a difficult authorizing environment, one in which politicians have shown increasing interest in reducing the footprint of government, even during times of increased demand for social services. In this context of austerity, tradeoffs abound. These tradeoffs may occur not only within a single programmatic area in public health (eg, cutting an infant mortality program vs a {"}Children With Special Health Care Needs{"} program) but also at a broader, more abstract level (eg, favoring programs that are relatively more efficient for one population vs less efficient for programs serving a population in greater need of services).Objectives: This project was undertaken to provide more insight into tradeoffs within state health agencies with regard to what types of tradeoffs exist and how often they occur.Results: The most frequently encountered tradeoffs were {"}insufficient funding for a program versus no funding for a program{"} (84{\%} rating as frequently/very frequently encountered) and prioritizing {"}current versus future need{"} (80{\%} rating as frequently/very frequently). More than 50{\%} of respondents said that they encountered 7 of the 11 tradeoffs frequently or very frequently and found 10 of the 11 difficult or very difficult to resolve. Forty-two percent of respondents rated {"}services for younger groups versus services for older groups{"} as difficult/very difficult to resolve.",
keywords = "Budget setting, Priority setting, Public health practice, Resource allocation, Setting budgets and priorities, State health agencies, Tradeoffs",
author = "Leider, {Jonathon P.} and Beth Resnick and Kass, {Nancy E}",
year = "2014",
month = "12",
day = "8",
doi = "10.1097/PHH.0000000000000055",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "20",
pages = "566--579",
journal = "Journal of Public Health Management and Practice",
issn = "1078-4659",
publisher = "Lippincott Williams and Wilkins",
number = "6",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Tradeoffs in resource allocation at state health agencies

AU - Leider, Jonathon P.

AU - Resnick, Beth

AU - Kass, Nancy E

PY - 2014/12/8

Y1 - 2014/12/8

N2 - Methods: To characterize these tradeoffs, we engaged in a mixed-methods project where we first conducted 45 semistructured interviews with public health leaders across 6 state health agencies. Tradeoffs were elicited through open-ended questions and probes and qualitatively coded and analyzed. Next, we conducted a national survey across all state health agencies, receiving 207 responses (66% response rate). Survey respondents were asked to rate how frequently they encountered particular tradeoffs and how difficult they were to resolve.Background: Priority setting is at the core of resource allocation. In recent years, priority setting in public health has occurred in the context of a difficult authorizing environment, one in which politicians have shown increasing interest in reducing the footprint of government, even during times of increased demand for social services. In this context of austerity, tradeoffs abound. These tradeoffs may occur not only within a single programmatic area in public health (eg, cutting an infant mortality program vs a "Children With Special Health Care Needs" program) but also at a broader, more abstract level (eg, favoring programs that are relatively more efficient for one population vs less efficient for programs serving a population in greater need of services).Objectives: This project was undertaken to provide more insight into tradeoffs within state health agencies with regard to what types of tradeoffs exist and how often they occur.Results: The most frequently encountered tradeoffs were "insufficient funding for a program versus no funding for a program" (84% rating as frequently/very frequently encountered) and prioritizing "current versus future need" (80% rating as frequently/very frequently). More than 50% of respondents said that they encountered 7 of the 11 tradeoffs frequently or very frequently and found 10 of the 11 difficult or very difficult to resolve. Forty-two percent of respondents rated "services for younger groups versus services for older groups" as difficult/very difficult to resolve.

AB - Methods: To characterize these tradeoffs, we engaged in a mixed-methods project where we first conducted 45 semistructured interviews with public health leaders across 6 state health agencies. Tradeoffs were elicited through open-ended questions and probes and qualitatively coded and analyzed. Next, we conducted a national survey across all state health agencies, receiving 207 responses (66% response rate). Survey respondents were asked to rate how frequently they encountered particular tradeoffs and how difficult they were to resolve.Background: Priority setting is at the core of resource allocation. In recent years, priority setting in public health has occurred in the context of a difficult authorizing environment, one in which politicians have shown increasing interest in reducing the footprint of government, even during times of increased demand for social services. In this context of austerity, tradeoffs abound. These tradeoffs may occur not only within a single programmatic area in public health (eg, cutting an infant mortality program vs a "Children With Special Health Care Needs" program) but also at a broader, more abstract level (eg, favoring programs that are relatively more efficient for one population vs less efficient for programs serving a population in greater need of services).Objectives: This project was undertaken to provide more insight into tradeoffs within state health agencies with regard to what types of tradeoffs exist and how often they occur.Results: The most frequently encountered tradeoffs were "insufficient funding for a program versus no funding for a program" (84% rating as frequently/very frequently encountered) and prioritizing "current versus future need" (80% rating as frequently/very frequently). More than 50% of respondents said that they encountered 7 of the 11 tradeoffs frequently or very frequently and found 10 of the 11 difficult or very difficult to resolve. Forty-two percent of respondents rated "services for younger groups versus services for older groups" as difficult/very difficult to resolve.

KW - Budget setting

KW - Priority setting

KW - Public health practice

KW - Resource allocation

KW - Setting budgets and priorities

KW - State health agencies

KW - Tradeoffs

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84918833616&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84918833616&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1097/PHH.0000000000000055

DO - 10.1097/PHH.0000000000000055

M3 - Article

C2 - 25250755

AN - SCOPUS:84918833616

VL - 20

SP - 566

EP - 579

JO - Journal of Public Health Management and Practice

JF - Journal of Public Health Management and Practice

SN - 1078-4659

IS - 6

ER -