National Environmental Public Health Tracking Network (with online CE)

National Environmental Public Health Tracking Network

The National Environmental Public Health Tracking Network integrates and presents health exposure and data information data from a variety of national, state, and city sources. It is part of the Environmental Public Health Tracking Program, a US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Agency (CDC) which tracks and studies many of the exposures and health effects that may be related to environmental hazards.

On the Tracking Network, you can view maps, tables, and charts with data about:

• chemicals and other substances found in the environment,  through Web pages as Tracking air quality and Tracking Housing Conditions
• some chronic diseases and conditions through the Health Effects page
• the area where you live through Info by Location

The Resources links at the home page (right column) include

• Communications features as podcasts, inks to social media (Facebook, Twitter), and data sources
• Quick reports which summarize key information

Online Continuing Education (CE) credits are available  through NEHA e-learning.  All CE classes may be viewed for free.  Most CE credits are fee based, however some are free through the CDC and EPA.  ( Tracking 101 online training link at About Tracking Program)

 

 

 

Two Health Data Tools for Research and Surveillance : Health Indicators Warehouse and Catalogue of Surveillance Systems

Two Health Data Tools for Research and Surveillance : Health Indicators Warehouse and Catalogue of Surveillance Systems

Health Data Tools and Statistics:  Catalogue of Surveillance Systems
http://www.nccor.org/css

Resource to help researchers and practitioners more easily investigate childhood obesity in America. The catalogue describes and provides access to surveillance systems (national, state, local) that collect data related to childhood obesity.

This web tool provides a catalogue of existing surveillance systems that contain data relevant to childhood obesity research. It includes local, state, and national systems that provide data at multiple levels.

Surveillance systems for this Catalogue were identified by reviewing existing reports of available systems and soliciting expert review and suggestions. The systems were chosen because they provide access to publicly available raw data gathered in the United States.

Some systems have been in operation for many years; others are relatively new. All, however, contain data pertaining to the past 10 years.

The Search Page contains links to 77 systems, a search box, and limits (age groups, geographic divisions, racial/ethnic group, and more)

Health Data Tools and Statistics:  Health Indicators Warehouse (HIW)
http://healthindicators.gov/

 

The Health Indicators Warehouse serves as the data hub for the HHS Community Health Data Initiative by providing a single source for national, state, and community health indicators. (Related February 11 HHS press release may be found here)

Purpose

Access to high quality data improves understanding of a community’s health status and determinants, and facilitates the prioritization of interventions. The purpose of the HIW is to:

• Provide a single, user-friendly, source for national, state, and community health indicators
• Meet needs of multiple population health initiatives
• Facilitate harmonization of indicators across initiatives
• Link indicators with evidence-based interventions
• Serve as the data hub for the HHS Community Health Data Initiative, a flagship HHS open government initiative to release data; encourage innovative application development; and catalyze change to improve community health

The Indicators page allows one to search through and alphabetical list of filters including chronic diseases, health care, health behaviors, health risks, physical environment, and public health structure.

Resources include

Community Health Status Indicators (HRSA, CDC, NLM, PHF)

This web-based tool provides local public health agencies access to county health status profiles for improving community health by identifying resources and setting priorities. Visit the CHSI home page to read about the data sources, definitions, and notes, and then explore the CHSI dataset file.

County Health Rankings (RWJF and University of WI)

This interactive website provides access to 50 state reports with rankings of each county within each state according to its health outcomes and health determinants. The County Health Rankings are a key component of the Mobilizing Action toward Community Health (MATCH) project. MATCH is collaboration between the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation and the University of Wisconsin Population Health Institute.

Healthy People (HHS)

Healthy People provides science-based, 10-year national objectives for improving the health of all Americans. For 3 decades, Healthy People has established benchmarks and monitored progress over time in order to: 1) Identify nationwide health improvement priorities; 2) Increase public awareness and understanding of the determinants of health, disease, and disability and the opportunities for progress; 3) Provide measurable objectives and goals that are applicable at the national, State, and local levels; 4) Engage multiple sectors to take actions to strengthen policies and improve practices that are driven by the best available evidence and knowledge; and 5) Identify critical research, evaluation, and data collection needs. Healthy People 2020 contains 1200 objectives in 42 topic areas (923 with baseline data, 237 for which baseline data will be developed during the decade) designed to serve as this decade’s framework for improving the health of all people in the United States.

CMS Community Utilization & Quality Indicators (CMS)

Medicare Data for the Health Indicators Warehouse: A Methodological Overview (PDF)

CMS has assembled measures from Medicare claims data at the state level and for 306 Hospital Referral Regions. The measures encompass a range of data for 2008, including: Utilization measures (e.g., Emergency Department Visits and Hospital Readmissions), Quality measures (e.g., Hospital Compare, Agency for Health Research and Quality (AHRQ) Prevention Quality Indicator (PQI), and AHRQ Patient Safety Indicators (PSI)).

Institute of Medicine Report: Better measurement can improve U.S. health outcomes

Institute of Medicine  Report: Better measurement can improve U.S. health outcomes

Excerpts from the press release:

Despite medical care expenditures that are the highest of any industrialized nation, deficiencies in the way health information is collected and a lack of agreement on the best indicators by which to measure progress are hindering efforts to improve Americans’ health, according to a new national report.

Released in December by the Institute of Medicine, the report calls on the nation’s health leaders to develop a core, standardized set of indicators to integrate and align health data and health outcome measurement at the national, state and local levels. According to the report, numerous health indicator sets developed in recent years and deployed in different contexts make assessment and comparison difficult for policy-makers and other decision-makers by highlighting similar information in different ways….

The report committee’s vision of the factors that create health in populations — community-based factors and social and environmental determinants — is “very different” from the way the current U.S. health care delivery system is structured, said Gold, noting that the report calls on the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services to produce an annual report informing policy-makers, health leaders and the public about important trends and disparities in the social and environmental determinants that affect health.

“The public health community…shares a commonality of interests and insight as to what the true determinants of health are, and what this report tries to put into sharp relief is that we need to do a better job of measuring the variables that create and detract from health in this country, and that we need to move that measurement strategy away from traditional biomedical variables,” said Gold, who is a professor and chair of community health and social medicine at the Sophie Davis School of Biomedical Education at the City College of New York.

The report, “For the Public’s Health: The Role of Measurement in Action and Accountability,” also recommends that the United States adopt a single, summary measure of population health. Death rates have long been used as the standard measure of population health, the report said, but life expectancy by itself cannot capture information about the health-related quality of life associated with chronic illnesses and injuries. Summary measures of population health, such as health-adjusted life expectancy, capture an overall picture of the well-being of communities.

Moreover, the report recommends that HHS assign the National Center for Health Statistics a leadership role in a “renewed population-health information system” through better coordination and integration of the determinants of health. The report further recommends that the National Prevention, Health Promotion and Public Health Council — the federal body created as part of last year’s health reform law — update Congress annually on NCHS’ progress in assuming such a leadership role.

To ensure the public’s awareness of the quality, safety, efficiency and appropriateness of clinical care services delivered in their communities, the report calls on state and local public health agencies in each state to collaborate with clinical care delivery systems. Local performance reports about overuse, underuse and misuse should be made available for selected interventions, the report said, including preventive and diagnostic tests, procedures and treatment.

The report also recommends that HHS work with relevant federal, state and local public-sector and private-sector partners and stakeholders to develop a performance-measurement system that promotes accountability among governmental and private-sector organizations that have responsibilities for protecting and improving population health at local, state and national levels.

Authoring committee member Martin J. Sepulveda, MD, FACP, called the report a “wake-up call” to the health care delivery system, policy-makers, governmental public health leaders, employers and other payers.

“It tells policy-makers that you can control the ‘mix’ part of total cost by focusing on the medical care delivery system — namely the proportions of controlled versus complicated people with chronic diseases, but the avalanche of new people with chronic diseases will continue to flood the system and will keep total cost high,” Sepulveda, IBM fellow and vice president for integrated health services at IBM Corp. in Somers, N.Y., told The Nation’s Health.

The report also tells governmental public health that it needs to “think differently” about its role in the health crisis and forge new relationships with the health care delivery system to break down barriers and create and use shared pools of data to inform policy-makers and consumers about critical performance matters such as overuse, underuse and misuse of medical care, Sepulveda said.

“It needs to play a key role in helping people know where health care value lies and who is and isn’t delivering it in their communities,” Sepulveda said.

Sponsored by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, the report is the first of three on public health strategies to improve health. Reports examining public health and the law and public health and financing are due to be released within the next year.

For more information or to read the report, visit www.iom.edu/reports.