Background/Objectives We interviewed the following individuals during our site visit to Washington State: Dorothy Canavan, Lab Manager, Dynacare Jon Counts, Dr.P.H., Director, Public Health Laboratories Jac Davies, Health Services Administrator, Public Health Laboratories Daniel Jernigan, Medical Epidemiologist, Public Health Laborator
Background/Objectives The Tennessee case study report consists of four sections: (a) PHL Interview Findings; (b) Private Clinical Laboratory Interview Findings; (c) MCO Interview Findings; and (d) TennCare Interview Findings.
Background/Objectives The Michigan case study consisted of four in depth interviews coordinated with the help of Robert Martin, Dr.P.H., Director of the State Department of Community Health's Bureau of Laboratories. In addition to his own two hour session with Lewin, Dr. Martin coordinated interviews with: Francis Downs, Dr.P.H., Managed Car
Public Health Infrastructure And The Private Sector: Public Health Laboratories And Managed Care Draft Site Visit Protocol Questions for Public Health Laboratory Interviewees State Public Health Laboratory Infrastructure Laboratory Size, Organization, and Funding : Briefly describe the size and organization of the public healt
Public Health Laboratories and Health System Change . Telephone Protocol for Public Health Laboratory Interviews
For State Officials: How many public health labs does your state operate? What is the public health infrastructure with respect to public health labs (e.g., personnel, expenditures, other resources)? What (if any) contractual arrangements exist between public health labs and MCOs, and to what degree do the functions of MCOs and public heal
Other Contacts Gary Anderson Chief Executive Officer Epic Information Systems Scott Merwin Medical Administrator M-Care Health Plan University of Michigan Earl C. Buck Chief Executive Officer System Labs
State Public Health Laboratory Contacts Russell Alexander, M.D. Chief of Epidemiology Seattle King County Health Department John Hunt, Ph.D. Clinical Unit Leader Public Health Laboratory Minnesota Department of Health Carl Blank, Dr.P.H.
Federal Contacts Rosemary Bakes-Martin Supervisory Health Scientist Division of Laboratory Systems Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Anthony Moulton, Ph.D Manager Public Health Information Systems Public Health Program Practice Office Center for Disease Control and Prevention
Ash OK, Impact of cost cutting on laboratories: new business strategies for laboratories. Clin Chem 1996;42(5):822-826. Association of State and Territorial Public Health Laboratory Directors. Task force report on the public health laboratory - a critical national resource, 1/29/93. Baker EL, Ross D. Information and surveillance systems and co
One of the challenges faced by the PHLs is that their routine services - while clearly important contributions to the maintenance of public health - are generally outside of the public eye. Indeed, typical PHL operations imply that PHLs will rarely take center stage in any standard public health activities.
A central finding of this report is that there appears to be a widening gap between the public and private sectors in the area of information technology. Private sector funding appears to be outstripping public funding, and, as a result, the information infrastructure is simply not being built in PHLs. While the CDC does have a number of small gra
Just as the laboratory system in the private sector is consolidating in light of new technology and the need to achieve economies of scale, many believe that consolidation would also be desirable in the public sector. Why should there be 50 state PHLs when geographic borders bear little relation to population centers and disease burdens?
Public Health Laboratories and Health System Change . Positioning PHLs for the Future: The Federal Role
It was striking to us how many times interviewees stressed the need for federal leadership. While our report stresses the need for proactive change among states in defining, protecting, and enhancing the role of PHLs, some consideration of the federal role is clearly in order. The fragmentation of responsibilities vis-à-vis the labs within the CD
Changes in health markets and environment faced by PHLs naturally raise the question of whether the core functions of laboratories must change in response, or - to take a more activist position - whether more leadership from the laboratories can improve the public health. Our study suggests that while the overall charge of laboratories (e.g., invo
Historically, public health laboratories (PHLs) have focused activities on specified core functions. Considered broadly, these functions encompass activities in support of the three charges of all public health entities: (1) assessment, (2) policy development, and (3) assurance. 3 PHLs perform functions directly associated with these objectives,
A central concern of both state and federal actors is the definition of core PHL functions and activities. This subject has been closely studied over the years by the Association of State and Territorial Lab Directors (ASTPHLD) and by a number of PHL directors. As discussed above, the function of PHLs varies dramatically from state to state. The n