The growth of public health from the Basic Six to the Essential Public Health Services, the major catalysts in public health’s growth in the United States, changes in U.S. standards organization, the divergence between patient-focused and public-focused health care, and a hypothesis regarding the allocation of government funding. Please note that the following response is based on my pre-existing knowledge and may not include the specific details from the chapter you mentioned.
Growth of Public Health from the Basic Six to the Essential Public Health Services:
Public health has evolved significantly over time. The Basic Six, developed in the early 20th century, represented a set of core functions performed by public health agencies. These functions included vital statistics, communicable disease control, maternal and child health, environmental health, health education, and laboratory services. While the Basic Six laid the foundation for public health practice, they were limited in scope and did not fully address the complex health challenges of the 21st century.
The Essential Public Health Services (EPHS), established in 1994 by the Public Health Functions Project, built upon the Basic Six. The EPHS framework provides a comprehensive and modernized approach to public health practice. It consists of ten interconnected services that encompass the full range of activities needed to improve and protect population health:
Monitor health status to identify community health problems.
Diagnose and investigate health problems and hazards.
Inform, educate, and empower people about health issues.
Mobilize community partnerships to solve health problems.
Develop policies and plans to support individual and community health efforts.
Enforce laws and regulations that protect health and ensure safety.
Link people to needed personal health services and ensure the provision of healthcare.
Assure competent public and personal healthcare workforce.
Evaluate effectiveness, accessibility, and quality of personal and population-based health services.
Research for new insights and innovative solutions to health problems.
The EPHS framework recognizes the importance of addressing social determinants of health, promoting health equity, and engaging the community in public health efforts. It provides a more comprehensive and contemporary approach to public health practice compared to the Basic Six.
Major Catalysts in Public Health’s Growth in the United States:
Several factors have contributed to the growth of public health in the United States:
a. Epidemiological Transition: The shift from predominantly infectious diseases to chronic diseases as leading causes of morbidity and mortality necessitated a broader approach to public health. This transition led to an increased focus on prevention, health promotion, and addressing risk factors.
b. Advances in Medical Knowledge and Technology: Scientific advancements and innovations in medical knowledge, technology, and healthcare delivery have expanded the possibilities for disease prevention, surveillance, diagnosis, treatment, and management. Public health has had to adapt and incorporate these advancements into its practice.
c. Health Disparities and Inequities: The recognition of health disparities and inequities based on race, ethnicity, socioeconomic status, and other factors has highlighted the need for a more comprehensive and equitable approach to public health. Efforts to address these disparities have driven the expansion of public health practice.
d. Emergence of Global Health Concerns: Increasing globalization, international travel, and interconnectedness have brought attention to global health challenges. Public health has expanded to address emerging infectious diseases, pandemics, and other global health threats.
Changes in U.S. Standards Organization:
U.S. standards for public health have evolved over time to reflect changing priorities and emerging challenges. The shift from the Basic Six to the Essential Public Health Services represents a transition from a limited set
of core functions to a comprehensive framework that encompasses the full range of activities needed to improve population health. The change in standards organization reflects a recognition of the need for a more holistic and contemporary approach to public health practice.
The divergence between patient-focused and public-focused healthcare:
In healthcare, there has been a historical emphasis on patient-focused care, which focuses on individual patient needs and treatment. However, public health takes a broader perspective by focusing on the health of entire populations and addressing the underlying determinants of health. While both patient-focused and public-focused healthcare are important, they have different goals and strategies.
Patient-focused healthcare aims to provide quality care to individual patients, diagnose and treat diseases, and improve health outcomes at the individual level. It involves direct interactions between healthcare providers and patients, focusing on personalized care and individualized treatment plans.
On the other hand, public-focused healthcare, as represented by public health, aims to improve and protect the health of populations. It focuses on disease prevention, health promotion, surveillance, and addressing the social, economic, and environmental factors that influence health. Public health efforts often involve policy development, community engagement, health education, and the implementation of interventions that can benefit entire populations.
While there is an overlap between patient-focused and public-focused healthcare, there can be tensions and challenges in balancing the priorities and resources allocated to each approach. However, it is essential to recognize that both are critical components of a comprehensive healthcare system.
Hypothesis regarding the allocation of government funding:
One hypothesis regarding the allocation of government funding in public health is that it should be based on a combination of disease burden, population needs, and the potential impact of interventions. This approach recognizes the importance of addressing the most significant health challenges faced by the population while also considering the potential benefits of different interventions.
By allocating funding based on disease burden, resources can be directed towards addressing conditions or risk factors that have the greatest impact on population health. This can involve targeting prevalent diseases, high-risk populations, or addressing social determinants of health that contribute to health disparities.
Considering population needs involves understanding the unique characteristics and challenges of specific communities or regions. Funding can be directed towards addressing the specific health needs and priorities of these populations, taking into account factors such as socioeconomic status, access to healthcare, and cultural considerations.
Assessing the potential impact of interventions helps determine the cost-effectiveness and feasibility of different public health strategies. Investments in interventions that have a high potential for positive health outcomes and a significant return on investment can be prioritized.
It is important to note that the allocation of government funding in public health is a complex process influenced by various political, social, and economic factors. Different jurisdictions and agencies may have their own approaches to resource allocation based on local priorities and considerations.
