As much as 30% of US health care spending in the United States does not improve individual or population health. To a large extent this excess spending results from prices that are too high and from administrative waste. In the public sector, and particularly at the state level, where budget constraints are severe and reluctance to raise taxes high, this spending crowds out social, educational, and public-health investments. Over time, as spending on medical care increases, spending on improvements to the social determinants of health are starved. In California the fraction of General Fund expenditures spent on public health and social programs fell from 34.8% in fiscal year 1990 to 21.4% in fiscal year 2014, while health care increased from 14.1% to 21.3%. In spending more on healthcare and less on other efforts to improve health and health determinants, the state is missing important opportunities for health-promoting interventions with a strong financial return. Reallocating ineffective medical expenditures to proven and cost-effective public health and social programs would not be easy, but recognizing its potential for improving the public's health while saving taxpayers billions of dollars might provide political cover to those willing to engage in genuine reform. National estimates of the percent of medical spending that does not improve health suggest that approximately $5 billion of California's public budget for medical spending has no positive effect on health. Up to 10,500 premature deaths could be prevented annually by reallocating this portion of medical spending to public health. Alternatively, the same expenditure could help an additional 418,000 high school students to graduate.

Timely implementation of principles of evidence-based public health (EBPH) is critical for bridging the gap between discovery of new knowledge and its application. Public health organizations need sufficient capacity (the availability of resources, structures, and workforce to plan, deliver, and evaluate the preventive dose of an evidence-based intervention) to move science to practice. We review principles of EBPH, the importance of capacity building to advance evidence-based approaches, promising approaches for capacity building, and future areas for research and practice. Although there is general agreement among practitioners and scientists on the importance of EBPH, there is less clarity on the definition of evidence, how to find it, and how, when, and where to use it. Capacity for EBPH is needed among both individuals and organizations. Capacity can be strengthened via training, use of tools, technical assistance, assessment and feedback, peer networking, and incentives. Modest investments in EBPH capacity building will foster more effective public health practice.

In spite of increased focus by public health to engage and work with non-health sector partners to improve the health of the general as well as special populations, only a paucity of studies have described and disseminated emerging lessons and promising practices that can be used to undertake this work. This article describes the process used to conduct a Health Impact Assessment of a proposal to provide free public transportation passes to students in Los Angeles County. This illustrative case example describes opportunities and challenges encountered in working with an array of cross-sector partners and highlights four important lessons learned: (1) the benefits and challenges associated with broad conceptualization of public issues; (2) the need for more comprehensive, longitudinal data systems and dynamic simulation models to inform decision-making; (3) the importance of having a comprehensive policy assessment strategy that considers health impacts as well as costs and feasibility; and (4) the need for additional efforts to delineate the interconnectivity between health and other agency priorities. As public health advances cross-sector work in the community, further development of these priorities will help advance meaningful collaboration among all partners.

We explored the definition of health equity being used by public health departments and the extent of engagement of public health departments in activities to improve health equity, as well as facilitators and barriers to this work.We conducted 25 semistructured qualitative interviews with lead public health officials (n = 20) and their designees (n = 5). All interviews were transcribed and thematically analyzed.We conducted interviews with respondents from local public health departments in the United States (April 2017-June 2017).Respondents were from local or state public health departments that were members of the Big Cities Health Coalition, accredited or both.Many departments were using a definition of health equity that emphasized an equal opportunity to improve health for all, with a special emphasis on socially disadvantaged populations. Improving health equity was a high priority for most departments and targeting the social determinants of health was viewed as the optimal approach for improving health equity. Having the capacity to frame issues of health equity in ways that resonated with sectors outside of public health was seen as a particularly valuable skill for facilitating cross-sector collaborations and promoting work to improve health equity. Barriers to engaging in work to improve health equity included lack of flexible and sustainable funding sources as well as limited training and guidance on how to conduct this type of work.Work to improve health equity among public health departments can be fostered and strengthened by building capacity among them to do more targeted framing of health equity issues and by providing more flexible and sustained funding sources. In addition, supporting peer networks that will allow for the exchange of resources, ideas, and best practices will likely build capacity among public health departments to effectively do this work.

Background

Racial/ethnic minority groups have higher risks for disease resulting from obesity.

Community context

The University of California, Los Angeles, and the Los Angeles County Department of Public Health partnered with community organizations to disseminate culturally targeted physical activity and nutrition-based interventions in worksites.

Methods

We conducted community dialogues with people from 59 government and nonprofit health and social service agencies to develop wellness strategies for implementation in worksites. Strategies included structured group exercise breaks and serving healthy refreshments at organizational functions. During the first 2 years, we subcontracted with 6 community-based organizations (primary partners) who disseminated these wellness strategies to 29 organizations within their own professional networks (secondary worksites) through peer modeling and social support. We analyzed data from the first 2 years of the project to evaluate our dissemination approach.

Outcome

Primary partners had difficulty recruiting organizations in their professional network as secondary partners to adopt wellness strategies. Within their own organizations, primary partners reported significant increases in implementation in 2 of the 6 core organizational strategies for promoting physical activity and healthy eating. Twelve secondary worksites that completed organizational assessments on 2 occasions reported significant increases in implementation in 4 of the 6 core organizational strategies.

Interpretation

Dissemination of organizational wellness strategies by trained community organizations through their existing networks (train-the-trainer) was only marginally successful. Therefore, we discontinued this dissemination approach and focused on recruiting leaders of organizational networks.