Displaying 5 results for

Policy Options to Improve Data Sharing Between State and Local Health Departments Organizational policies on data sharing between state and local public health agencies. This report explores organizational policies related to data sharing between state and local public health departments. ASTHO, in collaboration with the National Association of County and City Health Officials and the Network for Public Health Law developed this report, which aims to serve as a guide for state and local public health leaders as they consider organizational policy options to improve state and local data-sharing efforts. Get the Report (PDF) website yes

The adage “what gets measured, gets done” has had staying power for a reason. When we can accurately describe conditions, quantify impact, and elucidate connections, we have a better chance at taking collective (and effective) action to tackle even the most challenging problems facing our communities. The National Survey of Children’s Health is a powerful tool to provide this critical information to researchers, policymakers, and state-level decision makers.

Data-Sharing Strategies to Support Access to Care Interventions Anna Bartels, Chikamso Chukwu Learn how primary care offices improve community access to health care in this Health Policy Update. Every state public health agency houses a Primary Care Office (PCO), which monitors the effectiveness of that jurisdiction’s health system. HRSA funds PCOs to identify communities with health professional shortages, and PCOs may also administer workforce programs to place providers in those communities. To identify which communities are experiencing shortages, PCOs collect state-level data on where health care providers work, what services they offer, and how many hours they spend on patient care. PCOs also track data on community needs, such as household income levels and community transportation options, to create a holistic picture of whether health care is truly accessible. PCOs across the country have explored different policy pathways to access reliable, accurate data, including laws that support PCO access to certain data sets, cross-sectoral relationships, and data-sharing agreements. According to ASTHO’s national PCO workforce assessment, over 85% of PCOs are part of a formal data-sharing arrangement, with licensing boards and Medicaid agencies serving as two of the most common data sources. This health policy update describes several types of actions jurisdictions have taken to support PCO data access. New Hampshire Law Allows the PCO to Survey Providers During License Renewals The New Hampshire PCO’s Health Professions Data Center administers a survey tied to health care providers’ medical license renewals that gathers self-reported provider and practice data, such as where providers work, how many hours per week are spent delivering direct patient care, and anticipated changes in capacity over the next five years. New Hampshire law outlines the scope of the survey and authorizes the PCO to collect, store, analyze, and report on health care workforce supply and capacity through surveying during license renewal. Although survey responses are the primary source of data on the health care workforce, data from the state’s all payer claims database housed within the Medicaid division provides supplemental information. Given the type of data involved, legal agreements are required between the PCO, licensing agencies, and relevant parties to maintain privacy for providers. These data are critical for the PCO to evaluate current and future capacity — especially in regions with limited providers — and proactively focus recruitment efforts on those communities. Colorado Braids Data Collection Strategies Across Multiple Sources While the Colorado PCO has relied on a similar law that authorizes collecting licensure data for more than 10 years, its data collection efforts have since expanded. The state now collects and integrates data across 16 different sources, each requiring a different procurement strategy. While some data sources are simple to access because they are public use files (e.g., Medicare provider data), other sources — namely state agencies — require the PCO to submit an application or enter into a memorandum of understanding or contract for access. Pursuing multiple data sources in this way takes significant effort and staff time, necessitating the health department to supplement HRSA’s PCO cooperative agreement funding with other sources, including state appropriations and private funding. A commitment to collaboration and investment and a willingness to build new relationships and processes from scratch support the Colorado PCO’s wide-ranging data collection strategy. Iowa Builds on Existing Relationships to Access Provider Data Iowa’s PCO has a long-standing relationship with the University of Iowa and a joint interest in health care workforce data. Currently, the PCO purchases provider phone survey information from the University of Iowa’s existing program and receives data on a biannual basis. The university’s data collection is part of its own research efforts and not collected on behalf of the PCO, so while the data are broader than what the PCO needs, it is still a valuable source of provider information. Because of this existing arrangement, the PCO could pursue a more expansive agreement (that would likely require additional funding) and expand the scope of the data, such as by adding data collection on provider residence or sliding fee scales. Other PCOs may consider approaching partners that have pieces of the data they need so there is an established relationship in place that may be expanded as new resources become available. PCOs Secure Access to Medicaid Claims Data State Medicaid agencies are another frequent data partner for PCOs, with at least 16 receiving provider data from their state Medicaid agency in various formats. In some states the Medicaid agency shares a point-in-time file with the PCO, who may manually recode the data before submission to HRSA. In other states, the PCO has direct access to the Medicaid claims processing system to independently extract the necessary data points. The nature of the partnership between the PCO and Medicaid agency may vary based on the state’s organizational structure (e.g., whether the PCO and Medicaid agency sit within the same department). However, a PCO seeking access to Medicaid claims data should be prepared to justify the need for the data, articulate how it can support the Medicaid agency, and develop the necessary relationships to support a workable solution for both parties. Conclusion Each PCO and state health agency has its own unique structure, and there is no “right” way to collect health care provider practice or access data. However, exploring how different jurisdictions approach these processes can help PCOs think strategically about new initiatives and relationships. ASTHO will continue tracking PCO success stories and remains available to facilitate connections among health agency staff. 2 UD3OA22890-13-00 article yes

The New Frontier of Digital Proximity Tracing Association of state and territorial health officials, astho, public health, covid-19, contact tracing, case investigation, public health surveillance, infectious disease, proximity tracing, exposure notification, public health agencies, data privacy, public health official, state legislature, geolocation, health data, test positive for covid-19, personal data, data collected, health departments Jeffrey Ekoma Digital proximity tracing is the cutting-edge for tracking outbreaks of COVID-19, but many have concerns about data privacy. States have proposed legislation to balance the two. As state, local, territorial, and tribal (SLTT) health departments continue to cautiously reopen parts of their economy, they also continue to take necessary measures to prevent the spread of COVID-19. A major component of this work is traditional contact tracing, a staple of public health surveillance where public health workers track down and notify anyone who might have contact with someone who tested positive for an infectious disease. However, new strategies that would supplement traditional tracing have been gaining momentum. Google and Apple collaborated to create an application programming interface (API) platform for public health agencies interested in a new type of “proximity tracing” or “exposure notification.” The platforms are expected to assist in the creation of apps between software developers and public health jurisdictions. It specifically utilizes Bluetooth technology —readily available in cellular devices—to randomly generate temporary keys on a user’s device when a user downloads an exposure notification application. This then enables the application to alert an individual if they have been or potentially exposed to someone who also uses the application and who tested positive for COVID-19. It’s worth noting the platform created by Google and Apple does not collect location information or information of users who do not voluntarily mark themselves as being positive for COVID-19. There are other notable exposure notification apps being used by SLTTs including Care19, an app developed by ProudCrowd that’s currently being used in North Dakota and South Dakota. Also, CommCare, which is currently being used in New Jersey and was developed by Dimagi. As expected, the introduction and potential influx of these types of apps have brought many different concerns, primarily centered around data privacy and how the platforms and applications would protect, store, and safely discard information that it collects. This issue became of interest to Sen. Maria Cantwell, current ranking member of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. In response she drafted S. 3861 Exposure Notification Privacy Act, which proposes assistance to public health jurisdictions exploring exposure notification applications and technologies. The act would ensure that such platforms have the necessary capacity to protect the personal data of consumers, limit the type of data collected, as well as the type of entities that would have access to such data. In addition, the legislation also: reaffirms the role of public health officials in requiring their involvement in the development and deployment of exposure notification systems; requires that participation from individuals be on a voluntary basis and with consumer consent; limits the collection and use of data; prohibits commercial use of data; and permits participants to delete their data at any time; among other things. The legislation was recently co-introduced with Sens. Bill Cassidy and Amy Klobuchar, and received support from the Washington State Department of Health, Council of State and Territorial Epidemiologists, and the National Coalition of STD Directors. This legislation is currently pending in the Senate and it is unclear if it will be considered in the upcoming months. There is also movement in state legislatures to address the use of technology. In California, legislation (AB 660) was introduced that would require any state agency contract that uses a mobile device’s geolocation data for exposure notification to a communicable disease to include provisions requiring the contractor to inform the app user of the authorized purposes of the app and collected data. Another bill (AB 1782) introduced in the state would require public health entities and businesses offering exposure notification services to allow users to revoke consent for the collection, use, maintenance, or disclosure of the user’s information. Businesses that provide exposure notification services but are not affiliated with a public health entity would be required to disclose its non-affiliation. The bill would also require the encryption of data collected by the technology, limit the use of the data as well as the amount of time the data can be maintained, and require reported exposures be verified by a healthcare provider before notifying logged contacts of their potential exposure. In New York, companion bills were introduced (A 10583A and S 8448B) that would establish requirements for the collection and use of emergency health data and the use of technology for collecting data during the COVID-19 emergency. Specifically, the bill requires the disclosure of certain information to those who install and use data collecting apps on mobile devices, including information about the right to opt-in, the right to privacy, the app’s privacy policy, time limitations for maintaining the data, and the individual’s right to access the data. Unlike the bills in California, individuals in New York would be able to sue for violations of the law. Several SLTT’s are currently either exploring, developing, or implementing proximity tracing applications within their respective jurisdictions. It remains critical that SLTT health departments evaluate the implementation of any proximity tracing option, while concurrently evaluating pertinent data and privacy related issues that may arise with the collection and sharing of information from individuals. In the coming days, ASTHO plans to release a guide to assist health officials as they think through the critical functionalities, technological options, and implementation of these emerging technologies. ASTHO will continue to track and monitor legislation that seeks to address data and privacy concerns with proximity tracing and exposure notification applications. website yes

Improving a State’s Process for Disclosing Data for Public Health Purposes to Tribal Public Health Organizations