Hep B Blog

Tag Archives: United States

A Quick Introduction to Public Health Funding in the United States

Written by Frank Hood- Associate Director of Policy and Partnerships at Hepatitis B Foundation!

 

The COVID-19 pandemic put a spotlight on why countries need a robustly funded public health system that can respond to the needs of its citizens quickly. In the United States, that public health system is a patchwork of federal, state, and local departments, agencies, and programs. Each has their own rules and regulations, which can be challenging to navigate. You might have a hard time seeing how it all works together without falling apart. And you might struggle to understand how resources can find their way to the local health centers and community-based organizations doing much of the important health work on the ground. This blog post provides a basic overview of how public health funding works within the United States. 

Hundreds of federal departments, agencies, and programs funnel money into the public health system of the United States. One of the more familiar organizations is the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). Among its many health-related functions, HHS handles disease prevention and outbreak response through the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and provides health coverage for underserved and older Americans through the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS). Other departments like the Department of Agriculture (USDA) may not seem like a key source of health funding, and yet support dietary health initiatives and help states build rural medical facilities through infrastructure investment programs.

The amount of funding these departments, agencies, and programs receive varies yearly. Some funding, like for Medicare and Medicaid, doesn’t require an annual vote from Congress (known as “mandatory spending” in policy-speak) and is just paid for as expenses are incurred. Other funding, like for the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA), requires a yearly vote of Congress as well as sign-off by the President. This is known as discretionary spending. Most US public health programs fall in the discretionary spending category. That vote happens each year after the House and the Senate go through a formal process to determine how much money every department, agency, and program in the entire federal government receives. This process also includes specifying any special instructions or conditions associated with the funding like restrictions on how the money can be spent or requesting a status report on the impact of a specific program

If Congress can’t agree on funding levels by the start of the new fiscal year, then a government shutdown occurs. In those instances, any non-essential federal program funded by discretionary spending would be forced to suspend operations, while state and local programs would still be able to function but would not receive federal funds during that time.

Once Congress approves funding levels, federal funds and agencies begin the process of distributing money to their various internal programs and to states and other localities. In the simplest terms, many agencies will send money to states in the form of grants that the states apply for by listing how they would use the money and what positive impact it will have on the state. The amount of funding that passes down to states depends on the function of the agency. State health departments receive the largest percentage of their funding from federal sources, so the grant-making process can lead to states competing for limited federal funds. Federal funds make up anywhere between half and two-thirds of states’ total health funding.

Much of the remaining funding for state health departments comes from their state legislatures. Each state has their own specific process, but most states mirror the federal approach of having their legislatures determine how much state funding should be given to various departments, agencies, and programs in the state and any restrictions on the use of that funding. Other sources of public health dollars include fines, fees, charitable donations, and public-private partnerships.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Generally, state health departments send their dollars to local health departments, which deliver direct care or education on the ground. The funding the state keeps  is often used to pay for state-wide health systems like health surveillance, emergency response, and prevention education. How states determine where money goes varies, but there are usually similarities to how federal departments and agencies determine which states should receive what funding with grant applications.  

Once local health departments and community-based organizations have funding in-hand, they then must spend it according to the rules and regulations set by the source (Congressional instructions, federal agency requirements, state requirements, etc.).  

At this point, you see the complex tapestry of public health funding in action in your community: the health screenings at the local fair, the vaccine drives at your local place of worship, and even when your child brings home a pamphlet from a health educational program held at school. It’s all public health funding in action. 

In addition to public funds, some programs are funded in part directly through donations from people like you. If a public health program means a lot to you, see if you can help the organization who put it together by volunteering, spreading the word or donating. 

 

References:

https://www.cdc.gov/about/organization/mission.htm 

https://www.cms.gov/ 

https://www.usda.gov/our-agency/about-usda/mission-areas 

https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R47106 

https://www.crfb.org/papers/qa-everything-you-should-know-about-government-shutdowns 

https://www.astho.org/topic/public-health-infrastructure/profile/#activities 

https://www.norc.org/PDFs/PH%20Financing%20Report%20-%20Final.pdf 

https://www.norc.org/PDFs/PH%20Financing%20Report%20-%20Final.pdf 

https://www.publichealthlawcenter.org/resources/state-local-public-health-overview-regulatory-authority 

Hepatitis Delta: Flying Under the Radar in the U.S.

As of 2019, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) requires over 100 diseases, infections and conditions – including hepatitis A, B and C – to be reported by state and local health departments. Physicians who diagnose these conditions, and diagnostic laboratories, are required to report confirmed and/or suspected cases to health departments, who then notify the CDC. This requirement allows the government to monitor disease patterns and track outbreaks to contain the spread of disease and protect the public. While all other forms of viral hepatitis are federally ‘reportable’, hepatitis delta cases are not required to be reported. Hepatitis delta is the most severe form of viral hepatitis, and spreads similarly to hepatitis B; through blood and sexual fluids, making it a public health threat, particularly for the 2.2 million people who already have hepatitis B in the U.S.

Hepatitis delta can only be contracted along with hepatitis B or after someone is already infected with hepatitis B. Acute cases can cause liver damage and even liver failure, and in chronic cases, can accelerate the rate of liver disease progression, as there are no effective treatments available. Although estimated to affect 5-10% of hepatitis B patients, hepatitis delta is severely underdiagnosed, leaving the true disease burden largely unknown in the U.S. and worldwide.

In conjunction with awareness efforts, adding hepatitis delta as a reportable disease could reveal a more accurate prevalence landscape of hepatitis B and delta coinfection and allow for more effective prevention efforts. The CDC asserts that “reporting of cases of infectious diseases and related conditions has been and remains a vital step in controlling and preventing the spread of communicable diseases,1” yet hepatitis delta has still been left out of the list of nationally reportable diseases. While notifying CDC is only voluntary2, 23 states have designated hepatitis delta infections as reportable to local and state health departments, allowing for surveillance of outbreaks, particularly relevant to the current nationwide opioid crisis.

Worchester, Massachusetts, which is currently experiencing a hepatitis A outbreak, also saw one of the worst hepatitis delta outbreaks in the country in the mid 1980’s. The infection was seen among drug users and their sexual partners, sickened 135 people, and killed 15. In those infected with hepatitis B, delta coinfection was present in 54% of drug users and 33% of their sexual partners3
. Interestingly, in Massachusetts, only labs (and not clinicians) are required to report hepatitis delta cases. The reporting requirement allowed the state to be alerted of a spike in cases and respond accordingly – a luxury many other states may not have if neither labs nor clinicians are required to report in their state.

Some states are even scaling back their surveillance; in 2016, New York State removed hepatitis delta from their list of reportable diseases, citing just 21 cases in a two-year period and a health code that asserts a “providers obligation” to “report unusual manifestations of novel strains of hepatitis.”4. Although hepatitis delta is more common outside the U.S., there is evidence to suggest persistent and even growing prevalence. A 2016 prevalence map presented by Eiger BioPharmaceuticals revealed New York City as a “hot-spot” for hepatitis delta cases5. Although more recent prevalence studies are sparse, and often include only small sample sizes, several have noted increases in hepatitis delta coinfection among certain groups. One study in Baltimore, published in 2010, compared blood samples from drug users in the 1980’s to samples obtained from 2005-2006 – and found a 21% increase in hepatitis delta coinfection among people already chronically infected with hepatitis B6. A 2015 study analyzed the blood records of 2,100 hepatitis B positive veterans – nearly 4% were coinfected7. A larger study, analyzing chart records of 500 chronic hepatitis B patients in California found that 8% of patients had a delta coinfection8. Another 2018 publication utilized data from 2011-2016 from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) and estimated there to be over 350,000 Americans with past or current hepatitis delta9.

While the true burden of hepatitis delta in the U.S. is debated, one study that analyzed diagnosis codes for over 170 million people showed 10,000 coinfected patients newly diagnosed in 2016 alone4. The American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases (AASLD) recommends delta testing in high-risk groups, but countless journals and leading hepatologists have called for universal testing of hepatitis B patients for hepatitis delta9,10,11  which could reveal thousands of unknown infections. Low awareness, testing, and the lack of inclusion on the notifiable diseases list contribute to the unclear picture of prevalence in the U.S. Inconsistent reporting across states creates holes in data collection and opportunities for missed outbreaks and subsequent treatment and prevention efforts. Adding hepatitis delta to the list of reportable diseases nationally could be the key to understanding who this ‘hidden epidemic’ is affecting, and where, and allow for effective surveillance to prevent future infections.

For more information about Hepatitis Delta Connect or hepatitis delta, visit www.hepdconnect.org or email connect@hepdconnect.org.

References:

1. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (1990, June 22). Mandatory Reporting of Infectious Diseases by Clinicians. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Reports. Retrieved from https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/00001665.htm.

2. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2018). National notifiable diseases surveillance system (NNDS): Data collection and reporting. Retrieved from https://wwwn.cdc.gov/nndss/data-collection.html

3. Lettau, L. A., McCarthy, J. G., Smith, M. H., Hauler, S. C., Morse, L. J., Ukena, T., et al. (1987). Outbreak of severe hepatitis due to delta and hepatitis B viruses in parenteral drug abusers and their contacts. N Engl J Med, 317(20), 1256-1262.

4. The City of New York. (2016). Hepatitis D and E and other suspected infectious viral hepatitides reporting. Retrieved from http://rules.cityofnewyork.us/tags/reportable-diseases.

5. Martins, E and Glenn, J. Prevalence of Hepatitis Delta Virus (HDV) Infection in the United States: Results from an ICD-10 Review. Poster Sa1486 DDW May 2017.

6. Lauren M. Kucirka, Homayoon Farzadegan, Jordan J. Feld, Shruti H. Mehta, Mark Winters, Jeffrey S. Glenn, Gregory D. Kirk, Dorry L. Segev, Kenrad E. Nelson, Morgan Marks, Theo Heller, Elizabeth T. Golub, Prevalence, Correlates, and Viral Dynamics of Hepatitis Delta among Injection Drug Users, The Journal of Infectious Diseases, Volume 202, Issue 6, 15 September 2010, Pages 845–852.

7. Kushner, T., Serper, M., & Kaplan, D. E. (2015). Delta hepatitis within the veterans affairs medical system in the United States: Prevalence, risk factors, and outcomes.

8. Gish, Robert & Yi, Debbie & Kane, Steve & Clark, Margaret & Mangahas, Michael & Baqai, Sumbella & A Winters, Mark & Proudfoot, James & Glenn, Jeffrey. (2013). Coinfection with Hepatitis B and D: Epidemiology, Prevalence and Disease in Patients in Northern California. Journal of gastroenterology and hepatology. 28. 10.1111/jgh.12217