摘要：Objectives. We examined critical budget and priority criteria for state health agencies to identify likely decision-making factors, pressures, and opportunities in times of austerity. Methods. We have presented findings from a 2-stage, mixed-methods study with state public health leaders regarding public health budget- and priority-setting processes. In stage 1, we conducted hour-long interviews in 2011 with 45 health agency executive and division or bureau leaders from 6 states. Stage 2 was an online survey of 207 executive and division or bureau leaders from all state health agencies (66% response rate). Results. Respondents identified 5 key criteria: whether a program was viewed as “mission critical,” the seriousness of the consequences of not funding the program, financing considerations, external directives and mandates, and the magnitude of the problem the program addressed. Conclusions. We have presented empirical findings on criteria used in state health agency budgetary decision-making. These criteria suggested a focus and interest on core public health and the largest public health problems with the most serious ramifications. The governmental public health enterprise continues to face myriad financial and other challenges, including eroding infrastructure, lack of political support, and increasing health problems associated with behavioral health. Since the 2008 economic downturn, thousands of public health jobs have been eliminated, growth has been stifled, and the public health workforce has continued to shrink because of attrition and retirement. 1,2 During times of scarcity, the means of allocating resources is of particular interest and importance. However, the characterization and study of resource allocation decision-making is more common in health care compared with public health, where knowledge is limited, especially among national health care systems in developed nations. 3–8 Globally, there is a growing interest in the systematic setting of priorities in health care and public health in developing countries, where funds are in shorter supply. 4,9–18 A much greater proportion of total health dollars in the United States are spent on health care compared with public health, which is about 3% of total health spending by some estimates. 19 This emphasis on spending for health care has created a dearth in research on setting of priorities and budgets in public health; we are not aware of any studies that have examined criteria use in public health priority setting at state health agencies (SHAs), although a few have examined priority setting in local health departments (LHDs). Two studies in particular indicated that the most important priority-setting criteria employed in LHDs were funding availability, mandates, being the sole provider, the size and scope of consequences, politics, and public interest or acceptability. 20,21 In 2011, the Association of State and Territorial Health Officials (ASTHO) released their Profile of State Public Health, Volume 2, providing the first collection of revenue and expenditure data that allowed for meaningful comparisons of public health spending across SHAs. These were the first data available in recent years regarding actual spending by SHAs, but these data sets did not capture processes: how SHAs set budgets and why they give priority to the areas they do. We focused on 1 particular component of the priority-setting process—criteria use—because of the critical role criteria were found to play in setting budgets and priorities more broadly in the course of this study, and as reported elsewhere. 22
