Aimee Petrosky, Omonyêlé L. Adjognon-Bancolé, Michelle K. Surdyk, Rachael Cain · 5 authors
CONTEXT: The Massachusetts (MA) local public health system is highly decentralized. All 351 municipalities autonomously manage local public health infrastructure and budget, resulting in service delivery disparities. The MA Department of Public Health (MDPH) recognizes that achieving equitable access to public health services requires systems change, and successful systems change demands active participation and input from partners at all levels. OBJECTIVES: To collaboratively establish the first Performance Standards (PS) with and for MA local public health to reduce inequities in public health system delivery. DESIGN: Partner engagement and the Framework for Applying Qualitative Methods in Health Policy and Systems Research guided PS establishment. Relevant standards from MA laws were compiled and organized using document and thematic content analyses. Partner elicitations guided edits for finalizing PS. SETTING: In 2021-2023, MDPH facilitated statewide partner collaboration to establish PS. PARTICIPANTS: Six key MA public health organizations, representatives from 4 state agencies, and widespread MA local public health. INTERVENTION: Targeted engagement with internal partners enabled drafting PS. Widespread engagement with external partners elicited open comments to improve and finalize PS. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: MDPH and partners collaboratively formalized PS after analyzing 283 comments and 66 edits. RESULTS: Through active collaboration with partners, MA formalized the first official PS for local public health, released in October 2023. PS comprise 5 subjects, including 87 standards written into MA legislation across 4 subjects (environmental health, tobacco control, disease control and prevention, administration), plus recommended workforce standards. PS set minimum expectations for local public health credentialing and support consistent public health service delivery. CONCLUSIONS: PS are a steppingstone toward MA public health systems change. Collaboration is critical for partner buy-in, to establish and implement PS using shared resources structures. Effective PS implementation, synergistic with other efforts, will reduce disparities in local public health services and delivery and provide MA residents with more equitable access to public health services.
Background: In Italy, Departments of Prevention (Dipartimenti di Prevenzione, DPs) are primary organizational units for disease prevention, health promotion, and environmental health. Constitutional decentralization (2001) generated significant regional variability. While national data exist, in-depth regional analyses are lacking. Objectives: To provide a systematic descriptive analysis of organizational structure, governance mechanisms, and workforce composition of DPs in the Triveneto area (Veneto, Friuli Venezia Giulia, Autonomous Provinces of Trento and Bolzano), contextualized within national and international frameworks. Methods: Cross-sectional descriptive study using 2022 Italian Prevention Observatory national survey data. A structured 87-item questionnaire assessed organizational structure, governance, staffing, and quality systems. Results: A total of 10 of 14 DPs participated (71.4% coverage; 5.2 million inhabitants, 87% of Triveneto population). All maintained three mandated core services (Public Health and Hygiene, Veterinary Public Health, and Occupational Health and Safety), employing medians of 35%, 23%, and 14% of staff, respectively. Management Committees were active in 80% of DPs (vs. 77.6% nationally). Quality certification (30%) and institutional accreditation (50%, Veneto only) showed inconsistent implementation. The workforce was predominantly non-executive (65% vs. 67% nationally), reflecting progressive task reallocation. Median staff density: 3235 inhabitants/staff member (vs. 2608 nationally). Conclusions: Participating DPs—predominantly from the Veneto Region—demonstrate comprehensive service coverage and established governance structures, yet face standardization challenges. Findings should be interpreted in light of Veneto overrepresentation (8/10 participating DPs). Alignment with territorial care reforms (Ministerial Decree 77/2022) and National Recovery Plan investments could enhance integration, digital infrastructure, and preparedness capacity.
Photo by Evgeni Tcherkasski on Unsplash
 ABSTRACT
 Public health ethics has been contingent on a political landscape leading to several operational hurdles, especially during global health emergencies. Several scholars have pointed out that liberal decision-making has prevented public health institutions from achieving their goals. Thus, the need for a substantive outlook on public health has never been stronger. First, this article highlights the ethical tension and limitations of a presumptive approach to public health that a vaccination policy might produce in a liberal political landscape. Second, influenced by the works of Angus Dawson, this article emphasizes the importance of a substantive approach to public health, especially in a post-COVID era. Last, it looks at how TM Scanlon’s theory of contractualism aids in framing a substantive approach to health policy design and the added advantages of the theory.
 INTRODUCTION
 A public health intervention like a vaccination program for COVID-19, let alone a mandatory one, faces difficulties in implementation as it presents a clash between the role of the government and liberty of its citizens.[1] The clash stems from public health operating in a liberal political landscape that accords great regard for individual liberty. The government, in good conscience, is right in feeling morally obligated to act in ways that serve to prevent the pandemic from escalating. To represent the citizens, governments and policymakers prioritize achieving and maintaining herd immunity. The tension of the state versus individual liberty questions the extent to which governments can go to implement a vaccination policy.
 In trying to balance the considerations of individual liberty and the scope of the state to impose an intervention, the Nuffield Council on Bioethics came up with a design known as the ‘intervention ladder.’[2] The takeaway from the intervention ladder is that the state has the burden of proof in justifying reasons for implementing a particular policy.[3] Such justified trade-offs envisioned from the intervention ladder have guided policymakers in their attempt to design and shape interventions. However, public health ethics and even the intervention ladder view public health through a presumptive or a moderate liberal lens.[4] In a presumptive approach or a moderate-liberal approach to public health, policymakers regard values like liberty or autonomy as more prominent when weighed against values like creation of public goods and their maintenance.[5] A libertarian approach favors liberty and autonomy even more strongly.
 The substantive view of public health holds that values, such as liberty and autonomy, do not automatically hold precedence over community-oriented values such as public goods creation.[6] Some have critiqued the intervention ladder endorsed by the Nuffield Council of Bioethics. Angus Dawson remarks that the intervention ladder as a metaphor prevents the act of climbing. He claims the ladder assumes that liberty is the only guiding principle in policymaking. Such a view neglects any responsibility the citizens have in achieving public goods and maintaining them.[7]
 The emphasis on the drawbacks of a presumptive approach, especially in a situation like the COVID-19 pandemic, leads us to question should public health undergo a redefinition? The approach in public health focusing on non-interference stems from traditional clinical bioethics.[8] However, I argue that public health ethics in a pandemic should accord less emphasis to individual liberty and evaluate every ethical value on a level playing field. Individual liberty provides less platform for action in situations where the community has not established herd immunity. Accountability for the harm principle and maintenance of public goods override concerns surrounding liberty.[9] Angus Dawson argues that with more participation in a vaccination program, protection of public goods from disease can be created faster.[10]
 Characterizing public health as an antagonist to individual liberty undermines the confidence in public health institutions and interventions for which public trust is vital. Although the government may propose a mandatory vaccination policy when voluntary measures fail to meet public health requirements, clear scientific evidence and accountability for public welfare should be the guiding principle. Thus, resetting the parameters gauging a public health intervention is the starting point to prepare for future pandemics.
 In Resetting the Parameters, Angus Dawson suggests that utilitarianism or contractualism could serve as philosophical frameworks that may aid in framing a substantive approach to public health.[11] Evaluating utilitarianism and contractualism according to the COVID-19 facts would help clarify which is better suited to framing a substantive public health approach.
 l. Is Utilitarianism Substantive?
 Under utilitarianism, the morbid circumstances of the COVID-19 pandemic urge us to act in ways that translate to maximizing the overall good. Utilitarianism is a philosophical theory that prides itself on maximizing the best of outcomes for the maximum number of people. In an ideal utilitarian framework, a morally right act does good for all. Utilitarians consider utility the single determining variable that should guide actions.[12] The actionable aspect of a utilitarian framework is its ability to quantify thresholds or markers that mostly dwell in the abstract.
 In Utilitarianism and the Pandemic, Savulescu et al. outline certain determinants as aids in applying utilitarianism.[13] Looking at the aids in the context of a mandatory vaccination policy in light of COVID-19, shows some pitfalls of utilitarianism. 
 The first utilitarian aid is to save the maximum number of lives.[14] Rightly so, an intuitive starting point in a pandemic with striking mortality rates is attempting to save the most lives. However, implementing and justifying a policy with the aim of saving the highest number of lives is complex. While a high number of deaths is a concern, it is reductionist to concentrate only on the end goal and not the means through which such a goal is attained.
 The second utilitarian aid is the length of life.[15] The length of benefit gained from an outcome is crucial for utilitarians. The duration of a benefit determines the quantity of good produced. As an extension, younger people should then, theoretically, count for more than older individuals in prioritizing benefits. Such prioritization has been a matter of concern during the COVID-19 pandemic. While it is true that younger people might tend to benefit more, the pathology of COVID-19 goes against such logic. Elderly populations have experienced disproportionately more severe cases. Therefore, prioritizing youth when the elderly are suffering more of the harm would be ethically contentious.[16]
 The third utilitarian aid is the quality-of-life post-intervention.[17] Through measures such as QALYs and DALYs,[18] utilitarians have attempted to quantify each individual's quality after an intervention. This quantification can result in connecting an individual’s quality of life to their social worth. From a utilitarian viewpoint, a person's ability to produce relevance in society becomes a key determinant in shaping public policy. By extension, people born with disabilities such as mental illness or late-stage dementia can be overlooked merely because they lack "social value.”[19] And yet, “taboo trade-offs occur when we are forced to put a finite monetary value on these sacred values [life, health, ability], when we acknowledge that there is a maximum ‘price’ that we want to pay to uphold values that should be of ‘infinite’ value.” [20]. As such, it is unethical to place a value on someone's life based on the duration or quality of life they may have after an intervention.
 Besides creating difficulty in assessing the quality of life, measures such as QALYs do not address the nuances in providing healthcare. In Economic Evaluation of Mental Health Interventions, Luyten et al. discuss several operational changes that account for these nuances.[21]
 Utilitarians believe in a moral indifference between actions and omissions as the fourth aid.[22] It does not matter how a result is achieved as long as it benefits the common good. Putting forward a bad policy is the same as not putting forward a policy. In the ever-changing and unpredictable dynamics of the COVID-19 pandemic, actions and omissions have different moral implications. Equating them often places an unfair burden on lawmakers, leaving them emotionally and morally exhausted as they weigh the advantages and risks of various outcomes.
 Actively avoiding social biases, feelings, intuitions, and heuristics is the fifth aid.[23] The pandemic elicits strong feelings and aggressively tests beliefs. During the pandemic, some profoundly troubling ethical dilemmas stemmed from bias. In a utilitarian system, a mandatory vaccination policy aimed at crossing the threshold for herd immunity may overlook groups of people who are vulnerable due to a lack of access to the social determinants of health. Attempting to avoid feelings and intuitions all the time does not always result in the creation of a fair policy. Anti-vaccination activists use emotion to further their cause, hence it is critical that politicians consider the feelings at stake for the general public when enacting a mandatory vaccination policy.
 While utilitarianism has benefits such as developing simple operationalizable concepts, providing a quantitative check, and a balance sheet of risks and benefits, it is based on an ethical dystopia. Utilitarian policies can treat people as a means to an end by focusing solely on outcomes. Utilitarianism rests on a presumptive outlook toward public h
Chrissa McFarlane, Marquesa Finch, Tiffany Gray, Jonathan M. Fuchs · 6 authors
There are growing initiatives and calls for focusing greater attention to social determinants of health and their impact on population health [1]. Several emerging strategies are being used to begin to address social determinants, such as the use of health impact assessments and applying health in all policies (HiAP). These strategies and tools are being implemented in an effort to review existing and needed policies, as well as propose new policies to lessen health disparities [2]. Efforts to further integrate social determinants of health through the use of health information technology and other emerging technologies, such as distributed ledger technology both in and outside of existing health care systems are also increasing [2]. Understanding and addressing the social determinants of health through both traditional and non-traditional sectors is key to further reducing health disparities [1, 3-4]. Through exploration of the current state of social determinants of health in the healthcare industry, an analysis of blockchain technology will render the acceleration and adoption of social determinants of health to effectively provide improved health outcomes.
Colleen M. Flood, Vanessa MacDonnell, Bryan Thomas, Kumanan Wilson
The COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted the challenges governments face in balancing civil liberties against the exigencies of public health amid the chaos of a public health emergency. Current and emerging pandemic response strategies may engage diverse rights grounded in civil liberties, including mobility rights, freedom of assembly, freedom of religion, and the right to liberty and security of the person. As traditionally conceived, the discourses of civil rights and public health rest on opposite assumptions about the burden of proof. In the discourse of civil and political rights of the sort guaranteed under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the onus rests on government to show that any limitation on rights is justified. By contrast, public health discourse centers on the precautionary principle, which holds that intrusive measures may be taken—lockdowns, for example—even in the absence of complete evidence of the benefits of the intervention or of the nature of the risk. In this article, we argue that the two principles are not so oppositional in practice. In testing for proportionality, courts recognize the need to defer to governments on complex policy matters, especially where the interests of vulnerable populations are at stake. For their part, public health experts have incorporated ideas of proportionality in their evolving understanding of the precautionary principle. Synthesizing these perspectives, we emphasize the importance of policy agility in the COVID-19 response, ensuring that measures taken are continually supported by the best evidence and continually recalibrated to avoid unnecessary interference with civil liberties.
Este trabajo analiza la estructura de los servicios de salud pública en Estados Unidos. Pretende aportar la perspectiva de una organización federal de la salud pública con más de 200 años de historia, que puede ser de utilidad en el actual contexto español. La información se ha obtenido a partir de la realización de entrevistas con personas clave de los tres niveles de la administración pública (federal, estatal y local), así como con académicos (muchos de los cuales han sido directives del sistema de salud pública). Se presta especial atención a la organización, financiación y actividades de los departamentos de salud pública locales y de los estados, así como a los esquemas de relación entre ambos. Se comentan las implicaciones para un país como España, que ha pasado en poco tiempo de una estructura muy centralizada a una estructura descentralizada en 17 comunidades autónomas. The present article analyzes the structure of public health services in the USA. It aims to describe the perspective of 200 years of a federal organization of public health services, which could be useful in the current context in Spain. Information was obtained by interviews with key informants from the three levels of government (federal, state, and local) and with academics (many of whom had previous experience as public health officers). Special attention is paid to the organization, financing and activities of local and state health departments, as well as to the relationships between these departments. The implications for a country like Spain, which has evolved in a short period from a highly centralized system to a decentralized system based on 17 Autonomous Communities, is discussed.