Turning Point and Public Health Institutes

Abstract

Public Health Institutes are free-standing multisector entities able to function as conveners to improve health status and foster innovations in health systems. Turning Point is a program funded by The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, involving 21 statewide initiatives and 2 "linked" states that formed multisector collaborative partnerships for public health systems change. In 18 of the Turning Point states, there are also Public Health Institutes, some formed by Turning Point partnerships and some established independently. Both Turning Point and Public Health Institutes represent efforts to reform and enhance public health systems. What has been the relationship between these two organizational forms? This descriptive, qualitative study examined the relationships between state-level Turning Point partnerships and Public Health Institutes in states that have both. Key participants in both institutions were interviewed, and models were developed to represent those relationships. Principal findings suggest that the relationships of Turning Point state partnerships with Public Health Institutes have taken many shapes. Factors that influence the choices and sequencing of these options are largely related to the political and economic resources of each state. Turning Point participants perceived Public Health Institutes to be a useful organizational form for sustaining public health systems change. Public Health Institutes have more administrative and fiscal flexibility than state government and greater opportunities for policy development and advocacy. However, free-standing institutes also have greater financial uncertainty.

Building Community Resilience to Disasters: A Way Forward to Enhance National Health Security

“…A 2005 assessment showed that 55 percent of local health agencies engage in some kind of formal performance assessment (Padgett et al, 2005). However, the most common type of data collected was customer satisfaction surveys.…”

The policy, structure and evaluation of long-term care networks: the differentiated requirements referred to the example of integrated long-term care in Austria

“…If the question of cost pressure is also taken into account, it becomes clear that greater structural complexity requires the definition of the principles of medical services planning and providing services in order to avoid unnecessary costs (Gibson, 1996;Padgett et al, 2005). An additional issue is to identify those areas in which synergies can be found and exploited in order to enable the installation of a higher-level strategically oriented cost and performance management system.…”

“…Medical networks can also arise for strategic reasons, for example, to enable change management processes to be planned and coordinated, or market situations to be dealt with in a coordinated way (Padgett et al, 2005;Thaldorf and Liberman, 2007). At this point, it should be noted that effectively and reliably networked institutions can also realise competitive advantage in the market (Tourigny et al, 2004).…”