Prioritization of public health financing, organization, and workforce transformation: a Delphi study in Canada.

BACKGROUND: The increased scrutiny on public health brought upon by the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic provides a strong impetus for a renewal of public health systems. This paper seeks to understand priorities of public health decision-makers for reforms to public health financing, organization, interventions, and workforce. METHODS: We used an online 3-round real-time Delphi method of reaching consensus on priorities for public health systems reform. Participants were recruited among individuals holding senior roles in Canadian public health institutions, ministries of health and regional health authorities. In Round 1, participants were asked to rate 9 propositions related to public health financing, organization, workforce, and interventions. Participants were also asked to contribute up to three further ideas in relation to these topics in open-ended format. In Rounds 2 and 3, participants re-appraised their ratings in the view of the group's ratings in the previous round. RESULTS: Eighty-six public health senior decision-makers from various public health organizations across Canada were invited to participate. Of these, 25/86 completed Round 1 (29% response rate), 19/25 completed Round 2 (76% retention rate) and 18/19 completed Round 3 (95% retention rate). Consensus (defined as more than 70% of importance rating) was achieved for 6 out of 9 propositions at the end of the third round. In only one case, the consensus was that the proposition was not important. Proposition rated consensually important relate to targeted public health budget, time frame for spending this budget, and the specialization of public health structures. Both interventions related and not related to the COVID-19 pandemic were judged important. Open-ended comments further highlighted priorities for renewal in public health governance and public health information management systems. CONCLUSION: Consensus emerged rapidly among Canadian public health decision-makers on prioritizing public health budget and time frame for spending. Ensuring that public health services beyond COVID-19 and communicable disease are maintained and enhanced is also of central importance. Future research shall explore potential trade-offs between these priorities.

Public health investments: neglect or wilful omission? Historical trends in Quebec and implications for Canada.

This commentary explores public health (PH) investments in Quebec and underlines the challenge of tracking PH resources across Canada. We analyzed governmental data to compare investments across all health and social programs in Quebec from 2004-2005 to 2017-2018. The province's PH budgets suffered from disproportionately low investments and abrupt cuts. These cuts were the largest among all health programs in 2015-2016 (- 7.1%). PH budgets did not keep up with inflation and, in constant dollars, have declined over the last decade. Furthermore, their evolution over the span of 14 years significantly differed from other health programs. On average, programs providing direct services experienced overall budget increases of 81%, whereas PH budgets had the lowest increase of all such programs at only 46%. PH suffers from serious erosion of its capacity. Unfortunately, there is a dire lack of comparable data for provincial, national, and international PH budgets, which further complicates the monitoring of PH erosion. We contend that systematic tracking of PH budgets remains profoundly inadequate across Canada. We recommend (1) regular, comprehensive, and publicly reported analyses of PH budgets; (2) in-depth comparisons of PH investments across Canadian jurisdictions; and (3) a strong PH systems and services research agenda for Canada.

Public health systems under attack in Canada: Evidence on public health system performance challenges arbitrary reform.

Public health is currently being weakened in several Canadian jurisdictions. Unprecedented and arbitrary cuts to the public health budget in Quebec in 2015 were a striking example of this. In order to support public health leaders and citizens in their capacity to advocate for evidence-informed public health reforms, we propose a knowledge synthesis of elements of public health systems that are significantly associated with improved performance. Research consistently and significantly associates four elements of public health systems with improved productivity: 1) increased financial resources, 2) increased staffing per capita, 3) population size between 50,000 and 500,000, and 4) specific evidence-based organizational and administrative features. Furthermore, increased financial resources and increased staffing per capita are significantly associated with improved population health outcomes. We contend that any effort at optimization of public health systems should at least be guided by these four evidence-informed factors. Canada already has existing capacity in carrying out public health systems and services research. Further advancement of our academic and professional expertise on public health systems will allow Canadian public health jurisdictions to be inspired by the best public health models and become stronger advocates for public health's resources, interventions and outcomes when they need to be celebrated or defended.

[Intensify the development of public policy has the health: approaches strategic for the authorities of health public]. / Intensifier l'élaboration de politiques publiques favorables à la santé: des approches stratégiques pour les autorités de santé publique.

Health promotion is one of the essential functions of public health authorities. The first pillar of health promotion is the elaboration of healthy public policy. Using the theoretical foundations of the healthy public policy concept, it can be demonstrated that public health authorities are able to develop, at their own scale, healthy public policies. Three strategic approaches are proposed in order to support public health authorities in strengthening their healthy public policy actions. First, better understand the tools or policy instruments (economic, regulation, information and persuasion) at their disposal. Second, take stock of the many types of legitimacy (theoretical, legislative, administrative and scientific) available to public health authorities as they develop healthy public policy. Third, consider the potential scientific roles that can be adopted while using the various policy instruments. These approaches can represent a pragmatic and structuring support for public health authorities wanting to strengthen their healthy public policy actions.