NEUMANN ET AL. RESPOND

Abstract

We appreciate Holtgrave's letter and agree with him that the disconnect between health economists and public health practitioners is a longstanding one. We also agree that the field lacks conceptual frameworks that can help articulate how quantitative policy analysis can foster linkages between researchers and public health practitioners. Indeed, in follow-up work to our recent article, we are developing a framework that practitioners can use to measure the value of public health services. The framework highlights key internal actions that local health departments can take, such as data collection and analysis. It also suggests quantitative measures (i.e., cost–utility analyses alongside other value-related inputs) that they can use; and the need for public health practitioners to communicate value to elected officials and the public. As mentioned in our article, several interview respondents suggest the need for academic partnerships to provide the analytical capability to conduct these analyses. Given resource and capacity constraints, only a few local health departments are currently able to collect and analyze the data to provide estimates of value. Thus, we strongly support collaborations between academicians and practitioners for providing added analytical capacity. An immediate next step is to begin testing our proposed framework (along with other existing strategies) to determine whether it is a viable option for measuring the value of population-based public health services (especially prevention). What are the barriers to implementing the framework, such as data availability and staff resources to analyze the data? How can the results be communicated effectively to policy makers and the public? Actions like these, along with other steps Holtgrave outlined, should be undertaken expeditiously. We hope that doing so will obviate the need for another “disconnect” paper in 2018.