Healthy People Home > Healthy People 2020 > Secretary's Advisory Committee > Sixth Meeting > Minutes | |||||||||||||||
Sixth Meeting: October 15, 2008 |
|||||||||||||||
Secretary's Advisory Committee on
|
To improve policy and practice by:
|
Dr. Fielding explained that in this updated statement, the words "and information" had been added to the third bullet in response to concerns that Dr. Lawrence Green, one of the report's reviewers, had raised in his written comments. Dr. Fielding also read aloud written remarks that had been received that morning from Dr. McGinnis. Dr. McGinnis suggested the following changes to the mission (shown in bold below):
Dr. Fielding felt these changes would be consistent with the information in the main body of the report. He asked the Committee members to review the recommendations, and to email their comments to NORC staff. He and Dr. Kumanyika would make a final decision on the wording of the mission statement, based on the members' final comments. A Committee member did not entirely agree with the proposed changes. He offered his understanding of the intent of the suggestions, as well as some alternate phrasing (see Table 1, below). Dr. Kumanyika suggested the phrase "best available knowledge" be used instead of "best available evidence" or "best available information." This would be a point to consider during later word-smithing. Dr. Fielding asked Dr. Patrick Remington to e-mail suggestions for mission statement revisions to the entire Advisory Committee.
External Reviewer Suggestions | Committee Reactions | Next Step |
---|---|---|
Bullet #1.
"Increasing public understanding of the underlying determinants of health, disease, and disability—and the opportunities for improvement." (Michael McGinnis) |
The focus on increasing public awareness should be captured in the third bullet, not the first. | Dr. Remington will email suggested revisions to the Advisory Committee members. |
Bullet #3:
"Catalyzing action directed by the evidence and engaging multiple sectors." (Michael McGinnis) "Catalyzing action using the best available evidence and
information." (Lawrence Green) |
Use "Best available knowledge," not "best available information." | To be determined during future word-smithing. |
External Reviewers' Suggested Revisions to the Body of the Report
Dr. Fielding said Dr. McGinnis had offered corrections to some of
the historical background information about Healthy People that had been
provided in the report. For example, Dr. McGinnis emphasized the important
role of states and localities in Healthy People and said this had not been
adequately addressed. Dr. Fielding felt it would be appropriate to make
this and other corrections.
Dr. Georges Benjamin, another external reviewer, had submitted comments suggesting that the report did not address in a concentrated way the issues of public health infrastructure or ensuring a trained public health workforce. In his written suggestions to the Committee, he suggested the report should discuss these issues; information and communication systems to collect and disseminate accurate data; the role of public health organizations at the state and local levels; and the need for multi-disciplinary, intersectoral partnerships. These suggestions had been incorporated into page 26 of the revised draft report. Dr. Fielding asked if the Committee members had any concerns about this change.
A Committee member suggested the Committee craft a paragraph to define what is meant by a multi-sectoral approach, offering specific examples. Dr. Fielding said that many specific examples are already included in the report, but he urged this member to review the relevant section and see whether any additions are needed. Dr. Manderscheid agreed to review pages 26 and 27 of the draft report and submit any suggested revisions or additions.
Revised Audience Matrix
Dr. Kumanyika explained that revisions had been made to the
audience matrix (page 38 of the final draft). It had originally classified
audiences into "information seekers" and audiences that "need awareness
raised." In the updated version, the audiences were classified as "primary" and
"secondary," rather than active and passive. The secondary
audiences are "targets for information about Healthy People," and the
primary audiences are "seekers of information." Dr. Kumanyika asked Dr.
Douglas Evans, Chair of the Subcommittee on User Questions and Needs, if
the changes were acceptable. Dr. Evans said that he had not had a chance
to discuss the changes with members of the Subcommittee, but he felt they
were useful. Other members agreed that the changes were an improvement.
Additional Changes to the Report
Dr. Fielding briefly reviewed additional substantive changes that
had been made to the report. For example, the language in the section
describing the importance of prevention was reworked emphasize balance
between over-selling the monetary savings of prevention versus
under-selling the importance of prevention. The current version of the
report mentions that not all prevention activities save healthcare
dollars, but some prevention activities remain valuable because they
improve the health and well-being of individuals.
Other changes included adding more emphasis of the importance of meeting the needs of diverse audiences (e.g., in terms of race, ethnicity, language, background); clarifying what is meant by "upstream;" and noting the need for measuring actual interventions (e.g. policies, programs, etc.)—not just measures of outcomes.
Dr. Fielding asked the Committee members if they had found any other changes in the report to be problematic. The members did not raise any issues. Dr. Fielding stated that the only remaining revisions to be made were minor adjustments to the mission statement, and an additional paragraph from Dr. Manderschied to clarify the meaning of "multi-sectoral partnerships." He also noted that Dr. Vincent Felitti (Committee member) had submitted comments on the report earlier that day and that his remarks would be reviewed. Dr. Fielding asked whether members wanted to wordsmith the mission statement by full Committee, or if they would delegate that task to the Chair and Vice-Chair. (Dr. Remington had offered to provide preliminary revisions). The Committee members agreed to entrust Dr. Fielding and Dr. Kumanyika with making final changes to the mission statement, with Dr. Remington's help.
A Committee member asked whether it would be possible to invite other individuals with relevant experience or insight to review the report and offer comments at this stage. Dr. Fielding responded that individuals have been able to comment on the ongoing work of the Advisory Committee through the Healthy People web site, regional meetings and public comment at the June 2008 meeting of the Advisory committee, and while there was no doubt that they could obtain other comments, it was necessary to finalize the report and move forward. This would not preclude others from making their own comments, continuing to submit comments through the Healthy People web site, or blogging, or providing feedback in other ways. However, Dr. Fielding said that on balance the report was strong, and that it was time to finalize it.
Dr. Fielding asked for a motion to approve the report, subject to the minor revisions discussed by the full Committee. All Committee members who were present voted to approve the Phase I report to the Secretary. (9 in favor, 4 absent.)
Advisory Committee Recommendation:
|
Dr. Fielding congratulated the Committee members on their work. He estimated that minor edits to the report would be completed within a week. Once the report had been finalized, the Committee would submit it to ODPHP. ODPHP would submit the report to the Assistant Secretary for Health, who would send it through appropriate channels to the HHS Secretary's Office. The report would be embargoed for 30 days, to permit the Secretary adequate time to review, and allow the report to be made 508 (c) compliant to ensure accessibility to all populations. It would then be released to the public.
Dr. Fielding proposed discussing the agenda for the Committee's next meeting (scheduled for December 17, 2008 1:00 PM-3:00 PM EST), when the Advisory Committee would begin its Phase II efforts. He also reviewed potential topics for the Committee's next in-person meeting, which would be held in Washington, DC on January 7-8, 2009. He suggested that NORC develop briefing papers in advance of these meetings to ensure productive discussions. Members offered additional suggestions, as summarized below. Each agenda item was designated to either the December or January agenda. The description of each item is followed by the month of the meeting in which it will take place (in parentheses). A final list of topics for each meeting is provided in Table 2.
Agenda Topic 1. Progress of the FIW
Dr. Fielding suggested having a presentation on the FIW's work and progress. He felt it would be useful for the FIW to identify issues and areas that the Committee's recommendations could be helpful and to perhaps have a short paper on that topic. Dr. Fielding said that the FIW's work is a high priority and should be the centerpiece of the December discussion, with key issues carried over into the January meeting. (December)
Dr. Kumanyika noted that some time should be allocated to discussing the relationship between the Committee's work and the FIW's work. She said that she did not fully understand that relationship. She wished to avoid duplicating efforts, while also maximizing the chance that the advice that the Committee offers will actually be taken. (January)
Agenda Topic 2. Selection of Objectives
The criteria for selecting objectives should be a topic for discussion in December. Dr. Fielding suggested producing a short paper that highlighted the FIW's criteria for selecting objectives. (December)
Agenda Topic 3. Healthy People Consortium
RADM Royall mentioned that she would announce the revitalization of Healthy People Consortium at the American Public Health Association conference in San Diego, California. She would invite participants in that meeting to join Healthy People efforts towards developing objectives and targets. She noted that a hallmark of Healthy People has been its reputation as an open and transparent process. The Healthy People Consortium would be a comprehensive group of dedicated public health workers and others who wish to participate in the process of developing Healthy People 2020 objectives. She asked the Committee members to help ensure that this happens. Dr. Fielding asked RADM Royall to update the Advisory Committee on the Healthy People Consortium at the upcoming December WebEx meeting. (December)
Agenda Topic 4. New Subcommitte on System Specifications
Dr. Fielding suggested creating a small subcommittee that would work to outline system specifications for the proposed relational database and make recommendations to HHS for a Web-accessible version of Healthy People 2020. He noted that at this stage it would not be necessary to have a high level of detail. A specifications briefing paper would be useful for laying out the Committee's ideas in a more developed form. What features should the database have in order to be useful to target audiences? He asked for volunteers for the subcommittee. Dr. Manderscheid agreed to serve as chair, and Dr. Evans, Dr. Fielding, and Dr. Lisa Iezzoni agreed to serve on the committee. (Dr. Remington was absent for this part of the discussion, but had agreed to be involved in such efforts at an earlier meeting.) (January)
Agenda Topic 5. State-level Healthy People Efforts
ODPHP explained that it is working on a project to assess Phase I of Healthy People 2020 at the state level. Once the Phase I framework is released, state agencies such as state health departments will use the framework to inform their own planning efforts. ODPHP is working on a project to support competitive grants for states for assessing the use of the Healthy People 2020 framework. RADM Royall said that the Committee should discuss state-level efforts during the December meeting, since the Request for Proposal will be released in January. Committee members agreed this topic is important, especially since they were involved in Healthy People efforts in their respective states. Ms. Blakey explained that NORC recently sent out surveys to state Healthy People Coordinators and Chronic Disease Directors to find out how they are using Healthy People. Preliminary findings of these surveys may be available by December. Dr. Fielding said this information would be very valuable. He asked Dr. Remington to lead discussion of state-level Healthy People efforts and how the Committee can add value. (December)
Agenda Topic 6. Quality and Availability of National Data Sets
A Committee member suggested that the availability and quality of national data sets an agenda item. Specifically, he mentioned the quality of national epidemiological and health services be data to reach into subgroups of interest for measuring health disparities and health equity. A representative from the National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS) could present on the main issues confronted as they implement data systems over time. ODPHP agreed to contact NCHS to see whether such a presentation could be arranged. (January)
A Committee member later added that the Advisory Committee should produce a series of questions during the December meeting that NCHS could answer during the January meeting. She added that the interaction between regional/local data systems and national data systems is important. (December)
Agenda Topic 7. Sources of Knowledge for Evidence-based Actions
ODPHP added that another point of discussion could be the action steps that users can take to achieve targets for individual objectives. Dr. Fielding noted that this idea relates to sources and use of knowledge. Specifically, what criteria should be used to decide which interventions and actions to recommend as being effective? The Advisory Committee must consider tools that are currently in existence or need to be developed for different user groups in order to catalyze actions based on objectives. A brief is needed to describe and how they can be explained to users (for example, through a toolkit). (January)
Agenda Topic 8. Selection of Focus Areas
ODPHP added that HHS would be interested in the Advisory Committee's feedback on the selection of focus areas. (January)
Agenda Topic 9. Interventions to Eliminate Health Disparities
Dr. Fielding said it would be important to help people understand the notions of disparities and inequities. There has been limited research in this domain, so it will be important to look at the current evidence-base and future efforts to accumulate evidence of what works to narrow gaps. Dr. Remington mentioned that he is currently working with colleagues to review 350 interventions across multiple determinants if health. This review examines the strength of the evidence, the size of population impact, and the effect on disparities. Dr. Remington said he would be happy to share this work-in-progress with Advisory Committee members. (January)
Agenda Topic 10. Target Setting Methodologies and Met vs. Unmet Targets
Healthy People has used several methodologies for setting targets in the past (e.g., "better than best," "percentage improvement"). The Committee's feedback would be useful. Dr. Fielding agreed this was valuable, because people do not know how targets were set, or whether they were realistic. Dr. Kumanyika said an analysis of why some targets have been met and others have not is important, and deserves time on the agenda. Dr. Fielding asked whether NORC could put together a briefing paper of what has been learned from the past (i.e. assessments from past decades, midcourse review) and what are the critical questions regarding this issue. (December)
Agenda Topic 11. User Needs Focus Groups
ODPHP added that user needs focus groups are being conducted and the results of the findings of these focus groups should be discussed. These findings could go hand in hand with the implementation/dissemination strategies discussion. Dr. Fielding agreed that should be placed in the January meeting's agenda. (January)
December 17, 2008 (WebEx) | January 7-8, 2009 (Washington, D.C.) |
---|---|
|
|
Dissemination of Report, Closing Remarks
Dr. Fielding noted that RADM Royall would provide a list of
organizations that will receive a copy of the Phase I report, which she
will provide to the Advisory Committee. If any important organizations are
missing from that list, the Committee will be able to add to it. He noted
that one possibility would be to have NORC support this effort, but it
would be necessary to verify that such activities are within their scope
of work. A Committee Member requested that NORC put together 10-20 slides
about the Phase I recommendations that could be used to explain them to
stakeholders. Dr. Fielding agreed that those slides would be valuable to
have by the time the Secretary's 30-day review period elapsed. They could
be distributed along with the final draft of the report.
Dr. Fielding thanked the Committee members for their hard work, and congratulated them on completing the first phase of their charge. He also thanked the members of the public who had signed into the WebEx meeting. A Committee member also thanked Dr. Fielding and Dr. Kumanyika for their leadership. The meeting was adjourned.
Content for this site is maintained by the Office of Disease Prevention & Health Promotion, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
Last revised: January 31, 2009