Share this article on:

Community Priorities for Hospital-Based Prevention Initiatives: Results From a Deliberating Public

Gold, Marthe, R., MD, MPH; Realmuto, Lindsey, MPH; Scherer, Maya, MPH; Kamler, Alexandra, MPH; Weiss, Linda, PhD

Journal of Public Health Management and Practice: July/August 2018 - Volume 24 - Issue 4 - p 318–325
doi: 10.1097/PHH.0000000000000609
Research Reports: Research Full Report

Context: Internal revenue service provisions require not-for-profit hospitals to provide “community benefit.” In addition, the Affordable Care Act requires these hospitals to conduct community health needs assessments that involve appropriate stakeholders. These requirements signal government interest in creating opportunities for developing programs that are well tailored and responsive to the needs of the communities served. Gaining meaningful input from residents is a critical aspect of these processes.

Objective: To implement public deliberations that explore local resident priorities for use of a hospital's community benefit resources to prevent chronic disease.

Methods: Public deliberation is a method of community engagement that can provide guidance to decision makers on value-laden issues when technical solutions alone are inadequate to provide direction or set priorities. Three deliberations featuring presentations by experts and discussions among participants were convened with a cross section of residents in Brooklyn, New York. Participants were asked whether new hospital initiatives should prioritize: clinical prevention, community-based interventions, or action on broader policies affecting population health. Pre- and postsurveys, as well as qualitative methods, were used to assess knowledge and attitudes.

Results: Postdeliberation, participants had significant changes in knowledge, particularly on the impact of education on health. Participants prioritized community-based and policy interventions over expanding clinical prevention capacity.

Conclusions: Public deliberation offers a method to probe informed constituent views of how a hospital can best promote its community's health. Informed local residents felt that hospitals should frame health-promoting activities more broadly than is current practice. Not-for-profit hospitals gain significant tax advantages. Increased insurance rates suggest that some hospitals will experience savings in uncompensated care that can be used to promote health more broadly. Vetting priorities for the use of new resources with informed community members can be accomplished through public deliberation. These results suggest community support for nonclinical approaches to disease prevention.

Center for Evaluation and Applied Research (Mss Realmuto, Scherer, and Kamler and Dr Weiss), The New York Academy of Medicine, New York, New York (Dr Gold).

Correspondence: Marthe R. Gold, MD, MPH, The New York Academy of Medicine, Room 555, 1216 Fifth Ave, New York, NY 10029 (MGold@nyam.org).

This work was supported by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. The authors wish to recognize Michael Maciosek (HealthPartners), Ela Pathak Sen (Commotion UK), Baho Sidiqi (SUNY Downstate Medical Center), Shoshanna Sofaer (American Institutes for Research), Tongtan Chantarat, and Steven Teutsch for their assistance in technical aspects of this project. The authors thank the administration of Maimonides Medical Center and those who participated in the public deliberations for their interest and consideration.

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Non Commercial-No Derivatives License 4.0 (CCBY-NC-ND), where it is permissible to download and share the work provided it is properly cited. The work cannot be changed in any way or used commercially without permission from the journal.

Back to Top | Article Outline

Background

Federal government policy has increasingly required greater accountability from tax-exempt hospitals in demonstrating their contributions to the health of people in the communities they serve. In 2009, the internal revenue service added specific reporting requirements to Schedule H of Form 990 to promote uniform and comprehensive reporting of community benefit, so as to better assess the degree to which tax-exempt hospitals are providing appropriate levels of benefit to their communities.1 , 2 In addition to uncompensated care for indigent individuals, losses sustained in means-tested government programs, health professions' education, and research, the internal revenue service now stipulates the reporting of “community health improvement” and “community-building” activities (and requires hospitals to describe how these activities promote the health of their constituent communities).3 “Community health improvement” activities are non–revenue producing hospital efforts—primarily clinical and educational—that contribute to community health. “Community-building” activities are programs and investments hospitals make that are directed at broader health determinants, known to be powerful influences on the health of populations.4 Included here are activities such as economic development, environmental improvements, and coalition building.

The Affordable Care Act also requires increased hospital accountability to communities, carrying the requirement that nonprofit hospitals conduct a community health needs assessment (CHNA) with an implementation strategy that demonstrates the involvement of public health agencies, as well as a broad group of stakeholders.5 , 6 Singh et al have underscored the value of aligning community benefit activities with findings from CHNAs,7 but to date, there is scant evidence of the degree to which the views of local residents are incorporated into CHNAs. One review of CHNAs conducted by Texas nonprofit hospitals found that few engaged a broad array of community members in meaningful participation.8 Particularly problematic is the concern that hospitals are making choices regarding programs and activities without sufficient community input into decision-making processes.

Public deliberation is a promising approach to address the concern regarding insufficient community input. In wider use within the health sector in other countries,9 , 10 public deliberation is a method of community engagement that provides guidance to decision makers on value-laden issues when technical solutions alone are inadequate to provide direction or set priorities. Public deliberation includes educational components that are designed to provide balanced background information about divergent and/or competing approaches to a decision. Participants interact with facilitators, experts, and one another as they work through problems and case studies that are developed to lay out all sides of the question at hand and aid discussions that elicit information on the experiences and values of the group. The organization and facilitation of a public deliberation are directed toward generating reason-based discussion and debate, resulting in recommendations to the entity requesting the deliberation.11 , 12

Public deliberation has been gaining visibility in the United States as a mechanism for consulting the public about thorny health policy and programmatic issues. With roots in participatory democratic traditions,13–15 public deliberation practitioners endorse the view that important decisions, particularly where competing values and complex trade-offs are involved, are best made with guidance from an informed public that will bear the consequences of the decision. Deliberative processes pursue legitimacy, transparency, and accountability in decision making; participants who have a stake in the implementation of a decision, and who typically represent a wide swath of those who will be affected, are recruited to work with their peers to examine issues through the lens and values of their life experiences.

Public deliberation can use a continuum of methods and time frames, ranging from a half day to a week.16 Findings from a randomized controlled trial of 4 public deliberations approaches suggest that—for complex health issues—a citizen's panel approach is most likely to contribute to knowledge gains and typically leads to larger shifts in attitudes and perspectives.17 The citizen's panel model is a hybrid of deliberative polling18 (a 2-day deliberation typically involving a large and representative group of participants who interact with experts) and the Citizens' Jury method19–22 (an approach that typically involves 12-24 individuals from a cross section of the population who meet for 2-7 days to examine expert witnesses and deliberate on a policy-relevant question). In the randomized controlled trial of deliberative methods, African Americans, Latinos, and individuals with lower educational attainment reported more perceived impact from their participation than did whites and persons with higher educational attainment.23

Back to Top | Article Outline

Framework

Following on a 2014 CHNA—and in the context of emerging responsibilities related to community benefit—Maimonides Medical Center (MMC), in Brooklyn, New York, partnered with The New York Academy of Medicine (the Academy) to implement a series of public deliberations to elicit guidance from an informed cross section of Brooklyn residents regarding priorities for new hospital activities directed toward decreasing the burden of chronic disease, a major health concern identified in the CHNA. This article describes and reports on the results of these public deliberations, focusing on the issue of hospital role, 1 of 2 deliberative questions. Specifically, participants were asked to consider the following:

Should Maimonides' efforts to improve health focus primarily on the following:

  1. Improving prevention services delivered by medical staff in the hospital's clinics?
  2. Community interventions that decrease risk factors for disease?
  3. Working to change policies (eg, of the government, of employers, of schools) that make it easier for people to stay healthy?
Back to Top | Article Outline

Methods

Deliberative sessions

After expedited approval from the Academy Institutional Review Board, study authors convened and facilitated three 2-day public deliberations in the fall of 2015. Extensive outreach was conducted to identify participants, including phone calls to community members who previously participated in MMC community programming; signs in libraries and other public places; engagement with local elected officials; announcements on social media; and outreach at health fairs and to community organizations serving diverse populations. Each deliberative session involved 21 to 24 participants who were selected from nearly 300 individuals who responded to outreach efforts. Demographic information was assessed through a screening form that potential participants could complete online or by phone. Eligibility criteria included Brooklyn residency, age 18 years or older, self-reported comfort with English, and a correct response to 1 numeracy item. Participants were purposefully selected from the larger sample to provide diversity according to age, race and ethnicity, languages spoken in the home, education, and neighborhood, as reported on the screening form. Informed consent was obtained from participating individuals.

In advance of each public deliberation, participants received background materials that provided context for their discussions. Each deliberation began with senior MMC leadership underscoring their interest in obtaining guidance from area residents on strategies the hospital should undertake to improve health outcomes in local communities. Facilitators oriented attendees to the ethos of a deliberation, including the importance of participation, respect for differing opinions, and the need to provide reasons when describing their perspectives.

Deliberative sessions featured educational presentations by team members and national and local experts. Topics included community-level health indicators and relevant risk factors; “evidence” in the context of health and medical research; and the contribution of social and environmental factors to chronic disease. Separate presentations provided concrete examples of clinical, community-based, and policy-based prevention interventions. To ensure that participants heard a balance of perspectives, these presentations were prepared and delivered by experts, each of whom provided rationales and evidence in support of the approach to prevention they championed. Participants interacted with experts, posing questions relevant to the deliberation.

Discussions and deliberations occurred within the larger group setting and in breakout groups of 7 to 8 participants. In each of 3 breakout sessions, participants examined exemplar case studies of clinical, community-based, and policy approaches to chronic disease prevention. Case studies included information on the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of given interventions, as well as projected impact on the health of diverse Brooklyn residents in 10 and 30 years. All case studies were developed from evidence-based reviews conducted by the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, the Community Guide to Prevention, and/or Cochrane reviews.24 , 25 To prepare participants for answering the overarching deliberative question regarding hospital role and approaches to preventing chronic illness, each small group shared its recommendations with the larger group following the breakout sessions. At the conclusion of the deliberation, participants were asked to make their final recommendations.

Back to Top | Article Outline

Data Collection, Management, and Analysis

Quantitative data

Participants completed pre- and postsurveys that included questions on knowledge and attitudes related to areas that the public deliberation focused on: evidence; environmental, social, and behavioral risk factors for poor health; and prevention interventions. The postsurvey also included questions on perceptions of the public deliberation and its utility. Surveys were linked with a unique identifier, allowing analysis of both individual and group shifts in knowledge and attitudes. Descriptive statistics were used to characterize the participants at baseline; McNemar, Stuart-Maxwell, and paired t tests were used to examine shifts in knowledge and attitudes pre– and post–public deliberation. Regression analyses were used to examine whether increases in knowledge were associated with changes in attitude.

Back to Top | Article Outline

Qualitative data

Qualitative data came from audio recordings of breakout sessions and phone interviews conducted with a sample of participants (n = 10) following the deliberative sessions. Interviewees were selected for diversity according to demographics and responses to the deliberative questions. Recordings were professionally transcribed; transcripts were managed using NVivo, a software package for qualitative analysis (NVivo11 QSR International, Victoria, Australia). Public deliberation discussions and interviews were coded for preidentified (eg, policy) and emergent (eg, feasibility) themes and analyzed using standard qualitative approaches, involving repeated reviews of the data by multiple members of the research team.

Back to Top | Article Outline

Results

Characteristics of participants, and of the wider community, are described in Table 1.26 Sixty-four percent of participants were older than 50 years. Fifty-eight percent had at least a college degree, two-thirds were female, and just more than half (51.5%) were white. Approximately 20% were black/African American, approximately 10% were Latino, and 10% Asian.

TABLE 1

TABLE 1

At the beginning of the deliberations, participants answered on average 9 of 16 knowledge questions correctly. Postdeliberation, participants averaged close to 12 correct responses, a statistically significant increase (P < .001). In the postsurvey, 52% of participants correctly identified dropping out of high school as a risk factor for heart disease, compared with 21% in the presurvey (see Figure 1).

FIGURE 1

FIGURE 1

FIGURE 2

FIGURE 2

For the overarching deliberative question, there was an increase in the number of participants who prioritized community and policy interventions versus clinical interventions (see Figure 2). Although the presurveys indicated that many participants came to the deliberations preferring community (34.9%) or policy (50.8%) approaches, these numbers increased postdeliberation (39.7% and 57.1%, respectively). Qualitative findings were consistent with survey results. Participants emphasized the broad reach and implications of community and policy approaches.

If more resources [are] given to the hospital's traditional role, I think you're just continuing with the status quo. And I don't think it's gonna make much of an impact on changing the health outcomes of the people in the community.

I'm asking for hospitals to just be more mindful of all the different ways that we can increase health. It's not just one way.

If Maimonides were publicly rallying for different policies that would affect the community's health ... I feel like it would be a positive image for the hospital and it would also kind of show the community that the hospital is just not a place where you go when you're in dire need. It's a place that's focused on health on all levels.

When asked to rank the importance of each of the 9 exemplar interventions considered through the case studies, the highest-ranking intervention in both the pre- and the postsurvey was “community centers offering group exercise opportunities for older adults” (see Table 2), though there was a slight decrease in the postsurvey. The interventions that showed the greatest decreases in priority were “counseling on diet and physical activity within a clinical encounter” and “worksite wellness programs to improve diet and physical activity.” Interventions that showed the greatest increases in priority from pre- to postsurvey were those that focused on the importance of education, including “decreased class sizes to improve high school graduation” and “health care providers encouraging parents to read to their children.” Improvement in participants' knowledge about the connection between education and health was significantly associated with a higher prioritization of the smaller classroom size intervention (linear regression, β = .85, P = .0185, data not shown).

TABLE 2

TABLE 2

Qualitative data gathered from participants indicate that, in addition to presenting information about the broader determinants of health, the public deliberation provided a framework for health that reflected and validated their own experiences. Responding to an interview question, “How did your understanding of social factors that impact chronic disease shift, if at all, during the public deliberation?” 1 participant noted,

It's something that I sort of thought anyway, but to see actual statistics on it that prove my gut feeling on the matter. And it just makes a lot of sense. If you're—if you didn't have the opportunity to have a good education, you're not going to have a good job, you're going to be much more stressed in life, you're going to have much less time to take care of yourself, you're going to have much fewer resources to eat properly.

When answering a question about dedicating resources to improve the health of people at high risk of disease because of social factors, another participant responded:

I think that would be at the top of the list, definitely, on things to pull resources for and to focus on because, mainly because it's hard for people to escape their environment. So, even if they're trying to make efforts themselves, the moment they walk out their door they're inundated with issues that are challenging or choices that might not be that easy to make for them.

Back to Top | Article Outline

Perceptions of the deliberative process

In the postdeliberation survey, all but 1 participant agreed or strongly agreed that they would participate in a process like this again, and 95% thought that hospitals should use this type of process to make decisions in the future (data not shown). As illustrated by the quotes later, participants saw community input in hospital decision making as important and had not known of opportunities to do so before the public deliberation. Participants also reflected that the public deliberation helped broaden their thinking about appropriate roles for hospitals.

I think if you want to affect the community, it is really important to get feedback from that community .... My thought of a hospital was when you need treatment, you go to a hospital. If you want to go beyond that, and have outreach programs like they're doing, I think the opinion of the community, that's super important.

How do you learn about the community or what the community needs or wants if not by gleaning information from actual residents and people who utilize the hospital facilities? So, yes, it's very important. It's something that I never even thought existed.

I think when I first filled out the [pre] survey I was more like clinical. But then after going through the two days, it broadened. My thinking wasn't so individual, it was thinking about everybody.... Because after being in a group you find out that there's a lot of different people with different situations. Not everyone is living like you, so ... you can't just think about yourself all the time.

Back to Top | Article Outline

Discussion

In the public deliberations reported here, participants recommended that the sponsoring hospital should expand its activities to prevent chronic disease. Compared with a national sample, individuals taking part in the 3 deliberations came to the sessions with a greater understanding of the health impact of social and environmental factors.27 Nevertheless, in each of the public deliberations, participants' knowledge of the impact of socioeconomic factors on health increased. The final recommendations across all groups asked that the hospital take a larger role in community-based interventions, as well as in championing policies that would protect and promote their health. Review of the qualitative findings suggests that participants valued these expanded approaches to preventing disease because of their broad reach and ability to affect a range of factors related to health and quality of life more generally.

Output from public deliberations has been questioned, in that deliberations involve relatively small numbers and so are unable to represent the values and views of all who would be affected by the recommendations. In fact, the deliberations described here faced particular challenges in achieving representativeness because of the great diversity in Brooklyn, with respect to race, ethnicity, and socioeconomic status. Although the deliberations brought together a broad cross section of residents, participants were not representative of MMC's service area or of Brooklyn, overall (see Table 1). The groups, on average, were more highly educated than the overall population, which was in part a function of the need for participants in this public deliberation to have sufficient comfort with numeracy to allow them to engage in conversation around scientific evidence and cost-effectiveness. Furthermore, despite vigorous outreach efforts, there was minimal participation from members of the orthodox religious groups that are prevalent within the hospital's service area. Finally, we were unable to include community members who had limited English proficiency, because clear communication between participants is central to deliberative processes. To partially address this last limitation, we prioritized selection of participants who lived in households in which at least 1 member was not English-speaking.

Public deliberations, because of their limited size, do not achieve the representative sample that surveys do. Despite this limitation, public deliberations facilitate greater engagement and comprehension of any given topic, thereby prompting more informed recommendations. Ensuring that diverse populations are included remains an important challenge and likely requires additional resources to address (eg, for translation and interpretation). However, the heterogeneity of Brooklyn is unusual. Recruitment of a representation sample is likely to be less of a challenge elsewhere, particularly in rural and suburban areas, where there is greater racial, ethnic, and religious homogeneity.

Back to Top | Article Outline

Conclusion

Calls for nonprofit hospitals to shift their community benefit investments toward broader community needs and away from direct patient care are increasing.28 , 29 Yet despite the well-recognized association of social and environmental factors with the health of communities, a recent review of US hospitals' community benefit expenditures found that of the national median $130 per capita spent, less than 9% went toward community health improvement and community-building activities.2 A report of a sample of New York State hospitals found that less than 0.1% of total hospitals' expenses was directed at “community building” activities, such as housing and education that target root causes of health outcomes.30

The value to hospitals of their nonprofit status is estimated to have doubled between 2002 and 2011 from $12.6 billion to $24.6 billion.28 This benefit to hospitals is provided by taxpayers who, in foregoing access and alternative uses for this money, can reasonably claim a voice in hospital decisions regarding community benefit expenditures. Although the technical insights of clinicians, public health workers, administrators, and policy makers are essential to efforts to improve the health of populations, absent an understanding of the views of informed community members, opportunities to create a transformed system with an emphasis on health may fall by the wayside. In medicine, there has been increasing attention to “patient engagement,” which is now understood to be a critical component for a high-performing medical care delivery system. At the community level, engagement of residents by hospitals, public health agencies, and other entities with a stake in population health should be seen as an analogous and vital step in planning and decision making. Public deliberation is a tested methodology that can build the knowledge base among community members while at the same time providing guidance to health-promoting organizations.

Health systems are grappling with changes in reimbursement strategies that move away from fee-for-service toward value-based care31–33 and capitation. With that comes the concomitant need to promote and protect the health of populations in their service area. Although some systems have already assumed broader-based efforts to improve population health,3 , 30 reimbursement reform is still in its early days. For hospitals that principally serve economically disadvantaged communities and rely on public payers, it is likely that such a shift is difficult and that community benefit dollars will continue to support direct clinical services rather than moving toward a primary/primordial prevention model. However, findings from this work suggest that lay members of the public endorse a changing role for a hospital's approaches to health.

Back to Top | Article Outline

Implications for Policy & Practice

  • Not-for-profit hospitals gain tax advantages. In communities where insurance coverage has increased, resources previously devoted to uncompensated care may become available for new initiatives that promote and support health more broadly.
  • Priorities for the advantageous use of these resources can be vetted with an informed cross section of community members using the structured method of public deliberation.
  • Community members who are familiarized with a range of strategies for prevention may be more likely to support innovations in how “health” dollars are expended, including population-based approaches.
Back to Top | Article Outline

References

1. Young GJ, Chou C-H, Alexander J, Lee S-YD, Raver E. Provision of community benefits by tax-exempt U.S. hospitals. N Engl J Med. 2013;368:1519–1527.
2. Singh SR, Bakken E, Kindig DA, Young GJ. Hospital community benefit in the context of the larger public health system: a state-level analysis of hospital and governmental public health spending across the United States. J Public Heal Manag Pract. 2016;22(2):164–174.
3. Nelson GD, Skopac JS, Mueller CH, Wells TK, Boddie-Willis CL. Hospital community benefits after the ACA: addressing social and economic factors that shape health. http://www.hilltopinstitute.org/publications/HospitalCommunityBenefitsAfterTheACA-ShapeHealthIssueBrief9-May2014.pdf. Published 2014. Accessed May 9, 2017.
4. Woolf SH, Aron L, eds. U. S. Health in International Perspective: Shorter Lives, Poorer Health. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press; 2013. http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=13497. Accessed May 9, 2017.
5. Kindig D, Stoddart G. What is population health? Am J Public Health. 2003;93(3):380–383.
6. Stoto MA. Population health in the Affordable Care Act Era. http://www.academyhealth.org/files/AH2013pophealth.pdf. Published 2013. Accessed May 9, 2017.
7. Singh SR, Young GJ, Lee SD, Song PH, Alexander JA. Analysis of hospital community benefit expenditures ' alignment with community health needs: evidence from a national investigation of tax-exempt hospitals. Am J Public Health. 2015;105(5):914–921.
8. Pennel CL, McLeroy KR, Burdine JN, Matarrita-Cascante D, Wang J. A mixed-methods approach to understanding community participation in community health needs assessments. J Public Heal Manag Pract. 2017;23(2):112–121.
9. Degeling C, Carter SM, Rychetnik L. Which public and why deliberate?—A scoping review of public deliberation in public health and health policy research. Soc Sci Med. 2015;131:114–121.
10. Siegel JE, Heeringa JW, Carman KL. Public deliberation in decisions about health research. Am Med Assoc J Ethics. 2013;15(1):56–64.
11. Abelson J, Forest P, Eyles J, Smith P, Martin E, Gauvin F. Deliberations about deliberative methods: issues in the design and evaluation of public participation processes. Soc Sci Med. 2003;57:239–251.
12. Solomon S, Abelson J. Why and when should we use public deliberation? Hastings Cent Rep. 2012;42(2):17–20.
13. Chambers S. Deliberative democratic theory. Annu Rev Polit Sci. 2003;6:307–326.
14. Gutmann A, Thompson D. Why Deliberative Democracy? Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press; 2004.
15. Davies C, Wetherell M, Barnett E, Seymour-Smith S. Opening the Box: Evaluating the Citizens Council of NICE. Report prepared for the National Co-ordinating Centre for Research Methodology, NHS Research and Development Programme. Milton Keynes, UK: The Open University. 2005.
16. Mitton C, Smith N, Peacock S, Evoy B, Abelson J. Public participation in health care priority setting: a scoping review. Health Policy. 2009;91(3):219–228.
17. Carmen K, Maurer M, Mallery C, et al Community Forum Deliberative Methods Demonstration: Evaluating Effectiveness and Eliciting Public Views on Use of Evidence. Executive Summary. Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; 2013. http://www.effectivehealthcare.ahrq.gov/reports/final.cfm. Accessed August 12, 2014.
18. Fishkin J, Farrar C. Deliberative polling: from experiment to community resource. In: Gastil J, Levine P, eds. The Deliberative Democracy Handbook: Strategies for Effective Civic Engagement in the Twenty-First Century. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass; 2005.
19. Lenaghan J, New B, Mitchell E. Setting priorities: is there a role for citizens' juries? BMJ. 1996;312:1591–1593.
20. Participedia. Citizens' Jury. http://participedia.net/en/methods/citizens-jury. Accessed October 19, 2016.
21. Coote A, Lenaghan J. Citizen Juries: Theory Into Practice. London, United Kingdom: Institute for Public Policy Research; 1997.
22. Davies S, Elizabeth S, Hanley B, New B, Sang B. Ordinary Wisdom: Reflections on an Experiment in Citizenship and Health. Marylebone, London: The King's Fund; 1998.
23. Wang G, Gold M, Siegel J, et al Deliberation: obtaining informed input from a diverse public. J Health Care Poor Underserved. 2015;26(1):223–242.
24. The Community Guide. http://www.thecommunityguide.org/index.html. Published 2016. Accessed August 31, 2016.
25. Cochrane Library. http://www.cochranelibrary.com/. Published 2016. Accessed August 31, 2016.
26. United States Census Bureau. 2010-2014 American community survey 5-year estimates. http://factfinder.census.gov/faces/nav/jsf/pages/index.xhtml#. Accessed October 1, 2016.
27. Booske BC, Robert SA, Rohan AMK. Awareness of racial and socioeconomic health disparities in the United States: the national opinion survey on health and health disparities, 2008-2009. Prev Chronic Dis Public Heal Res Pract Policy. 2011;8(4):1–9.
28. Rosenbaum S, Kindig DA, Bao J, Byrnes MK, O'Laughlin C. The value of the nonprofit hospital tax exemption was $24.6 billion in 2011. Health Aff. 2015;34(7):1225–1233.
29. Corrigan J, Fisher E, Heiser S. Hospital Community benefit programs: increasing benefits to communities. J Am Med Assoc. 2015;313(12):1211–1212.
30. Chen MA, Unruh MA, Pesko F, et al The role of hospitals in improving non-medical determinants of community population health. http://nyshealthfoundation.org/uploads/resources/community-population-health-report-april-2016.pdf. Published 2016. Accessed June 4, 2016.
31. Guterman S, Davis K, Stremikis K, Drake H. Innovation in Medicare and Medicaid will be central to health reform's success. Health Aff. 2010;29(6):1188–1193.
32. Conrad DA, Grembowski D, Hernandez SE, Lau B, Marcus-smith M. Emerging lessons from regional and state innovation in value-based payment reform: balancing collaboration and disruptive innovation. Milbank Q. 2014;92(3):568–623.
33. Ginsburg PB. Achieving health care cost containment through provider payment reform that engages patients and providers. Health Aff. 2013;32(5):929–934.
Keywords:

chronic disease prevention; community benefit; community health needs assessment; population health; public deliberation

Copyright © 2018 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.