Skip Navigation

The subcommittee has also indicated that priority-setting should be conducted for: interventions to address specific topic areas (e.g., “Cancer” or “Early and Middle Childhood”); interventions to address the major risk and protective factors for common diseases; and interventions that address determinants of health outside the traditional health sector.

The Subcommittee proposes the following recommendations:

  1. Priorities should be set at each level of government—federal, state, and local.
  2. Each level should incorporate public input into its priority-setting processes.
  3. Priority-setting should be informed by specific criteria (e.g., overall burden, preventability, potential to reduce health disparities, and cost-effectiveness).

Dr. Fielding commented that the language recognizing the various capabilities of stakeholders should be amended to say, “recognizing the various missions’ interests, needs and capabilities.” It should be clear that priorities depend on the nature of the organization that is setting them. He also suggested that when the document mentions setting priorities, explicit language should be added about the notion of preventable burden. The new Prevention and Health Promotion Council should be integrated into the document where it currently mentions the Domestic Policy Council. With respect to the second recommendation on public input, Dr. Fielding suggested changing the wording to encourage the input of all stakeholders including, but not limited to, the public. Dr. Kumanyika suggested that when discussing the need for priorities to be set at each level of government, the subcommittee should separate out the issue of setting national priorities as a separate recommendation. Because the national level priorities are going to be different, this would give the recommendation more visibility.

Dr. Fielding asked for a motion to approve the recommendations contingent on those changes being made. Patrick Remington motioned to approve the recommendations, and Eva Moya seconded the motion. The recommendations of the subcommittee on priorities were approved by unanimous vote.

Subcommittee on Strategic Communications

Dr. Douglas Evans explained that the subcommittee had met five times between October 2009 and April 2010. The subcommittee worked on developing strategic communication objectives and strategies, using the audience matrix that it had previously developed as a foundation for the discussion. The subcommittee also received updates about the communication efforts with other HHS activities, including, partnerships, and audience research that was conducted by ODPHP. The Subcommittee on Strategic Communications presented the following proposed recommendations:

  1. Commend the Secretary for undertaking internal work that spans across the Department to integrate national epidemiological, services, and encounter-financing data and to share these data in a form that is easily accessible by members of the Healthy People 2020 community in the field;
  2. Recommend that the Department undertake immediate planning work to design and build a national public health information technology infrastructure with the capacity to distribute these data, permit online discussions regarding these data, and apply the data to state, county, local community, and family health issues. This system should also be designed to collect future data; and
  3. Strive for the public health technology infrastructure to have the capacity to facilitate communication, networking, and interactive partnerships and collaboration among public health organizations to achieve the health communication and social marketing objectives of Healthy People 2020.