Welcome to the East Metro Health District
|
|
Our Values:
|
East Metro Quick Facts |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Geographic Size
Population (Census Bureau - July 1, 2008)
|
 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
East Metro Health District's County Boards of Health
Gwinnett County 2009 meeting dates: February 9, April 13, June 8, August 10, October 5.
The meetings are held at the Gwinnett Board of Health Louise Radloff Administrative Center, 2570 Riverside PKWY, Lawrenceville at 7:30 a.m.
Newton County 2009 meeting dates: January 15, April 16, July 14 (meeting will be at 4:15 p.m. instead of 8:00 a.m.), October 15.
Meetings are held at the Newton County Administration Building, 1113 Usher ST, Covington at 8:00 a.m.
Rockdale County 2009 February 12, May 14, August 12, November 12.
The meetings are held at the Rockdale County Health Center, 981 Taylor ST, Conyers at 8:15 a.m.
Board of Health Meetings for 2010
What is Public Health?
21st Century Public Health, a message from the East Metro Health District's CEO
Public Health’s Core Functions
Public Health's Structure in Georgia
California’s Little Hoover Commission Report on Public Health
21st Century Public Health
Lloyd M. Hofer, M.D., M.P.H.
Public health addresses threats to the overall health of a community based on population health analysis. Health is defined and promoted differently by many organizations. The World Health Organization, the United Nations body that sets standards and provides global surveillance of disease, defines health as: “A state of complete physical, mental and social well-being and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity.”
The population in question can be as big as a handful of people or, in the case of an influenza pandemic, whole continents. Public health has many sub-fields, but is typically divided into the population-based categories of Epidemiology and Environmental Health, and the individual- assistance category of direct Health Services.
To twenty-first century public health, a new and important population-based category has been added. Emergency Preparedness rushed to the top of many agencies’ main concerns after September 11, 2001 and the anthrax attacks that followed a few weeks later. It was subsequently added to state and local public health agencies’ priority lists as a largely under-funded mandate that competes with other sub-fields for limited resources.
Especially at the local level, this new sub-field is bringing the Health Department into alignment with Fire and Police Departments as the third component of a complete public safety program. Of course, all public health programs contribute to public safety because of their disease control missions. However, never before has there been such a pressing need for Police, Fire, and Health to work in tandem. Close links and ties between these three agencies are natural results of each being a major contributor to a community’s preparedness for any contingency, including both man-made and natural disasters. An act of terrorism catalyzed the development of our nation’s emergency preparedness program, but it’s function may prove most important in minimizing the effects of the next influenza pandemic. The H5N1 strain of avian influenza that is currently spreading around the globe may mutate to a dangerous human strain.
Public Health’s Core Functions
Assessment
- Monitor health status to identify community health problems.
- Diagnose and investigate health problems and health hazards in the community.
- Evaluate effectiveness, accessibility, and quality of personal and population-based health services.
Policy Development
- Develop policies and plans that support individual and community health efforts.
- Enforce laws and regulations that protect health and ensure safety.
- Research for new insights and innovative solutions to health problems.
Assurance
- Link people to needed personal health services and assure the provision of health care when otherwise unavailable.
- Assure a competent public health and personal health care workforce.
- Inform, educate, and empower people about health issues.
- Mobilize community partnerships to identify and solve health problems.
Public Health Structure in Georgia
County Boards of Health take the lead in providing governance, financial support and system oversight for local Health Departments. This structure allows for more local control and responsiveness to better meet the health needs of those who live and work in each county. The State, through the Department of Community Health, Division of Public Health, supports this system of governance by contributing financial assistance as well as by providing a local District Health Director. Each District Health Director reports to the Director of the State Division of Public Health, and simultaneously serves as the Executive Director for, and reports to, each County Board of Health within his/her district.
The composition of each County Board of Health is provided for in The Official Code of Georgia Annotated (OCGA) 31-3-2.This structure provides a mix of local political direction as well as local expertise in the delivery of health care and prevention services. The Public Health system serving the citizens of Gwinnett, Newton, and Rockdale Counties is known as the East Metro Health District. Each county served by the East Metro Health District maintains its own independent Board of Health and includes the following members:
- The CEO of the county government authority or designee
- The CEO of largest municipality (Mayor) or designee
- The Superintendent of the county school system, or designee
- A licensed physician, appointed by the county governing body
- A person acting as an advocate for consumers of health services; appointed by the county governing body
- A consumer representing those in need, the underprivileged, or the elderly; appointed by the county governing body
- A person interested in promoting Public Health who is a consumer, or a licensed nurse; appointed by the governing authority of the largest municipality in the county
County Boards of Health are charged by law with four functions:
- Determine the health needs and resources of its jurisdiction by research and by collection, analysis and evaluation of all data pertaining to the health of the community;
- In cooperation with the Georgia Department of Community Health, develop programs, activities, and facilities responsive to the health needs of each health district;
- Require compliance with the rules and regulations of the Department of Community Health that have local application; and,
- Enforce, or cause enforcement, of all laws pertaining to health, unless the responsibility for the enforcement of such laws is that of another agency.
Funding for Public Health
California’s Little Hoover Commission Report on Public Health
(As it might apply in Georgia)
In 2003 the Little Hoover Commission, an independent state oversight agency that was created in 1962, examined California’s public health system. “Public health” means different things to different people. The term is sometimes used to refer to government-subsidized medical care for the poor. It is sometimes used to describe efforts to influence behavior – such as smoking, eating or drinking – that can determine our health.
But the most essential definition – and the focus of the Commission’s report – is public health as the government’s efforts to protect all of its citizens from environmental contamination, disease and infection. While there are many actions that individuals and organizations can take to reduce injury, illness and death, some of those actions only government can take.
Following is an excerpt from the report’s Executive Summary with Georgia substituted as the subject state instead of California. The similarities between the two states’ public health issues are remarkable. The entire report is available here.
For a variety of reasons, public health policies have lost their focus: The persistent success of efforts to keep water and food safe, for instance, has allowed the emphasis to shift to smoking and other unhealthy behaviors, as well as cancer, diabetes and other chronic illnesses. From a government perspective, as is described later, the focus on providing health care to uninsured residents has overshadowed traditional public health functions.
However, terrorist attacks – and the economic and geopolitical trends behind them – have refocused attention on those functions that only government public health agencies can perform, roles that are essential to public safety. Technologies can improve the capacity to perform these traditional functions, and emerging threats require the government to perform these functions with accuracy, swiftness and skill. But these functions also provide benefits on a routine basis as governmental public health efforts intersect with the responsibilities of individuals and the private health care industry.
An essential function of government is to protect the public’s safety, particularly from those threats that individuals cannot effectively deter themselves. All Americans have a new appreciation of the threats posed by terrorism. The nature of those new threats have created new requirements on state and local governments in regards to security and require changes to the existing system that has been focused on serving the health needs of low income and uninsured working poor of Georgia.
Critical parts of this security role rest in the public health system, where skilled professionals are needed to prepare for, detect and respond to an array of hazards. While the states look to the federal government to provide national defense, the State of Georgia and its local government partners are primarily responsible for illness and injury at home. The State will need to build a strong and responsive partnership with county health departments and private providers. And it will need to fortify its professional workforce and arm it with effective technologies.
In assessing the nation’s preparedness shortly after the terrorist attacks of September 2001, the federal government identified the public health system as one of the weakest links in homeland defense. While natural disasters had forged effective alliances among traditional first responders, public health agencies are not given the same priority as police and fire protection.
Public health agencies lack equipment, training, procedures and standards necessary to perform in concert with traditional first responders. They found broad agreement among local officials, the medical community and other first responders that the public health system was not as robust as it must be. Poor communications and obsolete procedures hobble the ability of medical providers and public health authorities to protect the public. Experts and technologies are not tapped. Key positions are unfilled and authorities and responsibilities are unclear.
At the local level, competition for funds has made it hard for counties to maintain adequate public health resources. To be sure, the problems described have been developing for years, and this reflects more the gradual degradation of the public health system rather than the performance of incumbents. In fact, the public should find some comfort in the caliber and dedication of many public health officials who have remained with the program through this crisis. The concerns might be reasonably dismissed as a lower priority given the pressing fiscal problems or even the desire to help, for example, the working mother with a sick child who must choose between food and pharmaceuticals. But the threats and the risks are extreme. And the opportunity to make substantial improvements by refocusing and reorganizing existing resources makes these reforms both essential and financially feasible.
County officials and their private partners in emergency rooms and other facilities point out the inadequacy of efforts to improve this essential function of government. The concern is heightened by the threats themselves, which go beyond terrorism to include emerging diseases that are resistant to antibiotics. Just as a public health response conquered naturally occurring smallpox, a public health response is necessary to protect us from an intentional epidemic or from a seemingly inevitable pandemic. And while advances in medical care may heal our cancers, a public health response will be necessary to counter the rising numbers of cases of tuberculosis and other old and familiar diseases that are re-emerging in our schools and work places.
Foremost, the State must become the center of a network for technical information and new partnerships that can more effectively perform laboratory, epidemiology, and other core public health functions. The State needs to systematically help local health agencies rebuild and test their capacities. And it needs to recruit, train and retain – in its ranks and at the local level – the best available talent. The greatest lure will be the opportunity to be part of a high performing effort that will save lives.
These challenges would be formidable in good economic times, but with discipline they are possible even now. These organizational changes can be made by better using existing personnel and other resources. Many of the specific initiatives can be paid for with federal funds coming to Georgia to improve homeland defense. But there also is need for substantial legislative and executive leadership: to rigorously assess the system; to create a structure that can be highly skilled and highly responsive; and, to create the intergovernmental and public-private partnerships that will be necessary to protect public health.