Surviving a Pandemic Without a Local Health Department

We found that counties in Pennsylvania without a local health department had poorer health outcomes compared to counties with a local health department. Policy changes are needed in Pennsylvania to establish and maintain a local health department in every community.

Published in Public Health

Like

Share this post

Choose a social network to share with, or copy the URL to share elsewhere

This is a representation of how your post may appear on social media. The actual post will vary between social networks

Explore the Research

SpringerLink
SpringerLink SpringerLink

Differences in community health outcomes in counties with and without health departments in Pennsylvania - Discover Public Health

Within the field of public health, communities are protected and disease is prevented when action is taken at the local level; the phrase all public health is local is often quoted to emphasize the importance of having public health officials at work at the local level. Evidence shows that when communities invest in public health, measurable improvements can be seen; there is clear evidence that a local department of health can positively impact the health of the community it serves. Despite evidence that local health departments improve community health, there are only seven county and four municipal/city health departments across the state of Pennsylvania; 54% of Pennsylvanians do not have access to or the services provided by a local health department. We conducted an ecological epidemiological study in the state of Pennsylvania. Specifically, we measured various health outcomes at the county level and compared counties with and without a local health department. We found that overall the counties in Pennsylvania without a local health department had poorer health outcomes compared to counties with a local health department after controlling for race, education, income, access to health insurance, and the urban–rural status of each county. Policy changes are needed in Pennsylvania to establish and maintain a local health department in every community. Local health departments provide the foundation for creating healthy communties and they are needed throughout the state.

As schools, businesses, travel, and life as we knew it began to shut down in March of 2020, an often repeated phrase was “listen to your local health official.” Federal officials encouraged the public to tune into local leaders who could provide detailed accounts of what was happening in their local communities – how many new cases were there, how many people were hospitalized, how many ventilators were available, and how many people were dead (or dying). Similarly, as the country began to reopen during the summer of 2020, the public once again was told to “listen to your local health official” for instructions regarding how to safely navigate the world still swarming with COVID. 

For those of us living in the 56 counties of Pennsylvania where there is no health department, these instructions to “listen to your local health official” made no sense. There was/is no local health official. There were local health clinics (staffed with nurses; not trained in public health) and public health professionals in Harrisburg, nearly 5 hours away, who were directing the public health response to the pandemic, but nothing about that felt relevant or local. 

We were required to survive the pandemic without a local health official to listen to or lead us.

In Crawford County, home to Allegheny College and the research team that completed this study, a group of volunteers – a county commissioner, epidemiology professor, and retired science teacher – banded together to track cases, answer community questions, and establish a single online resource page (on Facebook because there was no money, resources, or expertise to build out a county health website). This band of volunteers had little (if any) contact with leaders in Harrisburg, but they shared information within the county and did their best to keep community members informed and calm through the initial crisis of the pandemic. 

From 2020-2022 – we felt the void left by not having a local health department as a pandemic turned our worlds upside down. We had to source our own COVID tests, set up a contact tracing protocol (with only one individual in the community trained in public health), track our own data, establish relationships, and follow policies set by leaders who had never stepped foot in our community and who we did not know or trust.

It was not public health practice; it was survival.

In the years following, our research team started to ask questions that went beyond the pandemic – are counties with local health departments healthier? Do residents there have access to better healthcare? Do they get vaccinated more often?

These questions led to us completing an ecological epidemiological study where we assessed community health impacts, including obesity, infant mortality, smoking and vaping, percent of the population with health insurance, and youth suicidality, among others comparing counties with and without a local health department. We found that overall the counties in Pennsylvania without a local health department had poorer health outcomes compared to counties with a local health department after controlling for race, education, income, access to health insurance, and the urban–rural status of each county.

We believe there are significant benefits to having a local health department, and more than half of the population in Pennsylvania does not have access to those benefits due to the public health governance structure in the state. Policy changes are needed in Pennsylvania to establish and maintain a local health department in every community. Local health departments provide the foundation for creating healthy communties and they are needed throughout the state of Pennsylvania; not just in 11 of 67 counties.

Please sign in or register for FREE

If you are a registered user on Research Communities by Springer Nature, please sign in

Follow the Topic

Public Health
Life Sciences > Health Sciences > Public Health
Health Policy
Life Sciences > Health Sciences > Public Health > Health Policy

Related Collections

With collections, you can get published faster and increase your visibility.

Environmental Pollution, Health Risk, and SDG: Determinants and Policy

Health and well-being are core components of sustainable development, particularly within the framework of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). SDG 3 specifically focuses on ensuring healthy lives and promoting well-being for all ages, recognizing that achieving this goal requires addressing a variety of determinants, many of which are closely linked to environmental factors. Environmental pollution—especially air, water, and soil contamination—poses significant health risks and remains a critical determinant of health outcomes and disparities among different populations.

Environmental pollutants, such as particulate matter (PM), gaseous pollutants, and greenhouse gases, have been strongly associated with adverse health effects, including respiratory and cardiovascular diseases, cancer, premature mortality, and COPD. These risks are particularly pronounced in urban areas, where industrial emissions, vehicular pollution, and waste disposal practices contribute to deteriorating air and water quality. The impact of these pollutants is often disproportionately felt by vulnerable populations, exacerbating health inequities.

Integrated policy measures are essential in addressing the health risks associated with environmental pollution. Policies aimed at reducing emissions, improving waste management, and transitioning to cleaner energy sources are critical in mitigating the health risks posed by environmental degradation. Additionally, these policies must align with broader sustainability objectives, including those outlined in SDG 6 (clean water and sanitation), SDG 7 (affordable and clean energy), and SDG 13 (climate action). However, the implementation of such policies frequently involves difficult trade-offs between economic growth, industrial development, and environmental protection, making policy design and execution a complex challenge.

This Collection invites research focusing on the intersection of environmental pollution, public health risks, and policy responses. It seeks to explore how targeted policies—such as air quality regulations, climate change mitigation strategies, and pollution reduction initiatives—can improve health outcomes, particularly in the context of achieving SDG 3 and other related SDGs. Furthermore, this Collection will examine the potential conflicts and trade-offs that arise in implementing these policies, particularly regarding health equity and protecting vulnerable populations. By examining the environmental determinants of health, this Collection aims to provide insights into how integrated policy approaches can promote both environmental sustainability and public health.

Keywords:environmental pollution, health risk, air quality, public health, SDG 3, environmental determinants of health, epidemiology, pollution control, climate action, health equity, policy implementation, sustainable development, SDG 13, clean energy transition, urban health, environmental policy.

This Collection supports and amplifies research related to SDG3 and SDG13.

Publishing Model: Open Access

Deadline: Aug 26, 2025

Longitudinal Record Linkage and Healthcare Research in Low- and Middle-Income Countries

Healthcare research involving longitudinal record linkage, especially using the unique national identification numbers (NIN) are scarce in low- and middle-income countries (LMIC). The existing healthcare data structures collect separate facility-based and community/population-based data, with multiple forms of unique identifiers, mostly using paper-based system. However, these data are not collected for research but administrative reasons, and are seldom integrated to answer specific research, clinical, policy, or administrative questions. In this topic collection, we seek to invite submissions from observational studies, preferably repeated cross-sectional surveys and cohort studies that seek to answer any research question of public health importance using linked data. Submissions will only be considered if the methods provide detailed descriptions of data linkage methods, such as how linkage was established between the repeated cross-sectional surveys, health and demographic sentinel surveillance, or repeated measures in cohort studies. Repeated cross-sectional studies will be considered if they demonstrated linkage of individual participants across the surveys. Studies related to linkage of primary healthcare and population-based data, or linkage of multiple healthcare data sources will be given special consideration. All studies must provide clear explanations on how data were linked (i.e., linkage methods) and analytical approaches used. This series is organized, and guest edited by Dr. Innocent B. Mboya (Lund University, Sweden) and Dr. Neema R. Mosha (Mwanza Intervention Trials Unit, Tanzania and Ludwig-Maximilians University, Germany). All submissions are subject to standard editorial policies and undergo the journal's normal peer-review process. Submissions authored by the Guest Editors are handled by the Editor-in-Chief.

Publishing Model: Open Access

Deadline: Jul 31, 2025