Surviving a Pandemic Without a Local Health Department
Published in Public Health
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.
Follow the Topic
-
Discover Public Health
This is an open access journal publishing research from all fields relevant to public health.
Related Collections
With Collections, you can get published faster and increase your visibility.
The Economics of Longevity: Health Expenditure and Societal Implications for Public Health Systems
The relationship between health investment and life expectancy has long been a focal point in public health research and policy. As nations grapple with rising healthcare costs and varying health outcomes, understanding how financial allocations influence population health becomes increasingly critical. Numerous studies have illustrated that increased spending on health services often correlates with improvements in life expectancy; however, the complexities of this relationship are not fully understood. Factors such as socioeconomic status, healthcare accessibility, and the efficiency of health systems play significant roles in determining how investments translate into health outcomes.
At the national level, health investments primarily encompass government expenditure on healthcare systems, public health initiatives, and health infrastructure. Nations that allocate substantial resources toward healthcare often experience better health outcomes and increased life expectancy among their populations. For instance, countries with robust healthcare funding tend to provide more comprehensive services, including preventive care, chronic disease management, and health promotion programs, all of which contribute to enhanced population health. However, it is crucial to consider how these investments are distributed across different segments of the population. Inequities in health spending can exacerbate existing disparities, leading to significant differences in life expectancy among various demographic groups. Effective health investment strategies must address these disparities to ensure that improvements in life expectancy are equitable and inclusive.
The motivation for this Collection arises from the urgent need to bridge the gap between health expenditures and tangible improvements in life expectancy. Recent global health crises and ongoing disparities in health outcomes across different populations have underscored the necessity for a deeper exploration of how resource allocation affects health dynamics. This Collection seeks to provide a platform for researchers and practitioners to discuss empirical evidence, theoretical frameworks, and innovative approaches to understanding these critical interactions. By fostering dialogue around effective health investment strategies, we aim to contribute to the development of more equitable and efficient health systems worldwide.
The purpose of this Collection is to gather comprehensive research that elucidates the dynamics between health investment and life expectancy across diverse contexts. We welcome contributions that analyze historical trends, comparative studies, and policy evaluations, as well as those that explore the implications of financial investments on health equity. By highlighting interdisciplinary perspectives and fostering collaboration, this Collection aspires to advance the discourse on optimizing health investments for improved population health outcomes.
Topics of interest include, but are not limited to:
- Economic evaluations of health interventions
- Policy impacts on health spending and life expectancy
- Health equity and investment disparities
- Longitudinal studies on health expenditures and population health
This Collection supports and amplifies research related to SDG 3.
Keywords: health expenditure; healthcare economics; life expectancy; economic evaluation; population health; health investment; health policy
Publishing Model: Open Access
Deadline: Dec 31, 2026
Improving Maternal and Infant Health: The Key for Future Wellness
Optimizing health across the life course begins with ensuring equitable, high-quality care during pregnancy, childbirth, and early infancy. Evidence increasingly demonstrates that early-life exposures and experiences are critical determinants of long-term health, shaping risks for chronic disease, developmental outcomes, and overall well-being. Despite progress, disparities in maternal and infant health outcomes persist globally, underscoring the need for innovative, scalable, and evidence-based public health interventions.
This Collection aims to highlight interdisciplinary research and practice-based efforts that advance maternal and infant health from a public health perspective. We welcome contributions that examine population-level strategies, health systems strengthening, community-based interventions, and policy approaches designed to improve care during pregnancy, the birth hospitalization, and early infancy.
Submissions may include original research, implementation studies, and quality improvement initiatives that address prevention, access, equity, and health outcomes across diverse settings. By emphasizing early prevention and system-level improvements, this Collection seeks to contribute to reducing the burden of chronic disease and improving health trajectories across the lifespan.
Topics of interest include, but are not limited to:
--Public health initiatives to improve maternal and pregnancy outcomes
--Community- and population-level strategies to enhance infant health and early development
--Health system and quality improvement interventions in maternal and neonatal care
--Educational and behavioral interventions targeting pregnant individuals, families, and caregivers
--Policies and programs addressing disparities in maternal and infant health
--Preventive approaches to improve early-life health and long-term outcomes
This Collection supports and amplifies research related to SDG 3: Good health and Well-Being.
Keywords: Maternal health; Infant health; Safer motherhood; Early-life health; Health services; Healthcare system; Public health
Publishing Model: Open Access
Deadline: Mar 17, 2027
