How strong is your organization’s relationship with local health departments in the communities you serve? Do you view governmental public health as an essential partner? How can you best increase and improve support for state and local public health departments? What types of investments are most likely to yield transformative change? As the future of public health hangs in the balance, philanthropic organizations must renew their commitment to governmental public health agencies and reimagine strategies for strengthening these partnerships.
The COVID-19 pandemic has exposed and exacerbated existing disparities in vulnerable rural communities, which place the 46 million Americans in rural geographies in a particularly precarious situation. In the spring of 2020, Grantmakers In Health reached out to several funders engaged in this work to better understand their perspectives on rural response and recovery and to share those examples with the broader field to assist funders as they determine future needs and strategies in rural areas.
As the novel coronavirus races across the globe, health funders are urgently preparing for and responding to COVID-19 in the communities they serve. While past public health crises inform COVID-19 response, there is no proven playbook for how health philanthropy should respond to this rapidly evolving threat.
The opioid epidemic remains a critical public health crisis that necessitates philanthropic attention. Philanthropy is uniquely suited to respond to immediate challenges while also supporting broader systems change.
Whether because of geographic distance in rural areas, being homebound at a residence, a shortage of health care professionals, or lack of transportation, there are a variety of reasons why a consumer might not be able to connect to their health care. Much work has been done to develop solutions to those problems, particularly using approaches that transcend traditional clinical models. Telehealth is one such solution that is gaining traction at an ever-increasing rate.
Gun violence prevention research is woefully underfunded, receiving significantly less research funding and scientific attention compared with other leading causes of death. Using a methodology that calculated expected levels of research investment based on mortality rates, one study estimated that between 2004 and 2015 gun violence received just 1.6 percent of the federal research support projected and had 4.5 percent of the volume of publications anticipated.