The Behavioral and Health Economics for Public Health program aims to help public health agencies and organizations use health and behavioral economics to make better decisions. Part of this mission involves providing local decision makers with the data and tools they need to make informed decisions. The information provided on this webpage is intended to assist and inform public health agencies, researchers, members of the public, and community organizations.
Chronic conditions: Cost Calculator
Allows you to estimate the chronic disease prevention programs in counties in California or for the entire state
Chronic conditions: Return on Investment Tool
Allows you to estimate the Return on Investment from chronic disease prevention programs in counties in California or for the entire state
Data to support the use of Health Economics in Public Health decision-making
We have identified a number of data sources that can be used to help estimate the cost and health losses from health conditions in California
Training session in Health Economics and Behavioral Economics
Here you will find information about our training programs.
The Use of Behavioral Economics in Public Health and Health-Serving Organization
This report provides an overview of behavioral economics, the methods for applying behavioral economics in the development and evaluation of behavior change policies and interventions, and approaches that can be implemented by organizations to improve both initiatives directed towards clients and communities served by organizations and collaborative decision-making within an organization. It also identifies the work of
his report provides an overview of behavioral economics, the methods for applying behavioral economics in the development and evaluation of behavior change policies and interventions, and approaches that can be implemented by organizations to improve both initiatives directed towards clients and communities served by organizations and collaborative decision-making within an organization. It also identifies the work of Behavioral Insights Units in the US and other countries.
Health Technology Assessment in Public Health: International Experiences
This report:
i) Identifies and describes the key health technology assessment agencies that exist globally, including their organizational features, contributions, and primary products
ii) Provides a comprehensive overview of the existing evidence regarding the use of health technology assessment tools in evaluating public health interventions; and
iii) summarizes the evidence related to the most effective practices and strategies for developing health technology assessment units within public health departments. By concentrating on these specific objectives, this review looks to highlight the role and importance of health technology assessment agencies, the application of health economics tools in evaluating public health interventions, and the most effective practices for establishing evaluation units within public health departments. This information will be beneficial to policymakers, healthcare professionals, and researchers who are interested in improving the assessment and implementation of health technologies in public health settings.
Examining the priorities of Local Health Departments in California: A mixed methods study
This mixed methods study examined the extent to which the priorities listed by Local Health Departments (LHDs) in the Community Health Needs Assessments (CHNAs) align with the priorities in the Community Health Improvement Plans (CHIPs) for counties in California. The study reports the significant factors that influence the choice of these priorities through a series of interviews with LHDs and state Public Health officials. Findings from the study identified incomplete alignment between the needs prioritized in CHNA and the priorities targeted in CHIP. The reasons for the misalignment include a need to include priorities in the CHNA even though LHDs are not able to address them, political factors that influence the selection of priorities, and a lack of discretionary funding or capacity/expertise within the agency or its community partners to respond to the needs identified.
This mixed methods study examined the extent to which the priorities listed by Local Health Departments (LHDs) in the Community Health Needs Assessments (CHNAs) align with the priorities in the Community Health Improvement Plans (CHIPs) for counties in California. The study reports the significant factors that influence the choice of these priorities through a series of interviews with LHDs and state Public Health officials. Findings from the study identified incomplete alignment between the needs prioritized in CHNA and the priorities targeted in CHIP. The reasons for the misalignment include a need to include priorities in the CHNA even though LHDs are not able to address them, political factors that influence the selection of priorities, and a lack of discretionary funding or capacity/expertise within the agency or its community partners to respond to the needs identified.
