A Survey of Public Funding of Cancer Research in the European Union

The European Cancer Research Funding Survey found inadequate public funding of cancer research, say Sullivan and Eckhouse

Percentage Spending by CSO: EU versus US

<p>The relative sizes of the two pie charts are proportional to the sizes of the two budgets.</p

Comparison of Direct Cancer Research Spending between EU-15 Only and the US, as a Percentage of GDP and as Spending per Capita

<p>Comparison of Direct Cancer Research Spending between EU-15 Only and the US, as a Percentage of GDP and as Spending per Capita</p

Direct Cancer Research Spending by Type of Funding Organisation

<p>Direct Cancer Research Spending by Type of Funding Organisation</p

Direct Cancer Research Spending by Country, including European Commission and Trans-European Organisations

<p>Direct Cancer Research Spending by Country, including European Commission and Trans-European Organisations</p

Funding By Political Grouping

<p>Current member states are all member states as of May 1, 2004. Accession countries are those member states which joined the EU in May 2004, or which are considered “applicant states”. EFTA countries include Iceland and Norway. Associate state is Israel.</p

Cross-Jurisdictional Resource Sharing in Local Health Departments: Implications for Services, Quality, and Cost

BackgroundForty one percent of local health departments in the U.S. serve jurisdictions with populations of 25,000 or less. Researchers, policymakers, and advocates have long questioned how to strengthen public health systems in smaller municipalities. Cross-jurisdictional sharing may increase quality of service, access to resources, and efficiency of resource use.ObjectiveTo characterize perceived strengths and challenges of independent and comprehensive sharing approaches, and to assess cost, quality, and breadth of services provided by independent and sharing health departments in Connecticut (CT) and Massachusetts (MA).MethodsWe interviewed local health directors or their designees from 15 comprehensive resource-sharing jurisdictions and 54 single-municipality jurisdictions in CT and MA using a semi-structured interview. Quantitative data were drawn from closed-ended questions in the semi-structured interviews; municipal demographic data were drawn from the American Community Survey and other public sources. Qualitative data were drawn from open-ended questions in the semi-structured interviews.ResultsThe findings from this multistate study highlight advantages and disadvantages of two common public health service delivery models – independent and shared. Shared service jurisdictions provided more community health programs and services, and invested significantly more ($120 per thousand (1K) population vs.$69.5/1K population) on healthy food access activities. Sharing departments had more indicators of higher quality food safety inspections (FSIs), and there was a non-linear relationship between cost per FSI and number of FSI. Minimum cost per FSI was reached above the total number of FSI conducted by all but four of the jurisdictions sampled. Independent jurisdictions perceived their governing bodies to have greater understanding of the roles and responsibilities of local public health, while shared service jurisdictions had fewer staff per 1,000 population.ImplicationsThere are trade-offs with sharing and remaining independent. Independent health departments serving small jurisdictions have limited resources but strong local knowledge. Multi-municipality departments have more resources but require more time and investment in governance and decision-making. When making decisions about the right service delivery model for a given municipality, careful consideration should be given to local culture and values. Some economies of scale may be achieved through resource sharing for municipalities &lt;25,000 population