American Public Health Association
800 I Street, NW • Washington, DC 20001-3710
(202) 777-APHA • Fax: (202) 777-2534 •

Medical Care
Section Newsletter
Fall 2008

Extra, Extra Read All About It!!!

This is the last newsletter before APHA convenes its 136th Annual Meeting in San Diego!  In the pages to follow you’ll receive a link that will take you to the Medical Care Section sessions at the Meeting along with information about events that Medical Care is sponsoring.  We solicit your involvement in reviewing proposed policies and in identifying policy gaps and/or needed policy updates.  We invite you to come ‘sit a spell’ (my rural roots are showing) at our newly refurbished exhibit booth where you’ll get a button branding you as a Medical Care Section member that promotes Health for All!  We’ll urge you yet again to recruit friends and colleagues to join the section as a primary or secondary member.  There is a lot to read including an article by Dr. Wayne Myers, Chair of the Section Rural Committee and incoming Governing Councilor who visited Iraq; a Request for Application from the American Cancer Society, and an announcement regarding a search for a new dean in the School of Public Health in South Carolina.

This is a big year for the section.  The Medical Care Section was formally recognized in 1948, 60 years ago, however, our commitment to and advocacy for health for all goes back to before we received that formal recognition.  Celebrating our birthday is certainly in order but we wish to do much more than that.  As a country we are today at a point of crisis or opportunity.  I choose to think in terms of the latter.  2009 will start a new chapter, one that is informed by what we have learned throughout our history as a section and our history as a country; a year in which we can begin again to build a system of healthcare that is affordable, that is of high quality, that provides the same quality of care to anyone on our shores regardless of their ability to pay, a system that is culturally sensitive and culturally competent, that seeks to prevent illness and disease not just through medical practice but through addressing the other determinants of health and well-being. 

In 2009 we will have a new administration, a new Congress, and a new opportunity to educate these new leaders.  At this year’s Annual Meeting we need to prepare.  We need to prepare for best case and worst case scenarios for 2009.  We need to be ready, we need to be stoked.

I hope you will come to this year’s Meeting, and to this year’s Section meetings, with the goal of reconnecting with your passion as well as with your friends and colleagues.  Come with a goal of renewing your sense of optimism about what can be.  I look forward to meeting those of you I don’t know, and to seeing all of you in San Diego.  At this year’s “Evening with” let us make a toast (there will be a cash bar) to all that we have accomplished in the last 60 years and to all that we will accomplish in the years to come. See you in San Diego!        

Safe travels.


Gail Bellamy, Medical Care Section Chair             

P.S.  Bring a friend!

2008 Program

2008 APHA Medical Care Section Program

 This year's Medical Care Section Program at the APHA Annual Meeting in San Diego, CA, Oct. 25-29, 2008, consists of 37 sessions organized by the Medical Care Section and covers such topics as:  drug safety and FDA reform; state and local programs to address disparities in colorectal cancer; social medicine as a framework for bridging borders; using California Health Interview Survey data to measure and understand racial and ethnic disparities; health access and the election; public health in 20th century America between inclusion and exclusion; the California Department of Corrections as a case study of whether federal receiverships cure prison healthcare issues; universal access to health insurance; health economics; health services research, health disparities in migrant and immigrant populations; quality improvement and outcomes of care; and rural and frontier health.  In addition, the Section is co-sponsoring over 30 other sessions that includes topics such as trade policy, globalization, war and public health, environmental and social justice, cancer epidemiology, tobacco policy, and Social Security and Medicare.  All Medical Care Section sessions will be at the San Diego Marriott Marina Hotel.

 In celebration of the 60th anniversary of the Medical Care Section, our speakers for this year’s Evening With (cocktail reception and scientific session) will be Steffie Woolhandler, MD, MPH, and David Himmelstein, MD, both from Harvard Medical School.  Their joint talk is entitled, “From Clinicians for the Poor to National Health Insurance Mainstays:  A Quarter Century Health Policy Journey.  The session will be moderated by Oliver Fein, MD, Cornell Medical College, and David Rosner, Ph.D., MPH, Columbia University.  Please join us in celebrating this special anniversary on Tuesday, October 28, 2008 from 6:30 p.m. – 8:00 p.m. in Marriott Hall Salon 5.  We will also be presenting the annual Arthur Viseltear Award in Public Health History to Emily Abel, Ph.D., UCLA, for her book on tuberculosis and the politics of exclusion.

 Please also join us for the presentation of this year’s Avedis Donabedian Award in Quality Improvement to Robert Brook, Ph.D., UCLA, and director of the Health Sciences Program at RAND.  Gordon Schiff, M.D., Brigham and Women’s Hospital, will have the honor of presenting the award on Tuesday, October 28, 4:30 p.m. – 6:00 p.m., in the Point Loma room, just prior to the “Evening With” festivities.
The link to the sessions organized and sponsored by the Medical Care Section is:

 The link to the Medical Care Section business meetings and social events is:


See you in San Diego,


Katherine S. Virgo

Medical Care Section Program Chair

The Policy Process and New Policies for Consideration in 2008

        Each year, the policy process helps give shape to the advocacy efforts of APHA.  There is a fresh opportunity for members to offer new policies for consideration that could guide APHA if adopted.  The process begins in December and wraps up at the annual meeting with hearings on the new proposed policies and a vote by the Governing Council.  If approved, the policies are announced publicly and become the basis for APHA positions on the issues and action by the staff and the membership.  

The Policy Process.          

The steps leading up to adoption of new policies begin with work by the Action Board and the Joint Policy Committee (JPC) to identify gaps in APHA policies.  Gaps or new issues may also be identified by the members.  These committees also identify policy areas that should be reviewed for archiving or updating (see below).  By mid-February, proposed new policy resolutions and position papers are due in electronic form at  The new policies are then posted on the APHA webpage.  For the subsequent month, comments are welcome. 

        The policies and any comments are reviewed in late April by three APHA Committees (Joint Policy Committee, Science Board, and Education Board).  After the policies accompanied by assessments and/or comments are returned to the authors, the authors have a month to send revised policies or appeals of negative assessments.  The Executive Committee considers appeals of negative assessments.  In mid-September, the final proposed policies are posted on the APHA website for review by the membership. 

        Public hearings for the proposed new policies are held at the Annual Meeting.

        After the hearings, the JPC develops final recommendations on the proposed policies to present to the Governing Council.  The policies are voted on at the Annual Meeting during the meeting of the Governing Council.   There is also a mechanism for “Late breaking” policies that have become a pressing issue only after the deadline for submission back in February.  This deadline coincides with the start of the Annual Meeting.     

   Policy Proposals 2008. 

The policies posted at this time for consideration by the membership before hearings and a vote by the Governing Council at the Annual Meeting are listed under four headings:  Health Disparities, Environmental Health, Access to Care, and Public Health Science and Infrastructure.  The only proposed policy in the Health Disparities area calls for education and research into Vitamin D deficiency and insufficiency based on evidence that it frequently goes undetected, and may lead to higher mortality rates in a range of conditions, some currently identified and some not-yet identified.      

            There are two proposed Environmental Health policies.  The first would place the APHA as a discouraging influence on the depiction of smoking in feature films based on good evidence that this influences youth to smoke.  The second policy advocates a world-wide ban on the use of lead in residential paint and children’s products.  While there is currently a ban on use of lead in the United States, this is not the case in other countries that export products that are contaminated with lead, including children’s toys.  The proposition stipulates that agencies of the US federal government, including, but not limited to, the Consumer Product Safety Commission, the Environmental Protection Agency, and the Department of Commerce, be directed to enforce a ban on the manufacture, import, distribution, and sale of all children’s and consumer products containing nonessential lead and, together with the private sector, devise and implement a robust and effective monitoring and quality control and quality assurance program.

          It calls for the expeditious completion by the Consumer Product Safety Commission and ASTM International of a lead-in-vinyl standard.  It further stipulates that all trade agreements between US corporations and overseas corporations and all global trade agreements completed by the World Trade Organization, the World Bank, and other entities and other relevant international conventions include provisions that formally and effectively ban the use of lead in residential paint and children’s products and that all such agreements ban the nonessential use of lead in all consumer products.

          The Access category offers two policies.  The first re-states and updates support for Roe vs. Wade which is facing challenges in many states and could be in danger from the Supreme Court, depending on the outcome of the Presidential election and future appointments to the court.  It notes that abortion bans were introduced in 12 states to replace Roe v. Wade, in case it should be overturned at the federal level.   Mandatory waiting and counseling periods have been introduced in 25 states.  Proposed laws placing additional limits on public spending for abortions for low income women have been introduced in 15 states.  Laws requiring that minors obtain parental consent or that at least 1 parent be notified were introduced in 15 states.  New statistical reporting burdens on physicians have been introduced in 12 states; limitations on private insurance coverage or specific abortion procedures have been introduced in 9 states.    The second Access policy opposes prophylactic removal of third molars (wisdom teeth).

        In the Public Health Science and Infrastructure category, there are four proposed policies.  The first is labeled the patient’s right to self-determination at the end of life.  It would place the APHA in support of measures to ensure that patients eligible to choose aid in dying receive information about, and are able to choose alternatives such as aggressive pain and symptom management, palliative care, hospice care, and care to maximize quality of life and independence. An earlier version of this policy was considered by the Governing Council last year.  Discussion continues in 2008. 

         The second Infrastructure policy addresses oral health.  It re-states and updates support for fluoridation of community drinking water.  It notes that dental caries are one of the most common chronic diseases of children.  Surprisingly, only 67% of people served by public water supplies are fluoridated despite overwhelming evidence of its effectiveness to prevent tooth decay.  The Healthy People 2010 goal is 75%.  Those who get their water from wells or drink bottled water only often lack appropriate fluoride intake.  Other measures are needed for this population.   It also advocates low fluoride toothpaste for children under age 6 who may be at risk from over-exposure from adult fluoride containing toothpastes.  This proposal updates prior policies on oral health and fluoride, the last of which was passed in 1975.  Other Infrastructure proposals address the promotion of interprofessional education and support for strengthening health systems in developing countries.

        These policies will be discussed at the Annual Meeting at hearings that are open to all members.   The authors and Joint Policy Committee members will take the products of the hearings and refine them for final presentation for consideration by the Governing Council.  Proposals are presented to the Council for consideration and debate.  A final vote is taken of Council members. 

Archiving Process. 

Another important part of the policy process is the archiving and updating of policies that are already “on the books.”  In February the JPC considers the list of policies identified by staff for an archiving review which involves review groups for each subject area.  By late May, each Policy Review Group completes its reviews of the policies assigned to it and reports their recommendations to the JPC.  Comments from individual members are also due at this time.  APHA staff collates the recommendations of the Policy Review Groups and provides the list to the JPC.  In July, the preliminary consent calendar and recommendations for archiving are posted on the APHA website.  The APHA Executive Board also considers the preliminary archiving consent calendar.

The membership has another month to submit comments on the archiving consent calendar which is then finalized by the JPC in September. 

 Policy Process and the Medical Care Section. 

Within the Medical Care Section, proposed policies are reviewed by section councilors and governing councilors and all members are encouraged to participate.  Ideally, any concerns about a policy are identified and addressed through the normal review process, however, any remaining concerns can be raised during the section business meeting at the Annual Meeting on Saturday, the day before the hearings, and a decision made as to whether to support the policy as written or recommend changes. Each public hearing is attended by at least one section councilor or other designated section member who will raise the section’s concerns or support.  This process helps inform the vote of our governing councilors.

Similarly, concerns relating to the archiving of policies are ideally dealt with in the process outlined above.  However, if a concern is raised during a business meeting relating to a policy on the consent calendar for archiving, a governing councilor can ask that the policy be pulled. 

Ideas for new policy or updating an out-of-date policy can be suggested by any member.  The section business meetings at the Annual Meeting provide the venue for discussion and preparation for policy development.  Please join us!

You can help: 

If you are interested in reviewing any of the policies mentioned above go to You will need your APHA membership number (userid) and password (first initial and last name).  As you read, make note of any concerns you have about the proposed policy.  You can send your comments to me,, or come to the section business meeting on Saturday night, at 5:30 p.m.  You can also find out about late breaking policies at the Saturday section business meeting.

Mona Sarfaty, Chair-elect & Simon Piller, Action Board Rep.


Exhibit Booth Sign-Up

Jim Wohlleb, Medical Care Membership Chair

Medical Care Section 

Exhibit Booth Volunteers





Friday, Oct 24, 1—6 PM or

Saturday, Oct 25, 8 AM—6 PM or

Sunday, Oct 26, 8—12 PM




Sunday, Oct 26, 2—5:30 PM






Monday, Oct 27, 9:30 AM – 5:30 PM







Tuesday, Oct 28, 9:30 AM – 5:30 PM







Wednesday, Oct 29, 8:30 AM – 12:30 PM







Wednesday, Oct 29, 12:30 PM






Rural & Frontier Committee Meeting

Notice for the Medical Care Section Newsletter.


Rural & Frontier Committee Meeting in San Diego

The Section Rural Committee is being reactivated as the Rural & Frontier Committee.  If you would consider becoming active in the Committee please come to an organizing meeting, 2-3:30 PM Sunday, 10/26 in the Torrence Room of the San Diego Marina Marriott.   We will set a work plan, look for leaders and discuss ways to work with other sections.  If you plan to come or want more information please contact Wayne Myers,

Baghdad Crystal Ball

The following column was first published by “The Rural monitor” in its issue of summer, 2008.  Myers’ columns appear quarterly under the series title, “Look What’s Coming”.

Baghdad Crystal Ball

Wayne Myers, MD

 In June, I was one of several Americans invited to Baghdad as advisors to the Iraqi Ministry of Health.  The occasion was a national conference on health care restoration and reform convened by the Ministry.  I’d like to tell you some of what we saw and heard. 

First, Baghdad is a big city with about seven million people.  By way of comparison, Chicago has nearly three million people within its city limits, but over nine million within the three-state metropolitan area.  Baghdad has no mass transit system, so traffic is dense.  Cars are old and breakdowns frequent.  The city is battered but millions of people are getting on with their daily lives.  Rental property is in increasing demand, as Baghdad becomes a reasonable place to live and do business. Sidewalks are piled high with crates of new merchandise for sale, especially generators.  Outside the International (“Green”) Zone, all the police and military personnel I saw were Iraqi.

The current phase of health care reform is titled, “Primary Care Reform First” (PCRF).  The Minister of Health and his colleagues propose to first overhaul the national primary care system before dealing with hospitals and other elements.   The five-day series of PCRF meetings included three days of small group sessions reviewing specific proposals.   Meetings held on the last two days reviewed overall strategic proposals—these were large, formal sessions of several hundred people including members of the Iraqi Parliament, leaders of most of Iraq’s national health-related organizations, the Ministry of Health, the U.S. military and State Department, the World Health Organization and several non-governmental organizations.  In all the meetings the focus was national policy.  None considered rural problems separately. 

 Before the Coalition invasion of 2003, Iraq had 2,000 public clinics providing some care for an average of 14,000 patients each.  Most closed during and after the invasion but practically all are now operating.  Iraqi doctors have traditionally been required to work in the morning in these public free clinics for a few dollars per month.  Doctors earn their livings in private practice clinics in the afternoon.  This divided system is generally acknowledged to work poorly with patients being rushed through the public clinics, and occasionally seen in groups, by doctors hurrying to get to their private fee-for-service practices.  One of the priority reforms for the Ministry of Health is to separate public and private practice, paying reasonably for doctors making careers in public care.  Salaries for public clinic work are expected to increase from three dollars per month for work in the morning clinics to 3,000 dollars per month for full-time doctors in the public clinics.

The professionalization of public clinics may be particularly helpful in rural areas.  Rural and other hard-to-staff clinics are now heavily dependent on young doctors in mandatory national service between internship and specialty residency.  In 2004, during an earlier two-week trip to Northern, Kurdish Iraq, I encountered only one fully trained career rural physician.  All the others were short-term assignees straight out of internship.  Rural hospitals were battered and poorly supplied but clean with staff proud of their work.  My impression was that physician coverage was the weakest element in the rural system of care.  Rural Iraqis face hazards ranging from land mines to cholera with care by partially trained personnel.  U.S. rural health care has its problems but they are of a different order than those in Iraq.  

Iraq has no health insurance.   Serious illness often means family bankruptcy.  The Ministry of Health is determined to develop a system of health insurance in the course of primary care reform.  I could not determine whether a decision or consensus has been reached regarding the nature of the national insurance system: public or private, for-profit or not-for -profit.  The insurance program is seen as an important contribution the government can make to stabilize private fee-for-service care.

Nursing is a new profession in Iraq.  In the past nurses got their training in vocational high schools.   Quite recently the nursing high schools have been closed.  Several universities have established nursing programs using faculty trained in other countries.   The professionalization of nursing in Iraq is an enormous task and complex challenge. 

 Some basic management systems are lacking or not well understood.  Stories of corruption in the UN Oil for Food program, in contractors under the Coalition Provisional Authority and in the Iraqi Government have been widely reported.  At the moment, though, fear of corruption is also a serious problem.   Last year the Ministry of Health reportedly spent less than 70 percent of its budget.  Officials were often unwilling to release funds that might be diverted.  Establishment of basic management systems is an urgent need.

Other major challenges include the establishment of pharmaceutical and medical supplies manufacturing across Iraq, the modernization of clinical data systems and carving out a reasonable share of the national budget for health.  

Will the Iraqis succeed in reforming their national approach to health?   I think there is a good chance that they will accomplish several of their goals.  In the final plenary meetings there seemed to be general consensus on many points.   Iraq is writing on a blank slate.   They have some oil income to work with.  The clinic system is getting back on its feet as physicians return to the country and security improves.  There is a sense of urgency. 

There is a lot to be done.  A half-dozen Americans are being recruited to help the Iraqis draft policies, procedures and standing orders to implement all these changes.   If you are willing and able to consider doing high-level national policy work in Baghdad, drop me an email for more information at


American Cancer Society RFA

American Cancer Society Request for Applications (RFA):

The Role of Healthcare and Insurance in

Improving Outcomes in Cancer Prevention, Early Detection and Treatment

Application deadline (electronic and paper): October 15th, 2008

 PURPOSE: The American Cancer Society is announcing this RFA to investigate the impact of healthcare costs, healthcare system and capacity, insurance status, social factors and delivery of health care services, on outcomes in cancer prevention, early detection and treatment. The purpose of this RFA is to stimulate research on the effects of the US healthcare system structure and the role of insurance on access to screenings and treatment. Of particular interest is research using linked databases such as SEER, Medicare payment data, State data and NCHS data; other existing databases.  Studies may be at the state, multi-state, or national levels, or otherwise involve large populations.  Respondents should specifically describe how their results would generalize to the broader corresponding U.S. populations. 

Significant gaps in knowledge remain on how healthcare costs, healthcare system structure and capacity, socioeconomic factors (including insurance status), personal characteristics (such as race and ethnicity), and delivery of healthcare services affect outcomes related to cancer prevention, early detection, and treatment. Studies investigating how one or more of these factors affect access, and how these mechanisms interact with other factors known to affect access to healthcare services should be considered.  The goal is to use new knowledge derived from these studies to inform policy development and enhance outcomes in cancer prevention, early detection and treatment

For this RFA in health policy and health services research, ACS is particularly interested in developing new knowledge specifically about the role played by insurance within the context of other factors, such as costs, capacity and personal characteristics, that affect outcomes in cancer prevention, early detection and treatment.  In particular, studies should explore these issues within the uninsured and underinsured populations, Medicaid, and types of private insurance (HMO, PPO, etc.). 

Three areas of investigation will receive special consideration:

1.    How does the structure and capacity of the healthcare system affect appropriate and timely access to cancer screening, early detection, treatment and palliative care? Examples of such studies include (but are not limited to):

a.    How do insurance plan benefit designs or costs affect access to cancer screening and treatment?   How do plans with high deductibles/co-payments/coinsurance, low annual or lifetime maximums, or significant benefit limits such as number of hospital days or physicians visits, influence use of cancer screening and treatment services as well as treatment patterns and quality of care?  How do these design effects vary across geographic regions and/or at-risk populations? 

b.    Do high risk pools and new insurance instruments (including insurance pools for those diagnosed with cancer such as the programs in Maine and Delaware) increase access to screening and treatment? How do these various products compare with private insurance in affecting access to screening and detection services?

c.    Is there sufficient capacity (facilities and personnel) within the healthcare system for cancer prevention, screening, treatment and palliative care needs?  Would there be sufficient capacity if access to care is increased?  What are the root causes of incapacities?

2.    What provider and system factors affect treatment patterns and quality of cancer care within the current healthcare systems? Examples of such studies include (but are not limited to):

a.    What provider and system incentives affect treatment patterns and quality of care, for underserved populations? 

b.    How does level of reimbursement for cancer prevention, screening,, and treatment services affect access to care and outcomes?

c.    How does standardization of cancer treatment patterns affect outcomes?  What are the benefits of standardization of care? 

d.    What is the impact of coordination of care and/or having a “medical home” on treatment patterns and outcomes for cancer patients?

e.    How do discontinuities or changes in health insurance (i.e., losing and gain coverage over relatively short periods of time) affect access to care, treatment patterns, and outcomes, and quality of care for individuals with cancer?

3. Explore life course patterns of the entire spectrum of cancer are (from prevention and screening through diagnosis, treatment, survivorship, and supportive/palliative care) by linking diverse data sources for broad patient populations. Examples of such studies include (but are not limited to):

a.    What factors (such as changes in insurance status, community resources, policy interventions, etc.) are associated with differences in lifecourse patterns throughout the spectrum of cancer care?

b.    What prevention, screening, and/or treatment patterns can be demonstrated for broad populations of individuals with cancer by linking diverse sources of existing data?

ELIGIBILITY REQUIREMENTS:  Applications may be submitted by not-for-profit institutions located within the United States, its territories and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico. Independent investigators at all stages of their career are eligible to apply. Thus, the usual ACS restriction to investigators within the first six years of their initial independent research appointment does not apply to this RFA.


·         Mechanism: This RFA will use the Research Scholar Grant in Cancer Control and Prevention: Health Services and Health Policy Research mechanism. Complete and detailed instructions and information on this mechanism can be found at [Research Program and Funding; Funding Opportunities; Index of Grants; Research Scholar Grants in Cancer Control and Prevention: Health Services and Health Policy Research.]

·         Length of Study: Awards may not exceed a period of 4 years, although it is anticipated that most applications will require no more than two years to complete the research.

·         Budget: Awards may not exceed $200,000 per year (direct costs) plus 20% indirect costs.   

 AWARDS:  It is anticipated that a total of $1,000,000 per year for five years (starting in 2006) will be available for applications selected through the Society’s peer review system.

 DEADLINES: There are two deadlines for receipt of applications per year as for all other ACS applications. The next one is October 15th, 2008. Applications must be submitted both electronically and with a paper copy as per guidelines on

 For additional information not covered on this announcement, please contact Dr. Ronit Elk by email only:



Position Announcement


Arnold School of Public Health

University of South Carolina

 The University of South Carolina invites applications and nominations for the position of Dean of the Arnold School of Public Health.  The new dean will assume leadership of an academic unit that is in a period of rapid growth and development.


The Dean reports to the Vice President for Research and Health Sciences and provides leadership in the school’s teaching, research, service, and development activities.  The Dean is responsible for effectively representing the School to a wide range of campus, community, and professional constituencies.  The Dean is also responsible for administrative and fiscal management of the school.


The School is fully accredited, includes six academic departments, and offers masters and doctoral degrees in the corresponding six disciplines: Communication Sciences and Disorders; Environmental Health Science; Epidemiology and Biostatistics; Exercise Science; Health Services, Policy and Management; and Health Promotion, Education and Behavior.  In addition, a bachelor’s degree in Exercise Science is offered.  The School currently enrolls approximately 560 graduate and 530 undergraduate students.  There are 110 faculty members of whom 60 are in the tenure track.  The Arnold School along with the School of Medicine, College of Nursing, College of Social Work, and the South Carolina College of Pharmacy comprise the University’s Division of Health Sciences.  The School is one of the University’s leading research units and in FY07 the faculty generated over $24 million in extramural funding.  The School recently expanded into the new Public Health Research Center, a 105,000 square foot state-of-the-art facility.  The School enjoys a longstanding and productive relationship with the South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control.


The University, founded in 1801, is a fully-accredited eight-campus state-supported system.  The University of South Carolina-Columbia, the flagship campus, has strong undergraduate and graduate programs in a wide range of disciplines and professions.  The Carnegie Foundation lists USC as a research institution of “very high research activity,” a designation granted to only 62 public and 32 private research institutions.  About 26,000 students are enrolled on the Columbia campus and more than 40,000 throughout the system.  The Innovista Research Campus, an urban research park, is in current development and will transform both the University campus and central Columbia.


The City of Columbia is the state capital and has a metropolitan area population of approximately 700,000.  Columbia is a center for finance, government, education, and technology development in the state.  The community has a rich historical and cultural tradition, and is located within easy driving distance of both the mountains and coastal beaches.


The Qualifications of the successful candidate should include:

          *        Earned doctoral degree in public health or related discipline;

          *        Extensive experience in academic public health;

          *        A record of achievement commensurate with appointment as a tenured full professor;

          *        A clear commitment to academic excellence in research and education at the graduate and undergraduate levels;

          *        Proven administrative experience, a high standard of professional integrity, and a strong sense of professional ethics;

          *        A firm commitment to linking academic public health to public health practice,

          *        An ability to articulate effectively the School's mission to the students, faculty, alumni, external funding agencies, and other decision-making bodies;

          *        An ability to effectively lead the school’s development program,

          *        A demonstrated commitment to cultural diversity and equal opportunity.


The Committee will begin reviewing applications and nominations on December 1, 2007, and will continue until the position is filled.  Salary fully competitive.  Applicants should send a letter of application, a complete resume, and names of three references to: Russell Pate, Chair, Public Health Dean Search Committee, Office of the Provost, 102 Osborne Administration Building, University of South Carolina, Columbia, SC 29208.   Phone: (803) 777-2808; FAX: (803) 777-9502.



The University of South Carolina is an equal opportunity employer and specifically invites and encourages applications

from women and minorities.  The University of South Carolina is responsive to the needs of dual career couples.




Minutes from the monthly Medical Care Section Leadership are posted on the E-community site of our web-page.  You will need your userid and password to get on but once there, take a moment and think about content you'd like to see!  As a section we are pilot-testing the E-community, so I'd really like to know that folks have taken a look at it and to get your impressions regarding its possible utility for discussion, special communications, etc.  Let me know what you think!  <>.

HCUP’s 2006 NIS Released!

The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality’s (AHRQ) Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project (HCUP) announces the availability of the 2006 Nationwide Inpatient Sample (NIS). Released in May, the NIS is the largest inpatient care database including all patients, regardless of payer­ covering Medicare, Medicaid, privately insured, and uninsured patients.

The 2006 NIS includes eight million discharge records from more than 1,000 hospitals and includes data drawn from 38 states. NIS data can be weighted to produce national estimates, allowing researchers and policymakers to identify, track, and analyze national trends in health care utilization, access, charges, quality, and outcomes. The NIS is considered by health services researchers to be one of the most reliable and affordable databases for studying important health care topics.

The 2006 NIS and other HCUP databases are available through the HCUP Central Distributor at Additional information on the NIS is available on the HCUP User Support Website at

HCUP is a family of health care databases and related products developed by AHRQ through a Federal-State-Industry partnership. HCUP produces powerful, comprehensive, health care data that can be used to identify, track, and analyze national, regional, and state trends in health care utilization, access, charges, quality, and outcomes. Additional information about HCUP’s databases and products is available on its User Support Website:

HCUP’s 2006 KID Now Available!

Released every three years since the 1997 data year, the 2006 Kids' Inpatient Database (KID) was released in June by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality’s (AHRQ) Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project (HCUP). The KID is the only dataset in the U.S. designed specifically to study hospital use, outcomes, and charges in the pediatric population. The KID includes all patients under age 21 regardless of payer.

The 2006 KID includes data from 3,739 hospitals in 38 states. The KID can be weighted to produce national estimates, allowing researchers and policymakers to use the data to identify, track, and analyze national trends in pediatric health care issues.

The 2006 KID is available for purchase through the HCUP Central Distributor at Additional information on the KID is available on the HCUP User Support Website at
HCUP is a family of health care databases and related products developed by AHRQ through a Federal-State-Industry partnership. HCUP produces powerful, comprehensive, health care data that can be used to identify, track, and analyze national, regional, and state trends in health care utilization, access, charges, quality, and outcomes. Additional information about HCUP’s databases and products is available on its User Support Website: