Healthy People 2010

Healthy People 2010
Name	Healthy People 2010
Formed	2000
Jurisdiction	United States
Parent agency	United States Department of Health and Human Services

Contents

Healthy People 2010 Healthy People 2010 was a national health promotion and disease prevention initiative issued for the United States in 2000 by the United States Department of Health and Human Services, developed through collaboration with agencies such as the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the National Institutes of Health, and the Health Resources and Services Administration. The initiative set decade-long science-based objectives designed to improve the health of the population, aligning with prior federal efforts like the Surgeon General reports and later efforts influencing programs such as the Affordable Care Act implementation and the Healthy People 2020 initiative.

Overview

Healthy People 2010 established a framework and measurable targets influenced by prior documents including the Surgeon General's Report on Nutrition and Health, the Surgeon General's Report on Smoking and Health, and strategic plans from agencies like the Food and Drug Administration and the Indian Health Service. Major stakeholders included federal entities such as the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, academic institutions like Johns Hopkins University and Harvard School of Public Health, professional societies including the American Public Health Association and the American Medical Association, and nonprofit organizations such as the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation and the Kaiser Family Foundation. The initiative was coordinated with state health departments, municipal governments such as the New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene, and international bodies like the World Health Organization for benchmarking.

The initiative articulated two overarching goals echoing objectives from earlier national efforts like the President's Council on Physical Fitness and Sports: increase quality and years of healthy life and eliminate health disparities. Specific numeric objectives drew on surveillance systems maintained by the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System, the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, and the National Vital Statistics System. Target areas referenced clinical guidelines from entities such as the American Heart Association, the American Cancer Society, and the American Diabetes Association, and incorporated evidence from research centers including the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion and the National Cancer Institute.

Development convened advisory committees composed of representatives from universities like University of California, Los Angeles, University of Michigan, and Yale University, governmental agencies including the Office of Minority Health, and advocacy groups such as March of Dimes and American Lung Association. Implementation relied on federal grant programs administered by institutions like the Maternal and Child Health Bureau and state-level programs in jurisdictions such as California Department of Public Health and Massachusetts Department of Public Health. Data systems and analytic capacity were provided by research organizations including RTI International, RAND Corporation, and the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, integrating standards from the Joint Commission and recommendations from committees of the Institute of Medicine.

Priority areas paralleled topics addressed by the National Institutes of Health institutes: chronic disease prevention linked to the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute and the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases; maternal and child health involving the Maternal and Child Health Bureau; immunization aligned with the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices; and injury prevention informed by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. Initiatives included tobacco control coordinated with programs from the Office on Smoking and Health and cessation campaigns similar to those by the American Cancer Society, nutrition and physical activity campaigns aligned with Let’s Move!-like goals and research from the USDA and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and mental health objectives referencing guidance from the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration and the American Psychiatric Association.

Progress assessments used data from the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System, the National Health Interview Survey, and mortality data from the National Center for Health Statistics to evaluate outcomes such as reductions in smoking prevalence as documented in reports by the Surgeon General, changes in cardiovascular mortality monitored by the American Heart Association, and trends in cancer incidence tracked by the National Cancer Institute’s Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results program. State and local success stories often cited programs modeled on interventions from CDC’s REACH initiatives and community partnerships supported by foundations like the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation and federal funding from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services.

Critics from academic journals published by presses including Oxford University Press and Cambridge University Press and scholars at institutions such as Columbia University and University of California, Berkeley pointed to limitations in measurable progress, disparities highlighted by research at the Urban Institute, and challenges in attribution noted by policy analysts at the Brookings Institution and Urban Institute. Implementation barriers included variability across states such as Texas Department of State Health Services and Florida Department of Health, constraints on public health workforce capacity discussed by the Association of Schools and Programs of Public Health, and debates about priority setting seen in commentary from the Heritage Foundation and think tanks like the Commonwealth Fund.

Category:United States public health