Jill S. Litt, PhD¹, Nga L. Tran, DrPH, MPH², Kristen Malecki, MPH³, Roni Neff, ScM⁴, Beth A. Resnick, MPH³, Thomas A. Burke, PhD, MPH⁵, Ben Apelberg, MPH⁴, Andrea Wismann¹, and Keeve Nachman, MHS⁵. (1) Department of Preventive Medicine & Biometrics, University of Colorado Health Sciences Center, 4200 E. 9th Ave., Box Campus C-245, Denver, CO 80262, 303-315-7595, Jill.Litt@UCHSC.edu, (2) Exponent, 1730 Rhode Island Ave, Suite 1100, Washington, DC 20036, (3) Health Policy and Management/Risk Sciences and Public Policy Institute, Johns Hopkins University, 624 N. Broadway, Room 484, Baltimore, MD 21205, (4) Health Policy and Management, Johns Hopkins School of Public Health, 624 N. Broadway, Room 511a, Baltimore, MD 21205, (5) Health Policy and Management, Bloomberg School of Public Health, Johns Hopkins University, 624 N. Broadway, Room 484, Baltimore, MD 21205

Introduction: This article will present a series of methodological approaches used to identify priority health conditions for environmental health tracking and the major gaps at the federal, state and local level of government that compromise the integrity and usefulness of existing tracking systems. Methods: First, we will describe a survey that was administered to public health and environmental practitioners. The survey aimed to uncover state and local health tracking needs and priorities. Second, we will describe the sequence of research that used the findings from the state and local health tracking survey and a comprehensive review of the state of science in understanding how environment impacts health to inform the selection of priority health endpoints. Third, we will present a detailed study of source and emissions data to identify specific chemicals and related toxicological endpoints that had clinical significance. We then will describe information on those diseases that may be linked to the environment drawn from an examination of national databases including the National Health Interview Survey (NHIS), the National Hospital Discharge Survey (NHDS), and the National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey (NAMCS). This step was integral to identifying priority conditions that may be appropriate for public health tracking. The approaches described in this section were developed as part of the Pew Environmental Health Commission’s Environmental Health Tracking Project. Results: We will describe a list of priority endpoints that emerged from the data gathering steps. We will also describe the recommendations developed by national leaders in environmental health convened by the Pew Commission at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health.

Learning Objectives:

• Identify a range of methodologies to understand current capacity in health tracking;
• Identify key priority endpoints for environmental health tracking;
• Understand the range of data sources available for environmental health tracking;

Keywords: Environmental Health, Surveillance

Presenting author's disclosure statement:
I do not have any significant financial interest/arrangement or affiliation with any organization/institution whose products or services are being discussed in this session.