Public health surveillance is the cornerstone of public health practice.1 In the United States, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and states share responsibility for the surveillance enterprise. States have primary responsibility for traditional name-based disease reporting, and they subsequently share anonymized data with CDC. At the same time, CDC maintains many surveillance systems at the federal level. For decades, the number of these single-disease or condition, single-purpose surveillance systems has grown as CDC has needed to expand surveillance data collection to address new public health problems. Currently, CDC has more than 110 surveillance systems. Although these systems provide CDC with the surveillance data needed by the agency, many are experienced as repetitive and burdensome by state and local public health departments, with little or no coordination. This profusion of CDC systems results in duplication of effort, discrepancies among the data elements collected by various programs, and the need to use multiple information technology (IT) systems, which may not be interoperable.

OBJECTIVE: Despite increasing diversity in the US population, substantial gaps in collecting data on race, ethnicity, primary language, and nativity indicators persist in public health surveillance and monitoring systems. In addition, few systems provide questionnaires in foreign languages for inclusion of non-English speakers. We assessed (1) the extent of data collected on race, ethnicity, primary language, and nativity indicators (ie, place of birth, immigration status, and years in the United States) and (2) the use of data-collection instruments in non-English languages among Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)-supported public health surveillance and monitoring systems in the United States. METHODS: We identified CDC-supported surveillance and health monitoring systems in place from 2010 through 2013 by searching CDC websites and other federal websites. For each system, we assessed its website, documentation, and publications for evidence of the variables of interest and use of data-collection instruments in non-English languages. We requested missing information from CDC program officials, as needed. RESULTS: Of 125 data systems, 100 (80%) collected data on race and ethnicity, 2 more collected data on ethnicity but not race, 26 (21%) collected data on racial/ethnic subcategories, 40 (32%) collected data on place of birth, 21 (17%) collected data on years in the United States, 14 (11%) collected data on immigration status, 13 (10%) collected data on primary language, and 29 (23%) used non-English data-collection instruments. Population-based surveys and disease registries more often collected data on detailed variables than did case-based, administrative, and multiple-source systems. CONCLUSIONS: More complete and accurate data on race, ethnicity, primary language, and nativity can improve the quality, representativeness, and usefulness of public health surveillance and monitoring systems to plan and evaluate targeted public health interventions to eliminate health disparities.

Public health surveillance is the foundation of effective public health practice. Public health surveillance is defined as the ongoing systematic collection, analysis, and interpretation of data, closely integrated with the dissemination of these data to the public health practitioners, clinicians, and policy makers responsible for preventing and controlling disease and injury.1 Ideally, surveillance systems should support timely, efficient, flexible, scalable, and interoperable data acquisition, analysis, and dissemination. However, many current systems rely on disease-specific approaches that inhibit efficiency and interoperability (eg, manual data entry and data recoding that place a substantial burden on data partners) and use slow, inefficient, out-of-date technologies that no longer meet user needs for data management, analysis, visualization, and dissemination.2–4 Advances in information technology, data science, analytic methods, and information sharing provide an opportunity to substantially enhance surveillance. As a global leader in public health surveillance, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) is working with public health partners to transform and modernize CDC’s surveillance systems and approaches. Here, we describe recent enhancements in surveillance data analysis and visualization, information sharing, and dissemination at CDC and identify the challenges ahead.

Public health surveillance is focused on the detection of acute, chronic, and emerging threats to the health of the population to direct disease control and prevention efforts.1 Public health surveillance relies on health care providers to report to public health agencies conditions or outbreaks that may impact the broader population. This case reporting is mandated through laws and regulations at the state and local levels. Notification of cases to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) is facilitated by agreements between states and the federal government.2 Historically, case reporting has been based on paper reports or Internet-based entry of reports to state health department systems, but these reports are often slow or incomplete and place a substantial burden of work on health care providers and public health agencies.3 The future of surveillance is electronic case reporting (eCR), by which cases of reportable conditions are automatically generated from electronic health record (EHR) systems and transmitted to public health agencies for review and action. | eCR holds promise for enhancing the quality and effectiveness of public health surveillance.4 Greater use of eCR could result in (1) more complete and accurate case data in near real time for public health action; (2) earlier detection of cases, permitting earlier intervention and lowered transmission of disease; (3) improved detection of outbreaks to allow earlier investigation and, potentially, earlier identification of risk factors for the spread of disease; and (4) creation of a new infrastructure to support rapid reporting of newly recognized and emerging conditions. In this commentary, we review the promise of eCR and present our vision for a nationally interoperable eCR system that allows for timely reporting to public health and information sharing among jurisdictions.

Public health surveillance is the cornerstone of public health practice and can be defined as the “… systematic, ongoing collection, management, analysis, and interpretation of data followed by the dissemination of these data to public health programs to stimulate public health action.”1 Stakeholders in the United States at all levels of government (i.e., federal and state, territorial, local, and tribal [STLT]), in academia and industry, and the general public rely on high-quality, timely surveillance data to detect and monitor diseases, injuries, and conditions; assess the impact of interventions; and assist in the management of large-scale disease incidents. Surveillance data are crucially important to inform policy changes, guide new program interventions, sharpen public communications, and help agencies assess research investments. | The public health surveillance enterprise in the U.S. is a long-term partnership that operates through thousands of agencies at the federal and STLT levels. The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) generally does not collect public health surveillance information directly, but relies on state and local health departments and other systems to do so. CDC, however, plays an important collaborative role in aggregating, analyzing, and disseminating surveillance data; creating tools for surveillance; providing technical assistance to states and territories; researching surveillance policy; and funding surveillance activities. In the past few years, observers inside and outside CDC have identified some of the most important influences shaping surveillance in the 21st century (e.g., security concerns, technological advances, and health-care reform) and how these influences may affect the surveillance enterprise. Observers have touched on the need for ongoing evaluation of surveillance systems; standardization, with the goal of developing sustainable and integrated systems; and system and workforce adaptability to current demands. These observers have recognized many challenges that could impede progress, such as funding, workforce, information technology standards, patient confidentiality, and concerns about data access, quality, and sharing.1–3 For example, one fundamental challenge is the tension, both at the federal and STLT levels, between the needs of the whole surveillance enterprise and specific disease control programs, which require specialized surveillance data and are organized and funded along disease-specific lines.

Healthy aging must become a priority objective for both population and personal health services, and will require innovative prevention programming to span those systems. Uptake of essential clinical preventive services is currently suboptimal among adults, owing to a number of system- and office-based care barriers. To achieve maximum health results, prevention must be integrated across community and clinical settings. Many preventive services are portable, deliverable in either clinical or community settings. Capitalizing on that flexibility can improve uptake and health outcomes. Significant reductions in health disparities, mortality, and morbidity, along with decreases in health spending, are achievable through improved collaboration and synergy between population health and personal health systems.

BACKGROUND: Adverse drug events are important preventable causes of hospitalization in older adults. However, nationally representative data on adverse drug events that result in hospitalization in this population have been limited. METHODS: We used adverse-event data from the National Electronic Injury Surveillance System-Cooperative Adverse Drug Event Surveillance project (2007 through 2009) to estimate the frequency and rates of hospitalization after emergency department visits for adverse drug events in older adults and to assess the contribution of specific medications, including those identified as high-risk or potentially inappropriate by national quality measures. RESULTS: On the basis of 5077 cases identified in our sample, there were an estimated 99,628 emergency hospitalizations (95% confidence interval [CI], 55,531 to 143,724) for adverse drug events in U.S. adults 65 years of age or older each year from 2007 through 2009. Nearly half of these hospitalizations were among adults 80 years of age or older (48.1%; 95% CI, 44.6 to 51.6). Nearly two thirds of hospitalizations were due to unintentional overdoses (65.7%; 95% CI, 60.1 to 71.3). Four medications or medication classes were implicated alone or in combination in 67.0% (95% CI, 60.0 to 74.1) of hospitalizations: warfarin (33.3%), insulins (13.9%), oral antiplatelet agents (13.3%), and oral hypoglycemic agents (10.7%). High-risk medications were implicated in only 1.2% (95% CI, 0.7 to 1.7) of hospitalizations. CONCLUSIONS: Most emergency hospitalizations for recognized adverse drug events in older adults resulted from a few commonly used medications, and relatively few resulted from medications typically designated as high-risk or inappropriate. Improved management of antithrombotic and antidiabetic drugs has the potential to reduce hospitalizations for adverse drug events in older adults.