title: Agency discretion and public health service delivery.
abstract: OBJECTIVE
  To study how changes in law shape the public health system.
  
  
  METHODS
  State newborn screening laws and the National Newborn Screening and Genetics Resource Center (NNSGRC).
  
  
  METHODS
  A time-series, quasi-experimental design spanning the years 1990-2006 for all states and the District of Columbia was conducted. Analysis proceeded using a multinomial logit with a dependent variable of whether agencies lagged behind, were on target with, or led their newborn screening law. Explanatory variables of three different types of limitations on agency discretion plus relevant controls were included in the model.
  
  
  METHODS
  State laws were coded for three types of discretion: whether an agency can choose a state's newborn screening panel conditions, whether an agency can charge and change newborn screening fees, and whether the agency can define their own newborn screening criteria. Each state's newborn screening law for each year in the dataset was coded with respect to the mandated number of conditions on a panel and compared with the NNSGRC dataset of actual newborn screening implemented in the state.
  
  
  RESULTS
  States that lack condition discretion have 6.02 greater odds of lagging behind newborn screening law, but the presence of criteria discretion results in 7.50 higher odds of lagging behind the law. Condition discretion and fiscal discretion are associated with successful implementation. The presence of criteria discretion is a barrier for successful implementation.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  Agency discretion can both hinder and facilitate program implementation. Thus, type of discretion determines implementation.
authors.affiliation: Department of Health Management & Policy, School of Public Health, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI 48109-2029, USA. pclouser@umich.edu
authors.forename: Pamela J Clouser
authors.initials: PJ
authors.lastname: McCann
mesh_terms: D017598:Efficiency, Organizational; D033161:Government Regulation; D006284:Health Plan Implementation; D006801:Humans; D007231:Infant, Newborn; D016015:Logistic Models; D017146:Models, Organizational; D015999:Multivariate Analysis; D015997:Neonatal Screening / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence* / Q000379:methods / Q000458:organization & administration; D017009:Professional Autonomy; D011635:Public Health Administration / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence*; D011640:Public Policy; D012189:Retrospective Studies; D014481:United States
references.citation: JAMA. 2000 Oct 25;284(16):2044-6
references.pmid: 11042735
references.citation: Pediatrics. 2006 May;117(5 Pt 2):S212-52
references.pmid: 16735250
references.citation: J Inherit Metab Dis. 2006 Feb;29(1):76-85
references.pmid: 16601872
references.citation: Pediatrics. 2006 Aug;118(2):448-56
references.pmid: 16882794
references.citation: Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 2007 Aug;161(8):767-72
references.pmid: 17679658
references.citation: Pediatrics. 2006 May;117(5):1793-9
references.pmid: 16651338