• Chad Priest and Benoit Stryckman.
• 1Indiana University School of Medicine,Department of Emergency Medicine,Division of Out of Hospital Care, andIndiana University Center for Law,Economics and Applied Research in Health Information,Indianapolis,Indiana.
• Disaster Med Public Health Prep. 2015 Dec 1; 9 (6): 704-11.

ObjectiveThis study aimed to identify the indirect benefits of health care preparedness funding as perceived by current and former recipients of the US Department of Health and Human Services Office of the Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response's Hospital Preparedness Program.MethodsThis was a qualitative inductive content analysis of telephone interviews conducted with regional stakeholders from several health care coalitions to identify their perceptions of the indirect benefits of preparedness funding.ResultsContent analysis of interviewee responses resulted in 2 main categories of indirect benefits of federal health care preparedness funding: (1) dual-use technology and programs and (2) impact of relationships on day-to-day operations. Within the dual-use technology and programs category, 3 subcategories were identified: (1) information systems, (2) clinical technology, and (3) health care operations. Similarly, 3 subcategories relating to the indirect benefits in the impact of relationships on day-to-day operations category were identified: (1) cooperation, (2) information sharing, and (3) sense of community.ConclusionThis study identified indirect benefits of federal investment in hospital and health care preparedness in day-to-day operations. Major categories of these benefits included dual-use technology and programs and impact of relationships on day-to-day operations. Coalition members placed a high value on these benefits, even though they were not direct outcomes of grant programs. Further research is needed to quantify the economic value of these indirect benefits to more accurately measure the total return on investment from federal grant funding.

20 keywords...

hide…