June 2000 
and 
Planning today to improve the lives of tomorrow 
State of Delaware 
Department of Health and Social Services (Division of Public Health) 
Delmarva Health Initiative 
Delaware Rural Health Plan 

Delaware Rural Health Plan June 2000 
Planning today to improve the lives of tomorrow 
Table of Contents 
Executive Summary 
Rural Health Plan – Context within Existing State and Local
Allocating Resources for Leadership Development and Staff
Acknowledgements 
Acronyms 
Section I. Introduction to the Rural Health Plan 
Plan Overview 
General Characterization of Sussex County
Rural Health Plan - Strategies 
Rural Health Plan - Process
Planning Efforts
The Rural Health Plan and Value Delivery
Components of the “Value Chain” for Rural Health
Section II. Environmental Analysis – Needs, Resources, and Gaps 
Needs Considered in the RHP 
Types of Resources Considered in the RHP 
Observations on Resource Sufficiency and Quality
Aligning Resources with Needs – “Where are the Gaps?” 
Section III. Strategic and Operational Improvements 
Introduction 
Lifecycle Recommendations 
Service Area Recommendations 
Special Considerations Recommendations 
Summary of RHP Recommendations 
Master Table of Suggested Policy Collaborators 
Section IV. Leadership and Staffing 
Introduction 
Stakeholders Defined 
Accountable Entities and Shared Responsibility 
Accountability in Sussex County 
Support 
Section V. Funding
Introduction 
Using the RHP to Finance Health Improvement
General Funding Strategy Process 
Sources of Funding
Section VI. Risks and Uncertainties
Introduction 
Potential Risks and Uncertainties
Section VII. Strategic Synthesis 
Introduction 
Principles/Tests of the RHP Strategy
Table of Contents Page i
Delaware Rural Health Plan June 2000 
Planning today to improve the lives of tomorrow 
Appendices 
Appendix A Medicare Rural Hospital Flexibility Program (MRHFP) 
Appendix B Northland Health Group (NHG) - Firm Background 
Appendix C Value Chain Detail 
Appendix D Stakeholders Contributing to the Rural Health Plan 
Appendix E List of Studies Relevant to the RHP 
Appendix F Summary of Notes for Policy and Initiative Development (DRAFT) 
Table of Contents Page ii 

Delaware Rural Health Plan 
Planning today to improve the lives of tomorrow June 2000 
Executive Summary 
In recognition of the unique and predominantly rural nature of Sussex County, the State of 
Delaware Department of Social Services - Division of Public Health (DPH) applied for Federal 
Office of Rural Health Policy grant funding to develop a Rural Health Plan (RHP). The Plan was 
designed to present an organized and strategic approach to improving the health of Sussex 
County residents. 
The RHP takes a community sensitive approach to addressing health status and access to services 
within Sussex County. The principal approaches employed in the RHP include: 
1. Recognizing and building upon the prior and anticipated future collective efforts of multiple
stakeholders to improve health status and access to health care services in Sussex County;
2. Balancing Sussex County health needs with existing and potential resources; and 
3. Developing recommendations for policies and implementable targeted initiatives, which
rely upon collaboration between government and community stakeholders.
The authors of the Plan believe that in order to be relevant, and to play an instrumental role in 
improving the health of Sussex County residents, recommendations must deliver value to 
citizens. The RHP therefore applies business concepts of value creation to the greatest degree 
possible in the context of recommendations for health care improvement. The RHP’s 
“customers” are the residents of Sussex County whose health status it addresses. 
The process of RHP development deeply involved committed and knowledgeable stakeholders. 
The Delmarva Health Initiative (DHI) served as Steering Committee for plan development. The 
Steering Committee itself met monthly with the consultants to review and critique interim 
findings and recommendations. Written documentation was supplemented by additional primary 
and secondary qualitative research, including more than 50 individual interviews with a diverse 
range of Sussex County stakeholders, stakeholder focus groups involving key constituencies, and 
finally, a working stakeholder retreat held at Dewey Beach, Delaware on May 22, 2000. Final 
recommendations were drafted only after the stakeholder retreat input focused on action planning 
was available. 
In Section II of the Plan, needs and resources are organized by lifecycle (Infant and Perinatal; 
Child and Adolescent; Adult; and Geriatric), by clinical service type (Primary Care; Dental Care; 
Behavioral and Mental Health; and Home Care) and additionally by certain special needs areas 
(Cultural, Minority, Racial and Ethnic Issues; Access to Resources; Leadership and Planning; 
and Infrastructure). 
Each of the ten recommended policies and ten suggested initiatives in Section III were matched 
to identified needs and resource gaps. These are summarized in Table III-1 (page 43). Both 
policies and initiatives are a focused and feasible set of recommendations that could lead to 
measurable implementation goals. The RHP focuses on the highest priority issues. In 
developing these recommendations, an active attempt was made to build on existing activities 
and infrastructure wherever possible. An effort was also made to avoid emphasis on those areas 
that are already being actively addressed in an organized and effective way. 
Executive Summary Page 1 

Delaware Rural Health Plan 
Planning today to improve the lives of tomorrow June 2000 
Prioritization and operational implementation planning will be the next task of the stakeholders. 
Leadership and staffing will therefore be key to successful implementation of RHP 
recommendations. Leadership issues are directly addressed in Section IV. The concept of 
“accountable entities” (stakeholders committed to “leading change”) is introduced in this section 
and should be viewed as applicable to suggestions for initial collaborators, which are provided 
with each recommendation. 
Section V addresses funding. The Plan stresses that while direct service resources require 
funding in order to focus on eliminating gaps, financial resources should also be directed toward 
training leaders, providing staff to develop and facilitate coalitions of stakeholders and 
accountable entities, and to supporting systems that can deliver county specific, statistical and 
other data essential to making sound decisions. The RHP has documented the significant need to 
leverage available resources through concerted shared responsibility. 
The RHP is not itself a grant application or a direct funding mechanism. Rather it is a potential 
guide to local or state agencies for setting funding priorities based on delivering value to Sussex 
County. Discrete initiative recommendations from the RHP can be extracted and enhanced for 
presentation as funding requests whereas policy recommendations may create the vehicle for a 
range of fundable opportunities. 
Risks and uncertainties detailed in Section VI denote potential barriers to successful 
implementation of the RHP. By recognizing these, proactive strategies may be undertaken to 
minimize risks of achieving less than full value through the RHP. While it is not possible to 
predict all the potential barriers to success for each initiative and policy recommendation in the 
RHP, it is worthwhile to focus some attention on major anticipated areas of risk and uncertainty 
for the RHP as a whole. 
Section VII contains a “strategic synthesis.” This is an opportunity to overview the RHP as a 
whole and ask 10 important questions which ensure that the rural health business plan considers 
and applies key strategic principles appropriately. These same questions can, and should, be reapplied 
to specific strategies and initiatives developed in the course of implementing the RHP. 
The RHP is presented jointly to the Governor and Sussex County Administration. It is submitted 
as a contribution to health planning for Sussex County. The Plan honors past accomplishments 
with both pride and respect. It offers sober and candid analysis regarding those challenges that 
remain. It embodies optimism regarding the real potential for positive change which can be 
realized by building on the collaborative spirit and energy which has characterized prior 
successes. 
Executive Summary Page 2 

Delaware Rural Health Plan June 2000 
Planning today to improve the lives of tomorrow 
Acknowledgements 
As principal collaborators in the development of the Delaware (Sussex County) Rural 
Health Plan, both the Delmarva Health Initiative and the Department of Social Services – 
Division of Public Health wish to recognize the Sussex County hospitals as well as 
numerous other agencies, organizations, institutions, and individuals who have 
contributed to improving the health of Sussex County residents in advance of this plan. 
Although it has been impossible to individually note each of these past contributions in 
the Rural Health Plan, the current effort to organize and coordinate efforts going forward 
would not have been possible without the important groundwork accomplished more 
informally in the past. Only through the continuation of such important and dedicated 
grassroots efforts will progress on the ambitious goals of the Rural Health Plan be 
successful. 
Steering Committee Members 
Prue E. Albright Division of Public Health 
Norene Broadhurst Beebe Medical Center 
Don Clark Nanticoke Health Services 
Barbara DeBastiani Division of Public Health 
Stephany Foster Electronic Data Systems Liaison to DE Healthy Children 
William Gallery, DVM 
Edward Goate Central Delaware Community Health Partnership, Inc. 
Reverend John Hird Beebe Medical Center Trustee 
Wallace Hudson Beebe Medical Center 
Paul Lakeman Bayhealth Medical Center 
Joe Liefbroer Johnson Wax 
Colonel Mike Martin Dover Air Force Base 
Bill Neaton Bayhealth Medical Center 
Gina Bianco Perez Division of Public Health 
Beverly Smith Division of Public Health 
Lois Studte Southern Delaware Community Health Partnership, Inc. 
Acknowledgements Page 3 

Delaware Rural Health Plan 
Planning today to improve the lives of tomorrow June 2000 
Acronyms 
Abbreviation/ 
Acronym Full Text 
AARP American Association of Retired Persons 
AHCRQ Agency for Health Care Research & Quality 
ALS Advanced Life Support 
AAPP Alliance for Adolescent Pregnancy Prevention 
BBA Balanced Budget Act 
BLS Basic Life Support 
CAH Critical Access Hospital 
CD/SA Chemical Dependency and Substance Abuse 
CDC Center for Disease Control 
CON Certificate of Need 
CTT Certified Therapeutic Technician 
DAAPD Division of Aging Adults with Physician Disabilities 
DADAMH Division of Alcohol, Drug Abuse and Mental Health 
DDAIC Delaware Dental Access Improvement Committee 
DHCC Delaware Health Care Commission 
DHI Delmarva Health Initiative 
DHSS Department of Health and Social Services 
DIDER Delaware Institute for Dental Education and Research 
DIMER Delaware Institute for Medical Education and Research 
DPH Division of Public Health 
DSCYF Department of Services for Children, Youth, and their Families 
DSS Division of Social Services 
EMS Emergency Medical Service 
FTE Full Time Equivalent 
HCFA Health Care Financing Administration 
HPSA Health Professional Shortage Area 
HRSA Health Resources and Services Administration 
LBW Low Birth Weight 
MCO Managed Care Organization 
MRHFP Medicare Rural Hospital Flexibility Program 
MVA Motor Vehicle Accident 
NASW National Association of Social Workers 
NHG Northland Health Group 
ORHA Federal Office of Rural Health Policy 
PCP Primary Care Physician 
RHP Rural Health Plan 
RWJ The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation 
SBHC School Based Health Care 
SCI Strong Communities Initiatives 
SEER Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Program 
STD Sexually Transmitted Disease 
Abbreviations/Acronyms Page 4 

Section I 
Planning today to improve the lives of tomorrow 
Delaware Rural Health Plan 
Introduction to the Rural Health Plan 

Delaware Rural Health Plan 
Planning today to improve the lives of tomorrow June 2000 
I. Introduction to the Rural Health Plan 
Plan Overview 
In recognition of the unique rural nature of Sussex County, Delaware, the Division of Public 
Health (DPH) applied for Federal Office of Rural Health Policy grant funding to enable 
development of an innovative Delaware (Sussex County) Rural Health Plan (RHP). The RHP 
takes a community sensitive approach to addressing the following aspects of health status and 
access to services in Sussex County (illustrated in Figure I-1): 
Figure I-1: IOM Model - Health Care Operating Environment 
• Health care resources; 
• Physical environment; 
• Social environment; 
• Disease prevalence; 
• Health and function; and 
• Well-being.1 
While addressing each of these issues at 
some level, the RHP focuses primarily on 
the issues of primary (characteristics of 
the population and health care delivery 
system) and secondary (environmental) 
Social 
Environment 
Physical 
Environment 
Genetic 
Endowment 
Well-Being 
Disease 
Health 
Care 
Individual 
Response 
Health 
and 
Function 
Prosperity 
determinants of health. Evans and Stoddard, 1990, “Producing Health, Consuming Health Care” 
The RHP is intended to create awareness for those who are relatively unfamiliar with the county 
(e.g., new residents and policy makers from other parts of the state), as well as deepen the 
understanding and perspective of established stakeholders within Sussex County. 
General Characterization of Sussex County 
Sussex County is unique among both its peer counties within Delaware (Kent and New Castle) 
and the bordering counties in Maryland to the south and east. Given its area of 950 square miles, 
Sussex is one of the largest counties east of the Mississippi River and accounts for nearly half of 
the state’s total area. The total population of approximately 141,000 is aggregated primarily 
around the county’s four cities: Georgetown, Lewes, Milford, and Seaford. Not unexpectedly, 
health care resources are also concentrated in these areas. 
Rural Health Plan - Strategies 
The principal strategies employed in the RHP include: 
1. Recognizing and building upon the prior and future collective efforts of multiple 
stakeholders to improve health status and access to health care services in Sussex County; 
1 Institute of Medicine. Improving Health in the Community. National Academy Press: 1997. 
Section I Page 5 

Delaware Rural Health Plan 
Planning today to improve the lives of tomorrow June 2000 
2. Balancing Sussex County health needs with area resources, as reflected by a qualitative 
and quantitative understanding of existing assets and circumstances. This includes the input 
from government agencies, community groups, and individuals, representing health care 
providers, regulatory agencies, policy makers, social services, advocacy, and/or referral 
agencies; and 
3. Developing policy and strategy recommendations and implementing targeted initiatives, 
which rely upon identified lead agencies and organizations that can achieve success through 
collaboration with relevant and interested community stakeholders. 
Although the distinctive geographic and demographic characteristics of Sussex County may not 
easily permit comparisons to rural areas in other eastern states, many of those states have 
completed RHPs focused on improving the quality of, and access to, health care in rural areas. 
These strategies have generally focused on facilitating the designation of Critical Access 
Hospitals (CAH), small facilities (with up to 15 acute care beds) which agree to certain size and 
activity limitations in exchange for generally favorable Medicare reimbursement. While this 
option has been explored in Delaware, it does not currently apply to any of the three existing 
Sussex County hospitals. The state’s approach to considering possible CAH development is set 
forth in Appendix A. The Delaware (Sussex County) Rural Health Plan therefore focuses on 
community-based health improvement rather than hospital-specific strategies. 
Through the Delaware State Office of Rural Health, DPH has shared responsibility for 
developing the RHP with the Delmarva Health Initiative (DHI), a county-wide collaborative of 
health care providers and advocates largely derived from past Sussex County Health Summits. 
DHI identified the need for technical assistance to facilitate RHP development and selected the 
Maine based Northland Health Group2 (NHG) to research and author the Plan. 
Rural Health Plan - Process 
DHI met monthly as the Steering Committee for this effort. DHI reviewed and critiqued interim 
findings and recommendations based on a review of existing need assessments and resource 
descriptions. This analysis was supplemented by additional primary and secondary qualitative 
research, including more than 50 interviews with a diverse range of Sussex County stakeholders. 
Complete listings of interviewees and documentation reviewed are provided in Appendices D 
and E. NHG also visited certain key community sites, government and community agencies, and 
provider facilities. Interviewees provided meaningful contributions to the understanding of key 
opportunities, challenges, and barriers addressed by the Plan. 
Rural Health Plan - Context within Existing State and Local Planning Efforts 
Lessons learned from historical public health planning efforts reveal an important balance for the 
RHPs users to appreciate. From one perspective, the Plan could be expected to be “allencompassing” 
so that the interests of all stakeholders are meaningfully represented (e.g., “wide 
representation and participation”). From another point of view, the Plan must be focused on high 
priority and high impact issues, and must contain clear and specific guidance for policy and 
2 For NHG qualifications and firm background please see Appendix B 
Section I Page 6 

Delaware Rural Health Plan 
Planning today to improve the lives of tomorrow June 2000 
action (e.g., “less is more”) with value derived from focusing attention on a limited number of 
issues. 
Figure I-2: Context for Rural Health Plan 
RURAL 
2010 
/ 
HEALTH 
PLAN 
HEALTHY 
DELAWARE 
ALL OTHER 
STATE-WIDE 
PLANNING 
SERVICE 
AREA OR 
COMMUNITY 
PLANNING 
CITY 
PLANNINGCOUNTY SUB-
DIVISIONS 
In either circumstance, successful development of the 
RHP must create a contextual “fit” between existing state 
and community-level planning processes and activities 
(illustrated in Figure 2). The RHP does not replace, but 
rather complements, initiatives targeted to individual 
community needs or “at-risk” populations in particular 
areas. It provides a strategic and advocacy focus, at all 
levels of policy and implementation, for issues relevant to 
Sussex County. It can inform collaborative action across 
communities and can guide both policy makers and 
funders on pressing county-wide issues. At the broadest 
level, the RHP can serve to create relevant connections 
among state planning initiatives such as Health Delaware 2010, the Delaware Institute for 
Medical Education and Research (DIMER), and the Delaware Health Care Commission (DHCC) 
as well as multiple new and ongoing agency specific initiatives. 
The Rural Health Plan and Value Delivery 
In order to be relevant and to play an instrumental role in improving the health of Sussex County 
residents, projects and initiatives must deliver value to citizens. The model for understanding 
value delivery is found in commercial businesses, which regularly focus on the importance of 
value for attracting and retaining customers. This focus supports the ability of any business to 
operate efficiently, responsively, and profitably and thus be durable in its marketplace. 
The RHP applies the business concept of value creation to the greatest degree possible in the 
context of health care improvement. The RHPs “customers” are the residents of Sussex County 
whose health status it addresses. Additionally, however, customers could include the hospitals 
and other direct service providers, community based social service agencies, businesses, the state 
of Delaware itself, and perhaps many others who will use the RHP and benefit from its vision of 
policy and project opportunities. 
Components of the “Value Chain” for Rural Health 
The top value chain model seen below (Figure I-3) is presented to illustrate the components of 
value production for a manufacturing firm that produces goods from raw materials. Primary 
production activities are those that are easily recognizable as components of selling, 
constructing, or delivering a manufactured product. Support Activities and Processes are the 
“back room” functions that are necessary to support the primary activities but which are 
sometimes overlooked when measuring value. Both primary production and support activities 
are necessary. Each category expresses functionalities that are provided by the firm or delivered 
collaboratively with partnering organizations (e.g., subcontracted activities, joint ventures, etc.). 
Section I Page 7 

Delaware Rural Health Plan 
Planning today to improve the lives of tomorrow June 2000 
Figure I-3: Classical Manufacturing Value Chain Model 
) 
(((
) 
(
/
Primary Production Activities 
Operations 
Infrastructure 
Staff and Leadership 
R & D 
Informational Technology 
Outbound 
Logistics 
Marketing 
and Sales 
Support Processes and Activities 
Service Inbound 
Logistics 
(Customer 
AcquisitionRaw Material 
Procurement) 
Fabrication) Delivery and 
FulfillmentPost-Sales 
Service and 
Support) 
Facility, Plant, Finance, Systems, etc. 
HR Functions: Recruitment, Training , etc. 
Product Development and Improvement 
InternalExternal Communications, Analysis, etc. 
Effective 
Product 
Marketing 
and Sales to 
Customers 
The value chain expresses the way in which different components of a business system 
complement each other to create value for “end users” or “customers.” A value chain adapted to 
rural health care is represented below (Figure 4). For each element of rural health care (i.e., 
dental health, primary care, and home health care), analogous Primary Activities (Projects and 
Initiatives) contribute in a linear fashion to program execution or delivery of services. This can 
be compared to an assembly line in a manufacturing production process for making “widgets.” 
Similarly, Support Activities (Policies and Structures) are essential enablers of the primary 
activities and the system, but do not directly play a role in production or delivery of services. 
Figure I-4: Rural Health Plan Value Chain Model 
) 
Projects and Initiatives 
Provision of 
Direct 
Services 
Infrastructure 
Leadership/Staffing 
Planning 
Communication 
Discharge, 
Referral, 
Placement 
Public 
Awareness, 
Education, 
Information 
Policies and Structures 
Surveillance, 
Assessment, 
Monitoring, 
Prevention 
Access, 
Intake, 
Registration Value = 
Optimal Health 
Status for Sussex 
County Residents 
(CustomersFinance, Environmental Factors 
Accountability, Stakeholders, Recruitment, Training 
Project Development, Improvement, and Pilots 
Coordination, Partnering, Information Sharing, IT 
The concept of RHP “value delivery” therefore encompasses all of the components required for 
successful accomplishment of recommended projects and initiatives. The model is used 
throughout this document to analyze needs and resources as well as to target policies and 
initiatives to yield the most effective impact on community health status. 
Section I Page 8 

Section II 
Planning today to improve the lives of tomorrow 
Delaware Rural Health Plan 
Environmental Analysis - Needs, 
Resources, and Gaps 

Delaware Rural Health Plan 
Planning today to improve the lives of tomorrow June 2000 
II. Environmental Analysis – Needs, Resources, and Gaps 
Needs Considered in the Rural Health Plan 
After reviewing existing needs studies, NHG generally focused on those studies that were no 
more than three years old and contained specific, quantitative information regarding Sussex 
County issues. The focus on county-level studies limited the amount of available information. 
While there was no shortage of analytic studies and monographs for review, many contained data 
and observations that were aggregated and reported at the state level. Using these studies to plan 
at the county level would have required an assumption that Sussex County residents have the 
same needs and characteristics as Kent and New Castle Delawareans. However, this is not the 
case. For example, a review of data that is available for Sussex County (e.g., vital statistics) 
reveals that patterns of health, disease, and behavior differ dramatically in Sussex County when 
compared to the state as a whole or to Kent and New Castle Counties. 
Types of Resources Considered in the Rural Health Plan 
Multiple resources contribute to the Sussex County health care delivery system. In the Plan, 
resources are categorized into three types: 
• Direct Health Care Providers (providers of direct clinical health care services) 
• Human Service Providers (community or state agencies providing social services) 
• Service Integrators/Advocates (organizations providing referrals and/or problem 
solving assistance to clients across a broad range of needs) 
Each resource type contributes uniquely to the health status of rural Delawareans through 
delivery of components such as: health care services, health education, basic needs assistance, 
advocacy, and/or financial support. 
Observations on Resource Sufficiency and Quality 
Different methods for determining resource quality and utility are required to consider the three 
categories of resources addressed by the Plan. Direct Health Care Providers represent the only 
area for which accepted planning benchmarks exist, and for which estimates for the number of 
professionals required to serve a population are even moderately available. Even in this 
relatively limited context, the use of quantitative measures is controversial and problematic due 
to problems such as geographic distribution and lack of access. Therefore, assessment of 
resource adequacy, and the potential for resources to meet community needs, must be both a 
quantitative and qualitative exercise. In this plan, alignment between resources and needs has 
thus been determined by structured, qualitative assessments provided by individuals experienced 
with an “on the ground” perspective. To the extent possible, additional objective data (e.g., 
surveys, quantification, studies on access, etc.) have been used to further inform this process. 
Aligning Resources with Needs - “Where are the Gaps?” 
The sections that follow provide both narrative descriptions and schematic representations of 
Section II Page 9 

Delaware Rural Health Plan 
Planning today to improve the lives of tomorrow June 2000 
resource adequacy considered in three dimensions. A life cycle perspective (perinatal, 
child/adolescent, adult, and geriatric) and a provider or clinical service perspective (primary care, 
dental, behavioral health, home health) are both included as is a “special considerations” section. 
Each resource is examined in the context of its perceived performance in meeting existing needs 
and in delivering value. The graphics are used to represent alignment that does (or does not) 
exist among Sussex County’s resources. 
The RHP uses a “traffic light” scoring approach to depict resource adequacy at points along the 
value chain. Red indicates that gaps between needs and available resources are so significant 
that the system is “stopped;” yellow is a “warning” of incomplete functionality; and green means 
that the system operates smoothly, hence a “go.” Thus, a green marker denotes points where 
resources fully meet needs, yellow indicates questionable or sub-optimal resources, and red 
denotes a significant and potentially problematic gap between needs and resources. From a 
planning perspective, the most critical areas to address are the red markers or “gaps.” 
Figure II-1: Gap Analysis Example 
(5) For each needs dimension analyzed, overall “degree of 
alignment” or “performance” is summarized by a value chain 
component, and supporting notes and key points are indicated. 
(2) Population Group or 
Resource/Service Type 
being analyzed 
Significant Gap in Resources 
Questionable Resource Sufficiency 
Fully Sufficient Resources 
(4) Resource Alignment Legend 
Inf a nt s/ Perinat a l 
Lifecycle - Infants and Perinatal (3) Components of Value Chain 
being tested for alignment 
Summary of Findings: Infant and Perinatal Resource Alignment 
(1) Needs Dimension 
(“Gap Analysis” Topic) 
Each value chain component is evaluated and assigned a 
color that indicates its current “degree of alignment” or 
“performance”; if a color was not assigned, insufficient 
information existed to make the evaluation. 
Overall 
Status 
Information 
Intake 
DirectService 
Referrals 
Monitoring 
Infrastructure 
Leadership/ 
Staffing 
Planning 
Communication 
Section II Page 10 

Delaware Rural Health Plan 
Planning today to improve the lives of tomorrow 
Lifecycle #1- Needs of the Infants and Perinatal Population 
June 2000 
Source for all data below is Delaware Vital Statistics Annual Report (1998) 
• Key outcome indicators of infant and perinatal health care effectiveness are the 
neonatal/infant mortality and low birth weight (LBW) rates. In Sussex County, neonatal and 
infant mortality have risen for the past two 5-year cycles as compared to state. The LBW 
fraction has risen from a favorable level (pre-1995) to approach the higher state rate: 
7 
8 
1987-19911988-19921989-19931990-19941991-19951992-19961993-19971994-1998 
) W 
DelFiii4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
/iiUS 
e 
IIlity byii7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
iUS 
DelNCC 
IIPerce nt of LBW Births 
Sussex v De law are 
6.5 
7.5 
8.5 
5 Ye ar Pe riod 
Perce nt (%of LBaw are 
Sussex 
gure II-4 Neonatal Mortality by 5 Year Perod 
US v DE v Counte s 
19871991 
19881992 
19891993 
19901994 
19911995 
19921996 
19931997 
19941998 
5 Year Period 
Deaths1,000 Lve Brths 
DelawarKent 
NCC 
Sussex 
Figure-3 
Infant Morta 5 Year Perod 
US v DE v Countes 
19871991 
19881992 
19891993 
19901994 
19911995 
19921996 
19931997 
19941998 
5 Year Perod 
Deaths/1,000 
aw are 
Kent 
Sus sex 
Figure-2 
• Sussex County and Delaware are now higher than US in neonatal mortality (see Figs. II-2 
and II-3). The rise in Sussex County infant mortality over the past two 5-year periods is 
unexplained and is of concern. Statewide LBW rates are generally driven more by births to 
teens and African American females; however, in 
Sussex County, teens and white births are the drivers. Figure II-5 
Births to Single Mothers by County 
Among the white population in Sussex County, the (1994-1998)
percentage of LBW infants exceeds both the US and 
the state. 
• Sussex County has more births to single mothers 
(43.7) compared to the state (35.79%) and other 
Delaware counties (Figure II-5). 
ll 
le 
County % Births to Single Mothers 
Delaware - A35.7% 
New Cast33.4% 
Kent 36.0% 
Sussex 43.7% 
• Prenatal care adequacy in Sussex County is lower than the state in the aggregate and in 
each racial/ethnic subgroup measured. While Sussex is not alone in this regard, the 
comparison between non-urban New Castle County and Sussex County is striking. 
Figure II-6 
Births to Mothers Receiving Adequate Prenatal Care by Race 
DE 
Kent 
NCC 
Wilmington 
Sussex 





WhiBlack 
te 
All Races 
) 
47.1 
66.9 67.4 
81.2 
71 
0 
10 
20 
30 
40 
50 
60 
70 
80 
90 
% 
Prenatal Care Adequacy by Delaware County (1998KENT SUSSEX WILMINGTON BAL. NCC DEL 
County 
by Category of CareAdequate 
Intermed 
Inadequate 
Unknown 
Figure II-7 
10 20 30 4050 60 7080 90 
Percentage ofTotalBirths
Section II Page 11 

Delaware Rural Health Plan 
Planning today to improve the lives of tomorrow June 2000 
Lifecycle #1-Resources for the Infants and Perinatal Population 
n
o
cat
i
ce
/ 
r
e
c
e 
u
p
/
n 
ng
e
/
/ 
g
rv
i
io
an
n
i
l
s 
i
c
t
g
g
r
i
t
r
ess
sh
s/ 
a
a
rr
m
u
o
a
r
u
n
H
E
m
e
n
e
ces
i
l
e
r
en
ast
n
i
e
S
ffi
a
k
ead
c
h
ni
t
e
m
v
n
o
r
ar
c
t
Sta
Re
f
t
c
re
Di
s
u
r
o
Pl
a
o
In
f
r
In
f
w
A
M
n
C
S
L
A
Di
I
A
Infants and Perinatal 
Direct Service 
Social Services 
Service Integrators 
Overall 
T 
H 
S 
T 
A 
T 
U 
IMPROVED INFANT/PERINATAL SERVICES S 
Status 
Summary of Findings: Infant and Perinatal Gap Analysis 
• Awareness (of Resources): Good for some populations (white, insured), poor for others (Hispanic, 
Black, disadvantaged); More hospital-based education is needed; State Service Centers provides 
clearinghouse function. 
• Access to Care: Delmarva Rural Ministries has a mobile van and is expanding beyond migrant 
population; Geographic access/transportation problematic for fixed site resources; Generally more 
bilingual capacity needed; Social Service availability to disadvantaged and racial and ethnic minority 
populations needs improvement; new health center to open in Georgetown. 
• Direct Service: Physicians up-state support down-state providers with specialty care; Each hospital 
provides labor and delivery services with comparable service levels; Linkage of social services with 
direct clinical services needs improvement. 
• Referral: More lay support (resource fathers/mothers) needed; Child Development Watch is an 
important resource re: coordination of care and case management; Home visiting for first time parents 
provides opportunity to follow the family and observe in their own environment. 
• Monitoring: United Way and Child Development Watch are monitoring outcomes; Perinatal mortality 
is rising -reasons are not well understood; No systematic appreciation of health status on a county 
level. 
• Infrastructure: There are three duPont Pediatric Clinics (Milford, Georgetown and Seaford) that serve 
infants, and children and adolescents (up to 19 years) with family income up to 200% of poverty on a 
sliding fee scale basis. Transportation is a significant limitation to receiving infant and perinatal 
services for those who live a distance from these sites. 
• Leadership: The Perinatal Board has been very effective in providing system level leadership, however 
the social service sector does not have focused leadership in addressing this population. 
• Planning: Services for children with special health care needs, appear to be a strong potential resource 
but are currently under-funded; Perinatal Board is an important planning resource, helped raise 
Delaware’s ranking infant mortality from worst to 25th in country. 
• Communication: Provider-provider communication is spotty; 53 separate agencies on teen pregnancy; 
The symposium “Cradle of Hope” was effective. 
Section II Page 12 

Delaware Rural Health Plan 
Planning today to improve the lives of tomorrow 
Lifecycle #2 - Needs of the Child and Adolescent Population 
June 2000 
• While meaningful Sussex County specific data is lacking on younger childhood needs, 
extrapolation of state level data suggests that injury prevention, asthma, and special needs 
support services areas all may require attention. 
• As articulated in Delaware’s Maternal and Child Health Grant application, the following 
needs are apparent in Sussex County for special needs children: 
– Insufficient services for OT, PT, and speech therapy needs; 
– Child care needs for the population may be insufficient and currently under study; 
– Care coordination is insufficient for children > age 3 with special needs; 
– Culturally compatible specialty care access is insufficient. 
• Sussex County teen live birth rates are well above the US and state rates for both younger 
and older teens. For white teen mothers, the rate is rising whereas the US rate is falling for 
this group. African-American teen birth rates are falling at a rate similar to US and are 
decreasing faster than the state rate. Teen live birth rates in several census tracts 
(Bridgeville, Selbyville, and Laurel) stand out as extraordinarily high. 
Dierrtes 
0 
5 
10 
15 
7983 
8084 
8185 
86 
8387 
88 
8589 
90 
8791 
8892 
8993 
9094 
9195 
9296 
9397 
9498 
iod 
US 
Difference (in %) 
ffence BetweenTeen (15-19)and GeneralLive Bih RatSussex County v.US v.DE (1978-1997) 
(20) 
(15) 
(10) 
(5) 
8284865 
YearPerDEL 
SUS 
Figure II-8 
Figure II-9 
Five-Year Average Teenage (15-19) Fertility Rates 
U.S., Delaware and Counties, 1978-1998 
90 
80 
70 
60 
50 
40 
30 
DE 
NCC 
liU.S. 
Kent 
Sussex 
Sources: 
Deaware Health Statistics Center 
National Center for Health Statstics 
78-82 79-83 80-84 81-85 82-86 83-87 84-88 85-89 86-90 87-91 88-92 89-93 90-94 91-95 92-96 93-97 94-98 
Five-Year Intervals 
Source for above data is Delaware Vital Statistics Annual Report (1998) 
• School Based Health Centers (SBHC) are in all Sussex County high schools; based on 
interviews and SBHC data, teen primary health care needs are characterized as “largely 
unmet.” Teen mental/behavioral health needs are also not adequately being met due, in part, to 
a lack of providers serving this population. In addition, for both primary care and mental 
health needs, transportation is inadequate and conflicts with access and confidentiality needs. 
Approximately 35% of SBHC visits are for mental health concerns. 
• Self reported substance use in older Sussex 
County adolescents exceeds state rates. The 
need for improvement is particularly apparent 
from the increase in use reported between 
grades 8 and 12, which greatly exceeds the 
state as a whole. 
8th v 11th Grade Self Reported Substance 
Use Grade 8 Grade 11 Change 
Sussex % % % 
Cigarettes 22 39 17 
Alcohol 25 53 28 
Marijuana 15 25 10 
Delaware % % % 
Cigarettes 24 33 9 
Alcohol 29 47 18 
Marijuana 19 25 6 
Section II Page 13 

Delaware Rural Health Plan 
Planning today to improve the lives of tomorrow June 2000 
Lifecycle #2 - Resources for the Child and Adolescent Population 
no
cat
i
e
ci
e
p
/
/
/
i
i
rtu
/enc
nio
sseen
gn
egr
sh
numm
vre
sal
gn
cu
tamr
ir
s/ 
lla
gn
ekatIn
o
HEALTH 
STATUS
er
rr
ah
ces
innaPl 
S
tr
evr
i
ifaSt
inMo
t
e
ar
daeL
sa
ct
sc
o
Re
f
Ac
wA
fIn
Co
re
fn
r
uS
Di
Di
I
Children and Adolescents 
Direct Service 
Social Services 
Service Integrators 
IMPROVED CHILD
/
ADOLESCENT SERVICES
Overall 
Status Summary of Findings: Children and Adolescents Gap Analysis 
• Awareness: State Service Centers are primary resources for reproductive health including education and 
services for family planning and sexually transmitted diseases (STD); YMCA resource centers and Boys 
and Girls Club disseminate information; SBHCs provide treatment for STD but do not provide broader 
family planning services in most districts; Resource guide is published for resources serving children with 
special needs 
• Access: Poor access to behavioral health, mental health, primary care, and family planning; Few 
transportation options; the Delaware Healthy Children Program (children’s health insurance) is an 
important resource; Access van is expanding awareness/access; Limited services for special needs children 
remains a problem; Adolescents access into family planning services remains problematic (e.g., 
confidentiality, lack of SBHC services, transportation and clinic hours were cited as barriers). 
• Direct service: Quality can be very good when services are available, with possible exception of teen 
OB/GYN services; Language and socio-cultural barriers impact patient-provider communication; Patientphysician 
communication problems make direct service quality less than ideal. 
• Referral: Little county level data is available to determine resource or care adequacy. 
• Monitoring: School nurses, especially at elementary and middle school levels, and SBHC are important 
resources, especially in the area of prevention, but little evaluative data is available; Outcomes 
measurement under development at United Way but not active. 
• Infrastructure: duPont Pediatric Clinics provide direct services; Resource infrastructure is not sufficient to 
meet behavioral health needs for this population; Direct state contracting has may have unintentionally 
reduced providers and decreased access; Head Start is an important resource; Feedback from mothers 
concerned about access/adequacy of special needs services for children. 
• Leadership: Leadership: Despite a proliferation of services, coordination of efforts to meet needs may be 
lacking; Community health partnerships have been initially successful, but more work is to be done. 
• Planning: Not clear if resources are equally available to Hispanics; Additional planning is needed, re: the 
stage of intervention for children, especially in areas of behavioral risk factors (e.g., prevention of 
substance use between 8th and 11th grade). 
• Communication: When children graduate, there is insufficient communication between SBHC and private 
health care systems to assure that primary care is in place; Although the role of SBHC is not provision of 
primary care, their role in assuring a medical home “drops off” precipitously upon graduation; Insufficient 
communication among providers; Agency collaboration is rising. 
Section II Page 14 

Delaware Rural Health Plan 
Planning today to improve the lives of tomorrow 
Lifecycle # 3 - Needs of the Adult Population 
June 2000 
• Delaware cancer mortality rates are the second highest in the US (1992-1996 SEER data). 
Mortality from prostate, colorectal, cervical, and lung cancers are extremely high in state. 
County rates are indistinguishable from state in vital statistics data for individual cancers due to 
small populations numbers. African-American men (lung, prostate, colorectal) and African-
American women (cervical) predominate in excess mortality. Hospitals have been instrumental 
in developing integrated cancer care and support programs. 
• Sussex County exceeds Delaware and US mortality rates for all adult age groups except ages 
35-44. Mortality is apparent across all age groups particularly for cancer, heart disease, and 
motor vehicle accidents (MVA). 
Figure II-10 
y Age () 
p 
US 
Dea t h Ra te s B All Ca u sesSu s s e x Co u nty v. DE v. US (1992-1996) 
0.0 
200.0 
400.0 
600.0 
800.0 
1000.0 
1200.0 
1400.0 
1600.0 
25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 
Age Ba nd 
De a th R ate pe r 100,000 po 
Delaw are 
SUS SEX 
Source for above data is Delaware Vital Statistics Annual Report (1998) 
• Sussex County death rates from congestive heart disease exceed state rates. Cardiac disease is 
also the most frequent cause for hospitalization in Sussex County. Lifestyle and controllable 
risk factor issues predominate as predisposing factors: 
– Smoking – Motor vehicle accidents 
– Overweight – No seat belt use 
– Hypertension – Operating under the influence of alcohol 
• County specific Behavioral Risk Factor Survey data are not currently available. State level 
data is shown in Fig. II-11. Figure II-11 
Delaware Adults at Risk from Selected 
• All racial and ethnic groups in Sussex County 
exceed US mortality rates in diabetes. African-
American females in Sussex County have a 
strikingly high mortality (greater than 50 per 
100,000) which exceeds both the state (40 per 
Percent of Adults 
18 and Older 
40 
30 
20 
10 
Behavioral Risk Factors, 1997 
100K) and US (28 per 100K). 
• Sussex County rates for STDs such as syphilis, 
gonorrhea, and chlamydia exceed state rates 
which themselves are high compared to US 
rates. 
Binge Drinkers 
"Poor Health" 
No Health 
Ins.
Diabetic 
High BP 
No Safety Belt 
Overweight 
Smokers 
Drink & 
Drive 
Chronic Drinkers 
With These Risks Factors 
Section II Page 15 

Delaware Rural Health Plan 
Planning today to improve the lives of tomorrow June 2000 
Lifecycle # 3 - Resources for the Adult Population 
on
i
enc
/
ec
ion 
ng
i
s
l
i
tacuninningmmoC
ertucu
ip/hs
ss/een
e/grahsc
vre
arefRe
lla
roonitM
i
ss
/ekaInt
gnffiPla
am
t
Service Integrators 
Direct Service 
Social Services 
H 
E 
A 
L 
T 
H 
S 
T 
A 
T 
U 
S 
Adults 
redaLe
evSur
tr
S
ce
sfran
ar
r
ct
Sta
oInf
Ac
Aw
re
Di
Di
I
Overall 
Status Summary of Findings: Adult Gap Analysis 
• Awareness: Good for those highly familiar with the system, but relatively poor for all others; Delaware 
Help Line serves primary referral function providing general state level information; Database is extensive, 
but the use by (and focus on) Sussex County population is unclear; Mixed to poor impressions by other 
providers; Awareness of multiple other resource directories is low. 
• Access: Primary care provider numbers appear adequate for population when federal shortage area criteria 
are applied BUT this may not result in operational access if practices are closed to new patients, certain 
payer types or do not have accessible hours or geographic sites for special populations; Dental access is 
limited, even for populations able to pay, joint planning is trying to address this; Lack of transportation 
infrastructure is a long standing problem; Managed care networks limit access to some physicians. 
• Direct service: Direct medical and dental care service quality is acceptable for adults by report, however, 
the availability of such services may be significantly limited for many residents who encounter access 
barriers (see above). 
• Referral: Most problematic for mental health; Hospitals provide referrals to physicians; Most frequent call 
is for family practice physicians accepting Medicaid; Awareness for referral opportunities may limit 
otherwise functional systems. 
• Monitoring: Little county level data is available to determine resource or care adequacy. 
• Infrastructure: Many services focused on adult population; State funding mechanism lowers incentive to 
collaborate and may lead to inter-agency competition; Mental health access or infrastructure (too few 
providers) is a problem; Transportation remains problematic, particularly for residents of more rural and 
less densely populated portions of the county. 
• Leadership: Leadership and joint planning among direct providers are of mixed quality -some good 
examples, but many more opportunities for improvement; Division of Volunteerism not functioning well 
or meeting potential as an integrator. 
• Planning: Community/state supports multiple referral services and resource directories which could be 
coordinated better -it is not clear if funding is adequate to support all; Good coordination of resources in 
rehab (DE Association of Rehabilitation Facilities); Less joint planning/coordination in other areas; Should 
look at cost and efficiency issues for long range. 
• Communication: Hospitals serve catchment areas well however there is minimal operational collaboration 
across hospital services and staffs; Increased coordination of services and resource inventories represents 
an opportunity to improve their advocacy/service integration role. 
Section II Page 16 

Delaware Rural Health Plan 
Planning today to improve the lives of tomorrow June 2000 
Lifecycle # 4 - Needs of the Geriatric Population 
• As a result of both the aging of the population and an increasing retiree population, the Sussex 
County elderly population is anticipated to grow rapidly through 2010. The greatest growth 
rate will be in the over 85 age group. 
Figure II-12 Figure II-13 
) 
0 
Projl 
Elderly Population Growth Estimates(1999-202010,000 
20,000 
30,000 
40,000 
50,000 
60,000 
70,000 
80,000 
90,000 
1999 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 
Year 
ected Populati on > Age 60 
New Cas te Cou nt y 
Kent Count y 
Sussex County 
Est. % G ro wth in Elderly Pop ulation Segments 
Sussex County(2000-2020) 
160% 
140% 
% 
Gr 120% 
ow 
th 100% 
(20 
0020 
80% 
20) 
60% 
40% 
20% 
0% 
Over 60 Over 75 Over 85 
Age Band 
• Mortality rates for elderly population in Sussex County exceed state and US in the greater 
than 65 age groups in the aggregate: 
All causes 65-74 75-84 85+ 
US 2578.7 5851.5 15280.2 
Delaware 2731.5 6209.4 17297.2 
Sussex Co. 2597.8 6362.8 17126.3 
and, significantly, for the following specific conditions: 
– Pneumonia and influenza 
– Motor vehicle accidents 
• Other than basic mortality data, despite an anticipated explosive geriatric population growth, 
there is a striking lack of data to support the identification of needs for this population. This 
data is required for a thorough understanding of needs and for resource development. 
Anecdotal and qualitative data suggests needs in the following areas: 
– Primary care 
– Geriatric medical specialists 
– Home care 
– Transportation 
– Social activities 
• Coordinated and long range planning for this population appears to be lacking at the county 
level. 
Section II Page 17 

Delaware Rural Health Plan 
Planning today to improve the lives of tomorrow June 2000 
Lifecycle # 4 -Resources for the Geriatric Population
no
cat
i
/
ru
e
ci
e
pi
/
ng
/
e/gr
l
s
i
t
sh
s/
i
r
ecnali
niotamr
essne
numm
rve
cu
gn
are
gnffi
HEALTH 
STATUS
ekatIn
ahsc
o
er
ces
innaPl
rast
S
t
evr
ni
ead
o
ar
tc
Sta
Re
f
fIn
cA
oM
oC
fn
r
wA
Su
re
iD
L
Di
I
Geriatric 
Direct Service 
Social Services 
Service Integrators 
IC SERVICES
I
MPROVED GERIATR
Overall 
Status 
Summary of Findings: Geriatric Gap Analysis 
• Awareness: Population is bypassing integrators and working directly with providers. 
• Access: Access to prescription medication is a problem; “Pill Bill” may increase access to prescription 
drugs for low income; Not clear if adult day care is meeting need or is appropriately located; CHEER and 
senior centers are key resources; Vans believed to have significantly alleviated transportation problems for 
the geriatric population, but individuals requiring multiple services or living in low population density 
areas continue to experience transpiration related limitations. 
• Direct service: Difficult population to serve due to cultural and access issues; Home Health is an important 
support and is in short supply; Geriatric medical specialists are not readily available in Sussex County. 
• Referral: Discharge planning is working well, but limited by a resource availability or knowledge; 
Adequacy of discharge largely depends on the area -many services in the Beebe area; Out-referral 
hampered by lack of Sussex County geriatricians (see above). 
• Monitoring: Division of Aging and Adults with Physical Disabilities (DAAPD) does not have current 
health status or needs/resource assessment for geriatric population; Unclear if CHEER adequately meets all 
need or if it is serving a large enough percentage of the population; Senior Summit indicated that resources 
are not meeting needs. 
• Infrastructure: State directory of geriatric services indicates many resources are present but sufficiency is 
unknown; CHEER and Senior Centers are important resources (e.g., providing immunizations, focus for 
day activity, housing, recreation); Assisted living increasing, but not clear if demand supports increase in 
housing units; Information on the advocate/service integrator area is limited; Transportation options 
inadequate. 
• Leadership: Centralized funding may be a threat to these organizations; Seniors benefit from some 
advocacy through AARP; Leadership shown by DHSS/DAAPD limited by lack of planning data. 
• Planning: With no data, planning is insufficient; Each agency is perceived as doing its own thing, no joint 
planning; Some believe direct services are not prepared for rapid growth of this population (migration to 
Sussex) or the aging of the population; Additional work in the planning of services is needed; Social 
service agencies should work with direct service providers to plan for improved geriatric services. 
• Communication: Better communication with direct service providers can improve services. 
Section II Page 18 

Delaware Rural Health Plan 
Planning today to improve the lives of tomorrow June 2000 
Service Area #1: Primary Care Needs 
• Substantial data and analysis from Division of Public Health University of Delaware Survey 
(1998) and DIMER report (10/99) are available to support an understanding of primary care 
needs. 
• The estimated need for additional primary care providers differs when taking a "by the 
numbers" view versus documenting the experience reported by individuals related to “limited 
practical access or availability” of numerically adequate providers. Sussex County is 
currently designated a medically underserved area. Northern Sussex County is designated as a 
primary care shortage area. Designation is based in part on the overall number of full time 
equivalent (FTE) physicians. However, contradictory information exists regarding true 
operational capacity (consumer perceptions and experience of practitioner availability) for the 
following reasons: 
– Practices may be closed to new patients; 
– Practices may accept limited insurance or network participation; 
– While the federal criteria for FTE (hours of practice per week) are met, productivity is 
not considered (i.e., low productivity would effectively reduce capacity); 
– Typical hours of operation (no evenings or weekends) may effectively limit access for 
certain populations; 
– Lack of knowledge or skill in the care of special populations (e.g., disabled, 
child/adolescent, AIDS, and geriatrics) may limit the effective availability of providers; 
– Sussex County has the lowest use of non-physician clinicians (e.g., physician assistants, 
nurse practitioners and certified nurse midwives) in the state, thus limiting the 
“extendibility” of practices; 
– The primary care capacity is clustered around hospitals, especially for OB/GYN 
services, thus making access geographically difficult for some citizens - particularly 
those lacking private transportation. This geographic problem is institutionalized, to 
some degree, by hospital credentialling rules requiring physicians to live within 30 
miles of the hospital; and 
– Cultural accessibility (Hispanic population) and multi-lingual capacity are limited. 
• The general orientation of primary care in Sussex County is toward acute/sick care rather than 
“wellness” or preventative care. This may affect the impact of lifestyle-related conditions as 
well as early diagnosis of serious disorders (such as cancer) which may result in higher 
mortality. Contributing factors include: 
– Availability: In situations of limited practitioner availability, both providers and consumers 
reserve their use to the most acute needs rather than preventive services; and 
– Cultural Attitudes: The generally conservative Sussex County population holds a “take care of 
yourself” ethic that supports receiving care only when ill. 
• As public health clinics have transitioned away from direct primary care services, private 
providers have become the only resource for care such as maternal and child health services. 
This may have resulted in an unintended negative impact on primary care availability. 
Section II Page 19 

Delaware Rural Health Plan 
Planning today to improve the lives of tomorrow June 2000 
Service Area #1: Primary Care Resources 
n
o
cat
i
ce
/ 
r
e
c
e 
u
p
/
n
/ 
e
/
i
s 
i
i
t
ng
ess
g
rv
an
l
sh
n
io
c
g
a
s/ 
r
i
g
rr
o
a
t
m
u
r
u
n
a
r
e
e 
n
m
i
l
e
r
ces
en
ast
n
i
e
S
H 
E
AInreDiSMnLPlC
DiI
Infants/PerinatalAdultsGeriatricsChildren/Adolescents 
All Resource Types 
A 
T 
H 
S 
T 
A 
T 
U 
IMPROVED PRIMARY CARE SYSTEM S
Overall 
Status Summary of Findings: Primary Care Gap Analysis 
• Awareness: Hospitals make medical staff directories available and provide information through 
the hospital on available primary care practices; Telephone directories contain listings only; Little 
systematic information on a county-wide basis that provides practice details. 
• Access: Improvements have been made to access/intake; Sussex County has numerically adequate 
capacity; but problematic geographic distribution; fewer than 37% of PCP sites have Spanish 
bilingual capacity; 25% of Sussex County PCPs do not participate in a managed care network; 
Primary care access for special populations is problematic; Few providers are open to Medicaid; 
Recruitment of healthy individuals to receive primary “well care” remains problematic. 
• Direct service: As public health clinics have transitioned away from direct services, private 
providers are the only source of primary care; Quality of care from primary providers is 
perceived as acceptable. 
• Referral: Linkages with behavioral health, geriatric specialists, and dental services remain 
questionable. 
• Monitoring: School nurses and SBHC support surveillance of children and adolescents by 
monitoring vaccinations and “medical homes”; Minimal County level measurement or monitoring 
of the quality or accessibility of primary care; DIMER has a statewide role. 
• Infrastructure: Hospital bylaws require physicians reside within 30 miles of hospital; Sussex 
County has lowest use of mid-level providers in state. 
• Leadership: Hospitals, DIMER, and Physician Organizations are providing leadership. 
• Planning: DIMER has taken a coordinating role in planning and recruitment; DHCC has reported 
planning related data. 
• Communication: Insufficient data to determine resource adequacy. 
a
k
ead
ffi
ni
t
c
h
e
m
v
n
ar
c
t
Re
f
o
r
Sta
t
u
r
c
o
s
a
In
o
f
r
w
A
f
Section II Page 20 

Delaware Rural Health Plan 
Planning today to improve the lives of tomorrow June 2000 
Service Area #2: Dental Care Needs 
• Delaware Institute for Dental Education and Research (DIDER) data and interviews confirm 
Sussex County meets Dental Health Professional Shortage Area (HPSA) criteria for dental 
care (1998 Dentists in Delaware Report). 
• There is a substantial capacity deficit in Sussex County dental services for treating both 
insured and non-insured populations. Shortages are particularly acute in western Sussex 
County, from Bridgeville to Laurel. There is also a shortage of culturally compatible dentists 
for certain populations (Hispanic, African-American). Many dental practices are closed to 
new patients. Further, the capacity of dentists is likely to deteriorate due to planned 
retirements. One in five dentists was uncertain if s/he would be in practice in five years in 
Sussex County. 
• Sussex County dentists reportedly have heavier workloads than industry standards. Improved 
access may require a change in office hours, but this is difficult to reconcile with their current 
workload. Those patients that are seen in Sussex County primarily receive urgent care. 
Preventative dentistry is not emphasized like in other parts of the state. 
• Employers report an increased cost of dental coverage resulting from the need to allow 
network access outside of the local (Sussex County) area. It is not uncommon for insured 
patients to travel to Kent or Wilmington counties for a dentist. Most uninsured travel to 
Wilmington County for care at one of the dental clinics. 
• There are a number of ongoing initiatives focused on attracting dental resources to Sussex 
County. These have been associated with some success to date. The response to the dental 
crisis indicates a capacity for effective crisis planning. The Delaware Dental Access 
Improvement Committee (DDAIC) report (Spring, 2000) articulated a coordinated approach 
to improvement. As proposed, activity intended to attract dentists to Sussex County has begun 
and includes a recruitment campaign, indicating that proactive planning to address the dentist 
shortage has begun. Current efforts are focused on addressing infrastructural issues (including 
licensing regulations) that constitute barriers to additional recruitment: 
– Training and licensure requirements are restrictive; 
– Delaware has its own testing program and does not grant license reciprocity to other states; 
– Dental hygienists are not permitted to practice preventative dentistry other than under the direct 
supervision of a dentist; and 
– There is no dental school in Delaware. The General Practice Dental Residency Program and 
dental hygiene education programs are both located in New Castle County. 
• Although there has been substantial effort to focus on and improve the dental issue, those 
involved say it is too early to tell what the final outcomes will be, but progress has been made 
and they continue to be optimistic. 
Section II Page 21 

Delaware Rural Health Plan 
Planning today to improve the lives of tomorrow June 2000 
Service Area #2: Dental Care Resources 
ru
e
/enc
ci
e
p
/
ng
no
/
i
t
s
i
iontaicnummoC
e/gr
sseen
hs
cu
rve
l
gn
s
/
are
llai
ta
i
gn
o
r
ces
HEALTH
STATUS
ekatIn
ahsc
er
ast
r
inna
S
mr
ni
t
fi
evr
ead
Sta
f
ar
c
t
f
re
oM
o
cA
Re
fn
r
uS
wA
D
i
Pl
fIn
L
Di
I
All Resource Types 
Infants/Perinatal 
/Adolescents
Children
Adults 
Geriatrics 
Overall 
IMPROVED DENTAL CARE SYSTEM
Status 
Summary of Findings: Dental Care Gap Analysis 
• Awareness: There is no organized way for the population to know if there is a new provider or 
resource; Little or no prevention related education to general population. 
• Access: Of the few practices available, many are closed to new patients; Strategies to improve 
access by expanding office hours are difficult to reconcile with current workload; Medicaid 
children have limited access through public health clinics, with less than one-third of eligible 
children receiving services each year. Children above the Medicaid threshold have problematic 
access, with affordability being a primary barrier. 
• Direct service: Sussex County dentists have heavier workloads than industry standards - despite 
this, wait times (in office) are low; Quality of dental providers is perceived as adequate. 
• Referral: There is a lack of dental sub-specialists located in Sussex County. 
• Monitoring: Preventative care is not a high priority, many practices do not send reminders for 
regular care and checkups; Dental health status to date has not been measured on a population 
basis - plans are underway for Fall 2000. 
• Infrastructure: Sussex County is under-served; shortages particularly acute in western Sussex 
County; One in five dentists was uncertain if s/he would be in practice in five years in Sussex 
County; Efforts are underway to attract dental resources to Sussex(e.g., recruitment campaign, 
training programs); State licensing regulations are a barrier in increasing the number of dentists 
(e.g training requirements are restrictive Delaware has its own testing program, no reciprocity 
with other states, etc.). 
• Leadership: Effort to get water fluoridated in under-served communities was successful; Western 
Sussex Health Coalition has been active; DDAIC report (Spring, 2000) articulated coordinated 
approach to improvement. 
• Planning: The response to the dental crisis indicates orientation toward crisis-focused planning, 
and the beginning of proactive planning; Planning has resulted in effective policy advocacy (e.g., 
allowing hygienists limited practice outside of dentist’s office); DIDER/DDAIC are focal. 
Recruitment campaign is underway. 
• Communication: Little communication between dentists and other health care providers; Few 
newspaper articles describing needs or calling attention to problem. 
Section II Page 22 

Delaware Rural Health Plan 
Planning today to improve the lives of tomorrow June 2000 
Service Area #3: Mental/Behavioral Health Needs 
• Behavioral health needs were characterized and documented in the 1999 DIMER report as 
inadequate. DIMER documented a "severe shortage" of mental health practitioners in Sussex 
County. However, Sussex County lost its federal Mental HPSA designation in 1998. Data 
analysis is underway at DPH to determine if HPSA designation can be reinstated. 
• Based on interviews and a review of limited Sussex County data available from the Division of 
Alcohol, Drug Abuse and Mental Health (DADAMH): 
– Ambulatory chemical dependency and substance abuse services (CD/SA) appear to be 
insufficient; 
– Child and adolescent services are insufficient; 
– Specialty geriatric mental health services are virtually non-existent; 
– SBHC staff report significant access problems to mental health services for children and 
adolescents: 
• No formal process is available for adolescent behavioral health referrals or 
for linkages between primary care and behavioral health resources; 
• There is 0.5 FTE child psychiatrists in the county, located on the coast; 
There are no pediatric or adolescent behavioral health inpatient units nor 
hospital services in Sussex County; 
• Knowledge of, and linkages between, resources (communication) in the 
child and adolescent population are lacking; 
• Transportation/data from schools confirm that access for adolescents is a 
real problem; and 
• Needs data reveal high suicide rates (although small absolute numbers) 
among teens. 
• Hospital personnel report a significant proportion of emergency room use is directly related to 
behavioral health needs and that providers do not feel they can provide optimal care for these 
problems in the emergency room setting. Sussex County has no involuntary admission 
capacity, patients are taken to the state hospital in New Castle County, often utilizing suboptimal 
transportation arrangements (most often transported in police cars by on-duty 
officers). 
– Managed care organizations as well as other payers are emphasizing outpatient treatment, 
BUT 
– Credentialling limitations limit use of non-physician providers. 
• For many Sussex County individuals, there are cultural issues driving a hesitancy to use 
mental health and substance abuse services. For example, the adult and geriatric population 
associates a stigma with the use of mental health treatment. Some faith communities may also 
discourage or minimize the potentially beneficial role of mental health professionals. 
Leadership, planning, and communication for those populations which can be reached needs 
to be improved, especially addressing dual diagnosis, isolation and depression, and stigma 
associated with seeking mental health care. 
Section II Page 23 

Delaware Rural Health Plan 
Planning today to improve the lives of tomorrow June 2000 
Service Area #3: Mental/Behavioral Health Resources 
on
t
i
e/ 
e 
a
e
on 
p
/
tu
r
s
/ 
nc
c
g
e/ 
c
i
s 
i
n
s
i
rv
h
ssllau
aroceke 
teitoraeadng 
ni
r
csceuterfi
H
enrmata 
Seharrrnisfngmmun
Infants/Perinatal 
Children/AdolescentsAdultsGeriatrics 
AwnAcDaano
fIniifvfrLStPlC
I
reDReSMoIn
All Resource Types E 
A 
L 
T 
H 
S 
T 
A 
T 
Overall IMPROVED MENTAL HEALTH SYSTEM U 
Status S 
Summary of Findings: Mental/Behavioral Health 
• Awareness: Easter Seals produced a study on information for adult awareness/information; Geriatric 
population barriers are cultural and related to the stigma associated with mental health treatment; 
Differences in awareness may be related to geography (closer to hospitals = higher awareness); Western 
Health Council is actively investigating issues of awareness and access. 
• Access: “By the numbers,” Sussex is not classified as a HPSA for mental health care; One part-time child 
psychiatrist in Lewes is the only one in the county and is involved mostly in crisis work; Significant access 
to specialized child, adolescent and geriatric providers was consistently reported; Transportation/data from 
schools complicate access for adolescents creates a real problem. 
• Direct service: A significant portion of emergency room use is directly related to behavioral health needs; 
Direct providers are perceived as doing an “average” job under these circumstances; Reimbursement levels 
for providers are well below average and may impact quality; Providers perceived as not knowledgeable 
about special needs for geriatric population. 
• Referral: No formal process for adolescent referral or linkages between resources; Adult population may 
know what is needed, but may take multiple calls to arrange for services. 
• Monitoring: Needs data reveal high suicide rates (although small overall numbers) in several age groups; 
External outcomes measurement is beginning (United Way, Managed Care, DHSS/DADAMH); Burden of 
“non institutionalized” mental health is not well understood at the county level; Mental Health Parity Law 
passed in 1999, regulations under development. 
• Infrastructure: No involuntary admission capacity within Sussex County; Transportation of involuntary 
patients is inadequate; Licensing and health plan credentialling regulations problematic for non-physician 
providers; Inadequate CD/SA services. 
• Leadership: Sussex County could benefit from more support from state; agencies doing “best they can;” 
Seaford area initiative (Western Health Council ) has recently begun to assess mental health needs 
regionally. 
• Planning: Need more focus on outpatient care; Looking more at parity in mental health benefits for adult 
population; More focus on geriatric population, especially in the areas of dual diagnosis, isolation, mental 
health stigma. 
• Communication: Linkages among providers serving adolescent population are lacking; Interagency 
Council is helping increase communication. 
ti
g
a
l
c
e
/ 
i
s
Section II Page 24 

Delaware Rural Health Plan 
Planning today to improve the lives of tomorrow June 2000 
Service Area #4: Home Health Needs 
• Home health services are an increasingly important part of the health care system as delivery 
is transitioned away from hospital inpatient care. Based on a population over age 65, (approx. 
26,250) it is projected that there will be 2,339 annual users of home health care services in 
Sussex County. Special population groups (perinatal/infants, special needs children, 
convalescing and chronically debilitated individuals, and older adults) may be 
disproportionate users of home health services and further stress capacity. Anecdotally, there 
is a general belief that currently, people who need services most urgently are receiving them. 
However, others with less acute or urgent needs, but who could benefit from home health 
services for preventive or disease management benefits are unlikely to receive services. It is 
unclear whether or not home health resources can keep pace with the population growth. At 
this time, there is no quantitative data on Sussex County’s present or future home care 
capacity or requirements. The following interim conclusions appear warranted: 
– Home health resources are not positioned to accommodate growing population: 
• Ancillaries, supportive services, and chronic disease management resources are 
minimal and have not been studied as to adequacy of focus and distribution; 
– The limited labor pool creates both staffing and quality of care issues. Home health 
agencies are facing staffing needs and shortages. With low unemployment and 
competitive employers able to pay more competitive wages, agencies are having a 
difficult time retaining staff and paying competitive wages. Some believe this may 
threaten the quality of services. 
• Home health service access and infrastructure focused on treating the Medicare population are 
at risk due to severe decreases in funding from the federal government. Across the country, 
this makes the future and long term viability of home health agencies uncertain. Specific to 
Sussex County, there is a concern that resources are progressively less able to meet needs and 
that the situation is getting worse. General categories of need were identified as: 
– Skilled nursing; 
– Homemaker services; 
– Personal care services; 
– Child aide services for special need children; 
– CTT services in behavioral health; 
– Services for special needs populations; and 
– Coordination and communication of services for geriatric population. 
Section II Page 25 

Delaware Rural Health Plan 
Planning today to improve the lives of tomorrow June 2000 
Service Area #4: Home Health Resources 
n
o
e
/ 
e
e 
/
r
cati
c
c
p
u
n
s/
on 
g
scharge/
ect Servi
s 
sh
i
n
uni
ruct
ccess/
enes
ng
illa
a
l
g
H 
E
rDReSMonfrLeadPlanniC
nforiI
AIDS
Infants/PerinatalChildren/AdolescentsAdults 
Geriatrics 
All Resource Types A 
T 
H 
S 
T 
A 
T 
U 
Overall S 
Status 
Summary of Findings: Home Health Gap Analysis 
• Awareness: Population understanding of home health services is variable by ethnic status; Much 
information is distributed via the hospitals as part of the discharge planning process. 
• Access: Threatened by changes in Medicare reimbursement; General belief that people who need 
services most urgently are served; Care can be accessed for most urgent needs, but sometimes it 
takes a “long time;” Services for chronic disease management, special needs and subacute needs 
may be more difficult to access. 
• Direct service: Service is considered of acceptable quality, except in geriatrics where there is 
room for improvement in considering this population’s special needs. 
• Referral: Chronic disease patients may return to the hospital more frequently due to lack of access 
to a primary care provider linked with good home health supports. 
• Monitoring: No monitoring systems or performance data were known; No quantification of 
population need for home health services; Lack of outcome monitoring is a problem, particularly 
for infant/perinatal and geriatric populations. 
• Infrastructure: Viability of home health providers is threatened by decreasing Medicare 
reimbursement; Long term viability is uncertain; Labor pool shortages aggravate the situation; 
Anticipated worsening of situation as rapid retail growth continues. 
• Leadership: Labor shortage is making it difficult for agencies; Recruiting home health staff is 
getting harder and more expensive; No clear leadership on this issue. 
• Planning: No clear consensus that resources can keep pace with growing need; resources are 
perceived as having a more difficult time meeting needs and the situation is getting worse, not 
better. 
• Communication: Coordination and communication of services for geriatric population is a real 
need. 
t
i
r
i
a
o
ntake 
ffin
m
er
m
r
rv
e
ni
t
ast
e
m
ar
f
t
a
A
u
o
w
i
I
Section II Page 26 

Delaware Rural Health Plan 
Planning today to improve the lives of tomorrow June 2000 
Special Considerations: Hispanic Population Needs 
Hispanic Population 
The identifiable and rapidly growing Hispanic population in Sussex County prompted a specific 
focus on needs in that community. In the first large scale attempt to characterize Hispanic 
population needs, DPH in conjunction with La Esperanza/La Red, conducted a survey in 1999. 
While there have been multiple initiatives and efforts to provide health services for the Hispanic 
community in the past several years, concern remains regarding the level of health care services 
accessible to Hispanics in Sussex County. Key findings are summarized below: 
• Qualitative information from some providers, employers, and community agencies suggesting 
there are generally adequate levels of health care services, but the Hispanic population itself 
perceives that services are not available. 
• Most of the Hispanic population is resident rather than migrant. According to the survey, 
about one-third of Sussex Hispanics consider themselves migrant. Most respondents have 
been in the area for less than five years but more than one year. The majority of the Sussex 
County Hispanic population lives in Georgetown, followed by Seaford and Milford. 
• Nearly 88% of the population surveyed speak Spanish only. Improved access to care, 
therefore, requires substantial bilingual capabilities at provider sites. In addition, 
transportation and reduced financial barriers were prioritized as needs by respondents. 
• Most of the population is single, but live in a group environment with annual household 
incomes of less than $20,000. Most of the employed Hispanic population works in a high risk 
environment for occupational injuries, such as farming and poultry industries. 
• In order to enroll in financial and medical assistance programs, individuals must present 
evidence that they are “legal.” The need to verify “legal” status adds a layer of complexity to 
accessing many services. This does not apply to Medicaid eligibility for children. 
• More migrants reported receiving “no care” than reported using a “clinic” site for care. 
Longer term residents appear to be more likely to receive care in private practice or hospital 
settings. 
• There is an indication that services for Hispanic children are more adequate than for adults 
due to existing resources and Medicaid eligibility (for children who are US citizens and whose 
parental income qualified them for Medical Assistance). Too often, however, undocumented 
parents do not apply for Medicaid for their otherwise eligible children due to fears of 
deportation. 
• There is much less evidence that services for adults are accessible. Nearly one half of 
respondents reported being denied medical care, or avoiding seeking that care, during the past 
12 months; approximately one quarter specifically cited denial of medical care due to inability 
to pay or avoidance of seeking services for financial reasons. Few survey respondents 
reported seeking preventive medical care. All interviewees indicated that access to dental care 
was a significant problem. 
Section II Page 27 

Delaware Rural Health Plan 
Planning today to improve the lives of tomorrow June 2000 
Special Considerations: EMS and County Infrastructure 
EMS 
• Including Emergency Medical Services (EMS) in the RHP recognizes the special role prehospital 
care plays in Sussex County health delivery. 
– Early intervention (improved outcomes); 
– Safe, appropriate, and timely transport (stabilization/reduce pain and anxiety); 
– Maximized effectiveness within available resources (cost and staffing). 
• EMS issues for Sussex County identified in interviews include: 
– Sussex County is large and sparse; 
– The 911 system is, in some senses, a victim of its own success in achieving broad public 
awareness - “misuse of 911;” 
– EMS dispatchers regularly make social service referrals to 911 callers - there is an important 
message here that is not necessarily the same as misuse; 
– EMS representatives are aware of, and concerned about, adequacy of response times; 
– Historically separate systems between the county (ALS) and the local services (BLS); and 
– Measuring the quality of pre-hospital care remains a challenge despite positive steps taken 
within the system. 
• The Fitch Report and Delaware Emergency Medical Services Improvement Committee Report 
studied EMS needs and specified state-level policy recommendations, e.g.: 
– Illustrated need for development of better data and tracking systems. 
– Led to creation of a new board to oversee EMS operations and improvements. 
Infrastructure Needs 
• Sussex County demographic characteristics: High poverty rate, high percentage of citizens 
who have not completed high school (50-55% of African American adults have not completed 
high school); Better estimates for the status and needs re: Hispanic populations are needed. 
• Eight Sussex County communities were identified in the Strong Communities Initiative (SCI) 
as high risk for health and safety due to significant infrastructural deficiencies. 
• The purpose of the SCI was to assist the eight unincorporated, rural Sussex County 
communities to become self sufficient and to create a working partnership between the 
communities, state, county, local governments and businesses: 
– Many of the Strong Communities (neighborhoods) had experienced deterioration; single-parent 
families lived amidst the highest rates of violence, drug trafficking, teen pregnancy and 
substandard housing; 
– Critical issues included crime, water quality, septic/sewer, trash and dumping, etc. continue to 
impact quality of life and, possibly, health in these communities and others. 
• Only 77% of respondents in the Strong Communities Survey reported that they had health 
insurance. 
• A total of over 30 additional and similar communities exist in Sussex County for which 
environmental/infrastructural issues predominate as health concerns. 
• Significant leadership, planning and monitoring needs remain: 
– County-wide and local data regarding nature and adequacy of infrastructure; 
– A county-wide representative body to lead and evaluate initiatives; and 
– Initiatives that will engage the public more broadly to solve infrastructural problems. 
Section II Page 28 

Section III 
Planning today to improve the lives of tomorrow 
Delaware Rural Health Plan 
Strategic and Operational Improvements 

Delaware Rural Health Plan 
Planning today to improve the lives of tomorrow June 2000 
III. Strategic and Operational Improvements (Broad Policy and TargetedInitiative Recommendations) 
Introduction 
The value chain presented in Sections I and II demonstrated that for the RHP, broad policies and 
targeted initiatives represent the direct value generating activities. Each of the ten recommended 
policies and ten suggested initiatives detailed below were matched to identified needs and 
resources (from Section II) through an iterative process consisting of documentation review, site 
interviews, DHI Steering Committee workgroups, stakeholder focus groups, and finally, a 
working stakeholder retreat held at Dewey Beach, Delaware on May 22, 2000. This conference 
had a broad invitational list and was attended by over 70 stakeholders. For ease of reference, the 
key components of each recommendation are summarized in Table III-1 at the end of this 
section. The DHI Steering Committee determined that the Plan should have a focused and 
feasible list of implementation recommendations. While recognizing that enough input would be 
obtained to create an exhaustive array of possible projects and studies, the Committee wisely 
recognized that this could be paralytic and that later accomplishments could be more easily built 
on a platform of early and significant successes. The RHP honors this approach by providing a 
sufficiently broad, but quantitatively and scope limited, initial menu of policy and 
implementation recommendations for each area of analysis from Section II. A more detailed 
compendium encompassing the broader input and learning obtained is recorded and reported in 
Appendix F. 
In developing recommendations, an active attempt was made to build on existing activities and 
infrastructure wherever possible. Simultaneous efforts were made to avoid emphasis on those 
areas which are already being actively addressed in an organized and effective way. 
Recommendations are organized according to key needs and resource areas defined in the 
preceding section. 
Section III Page 29 

Delaware Rural Health Plan 
Planning today to improve the lives of tomorrow June 2000 
Lifecycle Needs Recommendations 
Infants and Perinatal 
Needs Addressed: Infant mortality and low birth rate trends 
improving infant and perinatal outcomes. 
Policy Recommendation 1: Support and enhance existing initiatives focused on 
• The RHP endorses current activities being performed under the auspices of the 
Perinatal Board and the Alliance for Adolescent Pregnancy Prevention (AAPP); 
• These activities should be enhanced and publicized widely in Sussex County in order 
to increase enrollment and participation; and 
• Encourage expansion and support for “resource mothers” and “resource fathers” 
programs. 
Policy Recommendation 1 
Suggested Policy Collaborators Should Include: 
• Agencies/Advocacy Groups 
• Department of Health and Human 
Services (DHSS)/Department of Health 
(DPH) 
• Hospitals 
reforms that eliminate barriers to the provision of prenatal care in the first trimester 
for eligible and presumptively eligible pregnant females. 
· School Districts 
Policy Recommendation 2: Implement Medicaid reimbursement and procedural 
• Reimbursement rules for obstetric practitioners that do not penalize providers of care 
to pregnant women who may experience first and second trimester fetal losses; 
• Procedures for presumptive eligibility voucher use which are well understood by 
practitioners and clients and which result in a favorable pattern of use and care 
delivery; 
• Enforce existing rules and mandates requiring presumptive eligibility to be honored 
by practitioners and facilities; and 
• Expand voucher availability and acceptability for individuals who are not 
presumptively eligible but require first trimester pregnancy care. 
Policy Recommendation 2 
Suggested Policy Collaborators Should Include: 
• DHSS/DSS (Division of Social Services) and DPH 
• Sussex County medical providers 
Section III Page 30 

Delaware Rural Health Plan 
Planning today to improve the lives of tomorrow June 2000 
Children and Adolescents 
Needs Addressed: Children and adolescents at risk for abuse and neglect, chemical or substance 
abuse, teen pregnancy, and behavioral problems. 
community focused initiatives to support family unity and child and adolescent healthy 
lifestyles. 
Policy Recommendation 3: Actively plan, implement, and promote family and 
As a matter of public policy, stress and prioritize funding for community and family oriented 
projects in such areas as: 
• Family communication; 
• After school recreational and social activities; 
• Day care; 
• Behavioral health information and education; 
• Parenting classes and parent-parent mentoring initiatives; 
• Adult-child mentoring initiatives; 
• Diversity training and education; 
• After school activities and recreational opportunities; and 
• Job initiatives for teens. 
Policy Recommendation 3 
Suggested Policy Collaborators Should Include: 
• DHSS/ Department of Services for Children, Youth, 
and their Families (DSCYF) 
• Faith Communities 
• School Boards and Parent Teacher Associations (PTA) 
• State Police 
system for Sussex County teens. 
Initiative Recommendation 1: Implement and market a peer support and advisory 
• Teen Advisory Panel to serve as a problem solving resource and forum for policy 
discussion and feedback; 
• Teen Crisis Line to respond to confidential inquiries and concerns of teens; 
• Teen Peer Counseling Program to enable peer-peer problem solving, support, and 
relationship building; 
• Extend services to younger teens (middle school level); 
• Enhance emphasis on social, family support, and behavioral health services; 
• Actively collect and analyze encounter level data and use it to measure outcomes and 
plan services; 
• Address rise in substance abuse between grades 8 and 11; and 
Section III Page 31 

Delaware Rural Health Plan 
Planning today to improve the lives of tomorrow June 2000 
• Seek, to the maximal degree possible, to leverage SBHC services to diminish teen 
pregnancy. 
Initiative Recommendation 1 
Suggested Initiative Collaborators Should Include: 
• Boys’ and Girls Clubs 
• Chambers/Employers 
• County Administration 
• DHSS/DPH 
• Faith Communities 
• School Districts 
• YMCA 
of SBHC services. 
Initiative Recommendation 2: Support the expansion, depth, and optimal utilization 
• Extend services to younger teens (middle school level); 
• Enhance emphasis on social, family support, and behavioral health services; 
• Actively collect and analyze encounter level data and use it to measure outcomes and 
plan services; 
• Address rise in substance abuse between grades 8 and 11; and 
• Seek, to the maximal degree possible, to leverage SBHC services to diminish teen 
pregnancy. 
Initiative Recommendation 2 
Suggested Initiative Collaborators Should Include: 
• DHSS/DPH 
• Faith Communities 
• Hospitals 
• Legislature 
• School Districts 
Section III Page 32 

Delaware Rural Health Plan 
Planning today to improve the lives of tomorrow June 2000 
Adults 
Needs Addressed: Unintentional injury prevention and diabetes mortality. 
prevention education efforts targeting motor vehicle crashes, workplace injuries, and 
substance use related injuries. 
Initiative Recommendation 3: Undertake intensive and coordinated injury 
• Leverage existing Trauma Center designations to provide enhanced analysis and 
trending of injuries, follow up education, community and workplace based education 
and prevention programs; and 
• Identify best practices and develop interventions through a multi-disciplinary task 
force of hospitals, EMS, ER physicians, nurses, etc. 
Initiative Recommendation 3 
Suggested Initiative Collaborators Should Include: 
• Community Colleges 
• DHSS/DPH (Healthy Delaware 2010) 
• Emergency Medical Services (EMS) 
• Hospitals 
• High Risk (for injury) Employers 
• State Police 
diabetes mellitus health 
improvement initiative. 
Initiative Recommendation 4: Undertake intensive 
• Components to include screening, education, self care and monitoring components as 
well as enhancing access to specialty care; and 
• White males and black females should be targeted. 
Initiative Recommendation 4 
Suggested Initiative Collaborators Should Include: 
• American Diabetes Association 
• DHSS/DPH 
• Faith Communities 
• Hospitals 
• Managed Care Organizations (MCOs) 
Section III Page 33 

Delaware Rural Health Plan 
Planning today to improve the lives of tomorrow June 2000 
Geriatric 
Needs Addressed: Planning and geriatric specialty clinical resources. 
initiative, with a specific Sussex County and local community focus, to better 
understand the health and social service needs of elderly adults currently and for the 
next decade of anticipated high geriatric population growth. 
Initiative Recommendation 5: Undertake a formal data collection and planning 
• Data obtained should provide information about: 
• Demography and epidemiology; 
• Burden of illness/morbidity; 
• Service use patterns; 
• System capacity; 
• Quality of life; 
• Functional status; and 
• Other health status measures. 
• Analysis and planning based on this data should be ongoing; broad review and 
goal setting should be accomplished at an annual Sussex County Geriatric 
Summit. 
Initiative Recommendation 5 
Suggested Initiative Collaborators Should Include: 
• AARP 
• CHEER 
• DHSS/Division of Aging and Adults with Physical 
Disabilities (DAAPD) 
• Hospitals 
execute a recruitment strategy for geriatric specialists, physician extenders, and 
primary care physicians with an interest in caring for the elderly, to Sussex County. 
Initiative Recommendation 6: Use the output obtained from the above to inform and 
Ensure that current and future analytic and planning activities through the DAAPD are 
structured to provide specific information and recommendations for Sussex County: 
• Ensure that there is coordination between accountable and advocacy groups 
representing the elderly. 
Section III Page 34 

Delaware Rural Health Plan 
Planning today to improve the lives of tomorrow June 2000 
Initiative Recommendation 6 
Suggested Initiative Collaborators Should Include: 
• CHEER 
• DHSS/DAAPD 
• Hospitals 
• Sussex County medical providers 
Service Area Needs Recommendations 
Primary Care 
Needs Addressed: Quantity and distribution of primary care practitioners in Sussex County. 
The RHP strongly recognizes the critical importance of improving primary care 
access in Sussex County. Needs in this area are currently being addressed through 
DIMER and DHCC analyses and recommendations that are both adopted and 
endorsed by the RHP. Area hospitals play a significant role in improving access to 
physician resources. 
Dental Care 
Needs Addressed: Quantity and distribution of dental practitioners in Sussex County. 
The RHP strongly recognizes the critical importance of improving dental care 
access in Sussex County. Needs in this area have been addressed through Dental 
Care Access Improvement Committee analyses and recommendations which are 
both adopted and endorsed by the RHP. 
Mental/Behavioral Health 
Needs Addressed: Quantity and distribution of mental and behavioral health practitioners in 
Sussex County. 
well as an active recruitment and retention strategy, for mental and behavioral health 
practitioners for Sussex County, which ensures adequate provider staffing and access 
for county residents. 
Initiative Recommendation 7: Develop a behavioral health provider staffing plan, as 
• Target recruitment to ensure addressing needs by age, geographic location, service 
requirements, racial, cultural, and ethnic compatibility; 
• Given the scarcity of behavioral health resources, provider recruitment should ensure 
the maximum potential to share these resources across hospital service areas; 
• Use the models of dental and primary care manpower assessment and recruitment to 
guide development of a customized approach to behavioral health recruitment; and 
Section III Page 35 

Delaware Rural Health Plan 
Planning today to improve the lives of tomorrow June 2000 
• Seek to integrate recruitment and retention activities with payment reform and payer, 
as well as employer network reform, to ensure sufficient and balanced incentives to 
achieve goals. 
Initiative Recommendation 7 
Suggested Initiative Collaborators Should Include: 
• Agencies 
• DHSS/ DSCYF 
• Hospitals 
• MCOs 
network credentialling requirements with the goal of permitting, and enabling 
reimbursement for, the supervised practice of behavioral health counseling and 
therapies by qualified pre-licensees during their periods of practical professional 
training. 
Policy Recommendation 4: Review practitioner licensure regulations and MCO 
Enable the practice and reimbursement of otherwise license eligible, fully educated, Masters’ 
level counselors and therapists while they are under professional licensed supervision in the 
process of obtaining required practical experience. 
Policy Recommendation 4:
Suggested Policy Collaborators Should Include:
• DHSS/DPH 
• Employers 
• Legislature 
• MCOs 
• National Association of Social Workers 
(NASW) 
• State Board of Social Work Examiners 
Home Health 
The RHP notes, with concern, potential limitations in resource availability and 
current reimbursement structure in this area. There was insufficient planning data 
and topical expertise among the stakeholders to support specific recommendations 
at this time. This area should be revisited in light of the activities recommended in 
the geriatric section above. 
Section III Page 36 

Delaware Rural Health Plan 
Planning today to improve the lives of tomorrow June 2000 
Special Considerations Needs Recommendations 
Cultural, Minority, Racial and Ethnic Issues 
Needs Addressed: Issues of cultural barriers to care for racial, ethnic, and other minority 
residents of Sussex County. 
between key employers of ethnic and racial minority residents and their workers in 
health planning activities; Solicit multilateral long term participation in strategy 
development. 
Policy Recommendation 5: Establish dialogue and a mutually receptive environment 
• Emphasize the intersection and shared benefit from improved health status of ethnic 
and minority residents of Sussex County; 
• Ensure bilingual and culturally compatible access to such meetings, as appropriate; 
and 
• Use meetings as a means for bilateral education and consciousness raising. 
Policy Recommendation 5 
Suggested Policy Collaborators Should Include: 
• Advocacy Groups/Agencies 
• Chambers/Employers 
• Community Colleges 
• County Administration 
• DHSS/DPH 
• Faith Communities 
• Hospitals 
community forums for communications between consumers and accountable entities. 
Initiative Recommendation 8: For minority and ethnic populations, develop regular 
• Use this input for gaining knowledge about needed resources and services; 
• Use input as a basis for innovative development of new services; 
• Develop approaches for meeting non-traditional family units; and 
• Forums should be bilingual, as appropriate to constituencies. 
Section III Page 37 

Delaware Rural Health Plan 
Planning today to improve the lives of tomorrow June 2000 
Initiative Recommendation 8 
Suggested Initiative Collaborators Should Include: 
· Agencies/Advocacy Groups 
· Community Colleges 
• County Administration 
• DHSS/DPH 
• Faith Communities 
• Hospitals 
The following recommendation is applicable to both the minority and access needs areas: 
non-traditional access to health care services attractive to racial and ethnic minority 
as well as non-minority residents of Sussex County. 
Initiative Recommendation 9: Actively support, pursue, and create opportunities for 
• Non-traditional siting of service facilities (i.e., employment sites, shopping malls, 
mobile units, community centers); 
• Culturally compatible physical space, staffing, and language; and 
• Create access which encourages service use by all members of non traditional family 
and living units. 
Initiative Recommendation 9 
Suggested Initiative Collaborators Should Include: 
• Agencies/Advocacy Groups 
• Chambers/Employers 
• County Administration 
• DHSS/DPH 
• Faith Communities 
• Hospitals 
Section III Page 38 

Delaware Rural Health Plan 
Planning today to improve the lives of tomorrow June 2000 
Access to Resources 
Needs Addressed: Linking consumers and referring professionals and agencies with resources. 
Policy Recommendation 6: As a matter of public policy, encourage the statewide 
consolidation and reorganization of existing resource compendia and directories into 
a master directory of services. 
• Standardize content to reflect key information required for timely and appropriate 
referrals for services; 
• Organize and index in a geographically and service friendly fashion to enable easy 
identification of local and appropriate resources; 
• Commit to publication in, and access from, a variety of media, including electronic 
and web based, to extend availability to the public more broadly; 
• Update on a frequent basis; 
• Provide “real time” access to the directory by key referral resources (such as EMS 
dispatch, hospitals, key agencies, Delaware Help Line); and 
• Consider the creation of centralized toll free referral “hot line(s)” with compendium 
access to respond to telephonic requests for local and appropriate resources and 
referrals. 
Policy Initiative 6 
Suggested Policy Collaborators Should Include: 
• DHSS 
• Legislature 
• State Service Center Office 
Leadership and Planning 
Needs Addressed: The lack of available data to support leadership in health planning and 
implementation of change in Sussex County. 
Policy Recommendation 7: As a matter of public policy, mandate the collection and 
distribution of all statewide health (including vital statistics) demographic, 
epidemiologic, and sociologic data on at least a county level and preferably on a ZIP 
code level. 
• Given the significant disparities in population and demography between northern and 
southern Delaware, regional and local data is essential to understanding the 
population of Sussex County and using that understanding to plan for resources and 
services; 
Section III Page 39 

Delaware Rural Health Plan 
Planning today to improve the lives of tomorrow June 2000 
• A model exists for the differential collection and reporting of New Castle County and 
Wilmington area data for this reason. 
• Although data integrity may be compromised by relatively small numbers of 
observations in Sussex County, knowledge of this potential pitfall can result in 
appropriate corrections and offsets when necessary and should not prevent the 
collection of county specific data. 
Policy Recommendation 7 
Suggested Policy Collaborators Should Include: 
· County Administration 
· DHSS 
· Legislature 
Policy Recommendation 8: As a matter of public policy, support and encourage 
leadership development within ethnic and non-ethnic communities of Sussex County. 
• Seek opportunities to engage community constituencies in planning and problem 
solving forums; 
• Develop opportunities to engage residents across age, racial, and ethnic groups; 
• Sponsor leadership development experiences (i.e., seminars, retreats, school 
curriculum, committee and initiative participation) which include both identified and 
potential new leaders from the community; and 
• Ensure that language and cultural diversity is not a barrier to engaging Sussex County 
residents in leadership experiences. 
Policy Recommendation 8 
Suggested Policy Collaborators Should Include: 
• Community Colleges 
• County Administration 
• DHSS 
• Faith Communities 
• First State Community Action 
• Legislature 
• School Districts 
Section III Page 40 

Delaware Rural Health Plan 
Planning today to improve the lives of tomorrow June 2000 
Policy Recommendation 9: As a matter of public policy, commit to ongoing 
collaborative planning and strategy for health improvement in Sussex County. 
• Build and expand upon the positive experience of DHI by encompassing a larger 
representative constituency including County Administration, DIMER, MCOs, 
employers/business; School Districts, faith communities, and consumers. 
Policy Recommendation 9 
Suggested Policy Collaborators Should Include: 
· Chambers/Employers 
· County Administration 
· DHI 
· DHSS 
· Faith Communities 
· Hospitals 
· School Districts 
Initiative Recommendation 10: Set, and monitor progress towards, specific 
improvement goals for health status, access, planning, and implementation for Sussex 
County related to key recommendations in the RHP. 
• Using the value chain model, create and monitor specific metrics of effectiveness and 
implementation to inform stakeholders and enable assessment of progress; and 
• Regularly measure against these to provide feedback to planners and funders 
regarding the effectiveness of goals. 
Initiative Recommendation 10 
Suggested Initiative Collaborators Should Include: 
• All stakeholders, coordinated by DHI and 
DPH 
Section III Page 41 

Delaware Rural Health Plan 
Planning today to improve the lives of tomorrow June 2000 
Infrastructure 
Needs Addressed: The ongoing need for upgrading and maintaining roads, sanitation, public 
safety, telecommunications, and transportation in Sussex County. 
Policy Recommendation 10: As a matter of public policy, continue support of 
community infrastructure improvement initiatives, including ongoing planning and 
upgrading based on a sound understanding of the growth and use characteristics of 
the region. 
• Continue to support, and expand as needed, community improvement and decay 
prevention programs such as the SCI; and 
• Develop a mechanism to assess and report on the “state of infrastructure” of Sussex 
County on a regular basis with the goal of ensuring that evolving infrastructure 
matches developing needs based on growth, innovation, and natural obsolescence of 
infrastructure. 
Policy Recommendation 10 
Suggested Policy Collaborators Should Include: 
· Chambers/Employers 
· County Administration 
· DHSS 
· Department of Transportation 
· EMS 
· First State Community Action 
· State Planning Authorities 
· State Police 
Section III Page 42 

Delaware Rural Health Plan 
Planning today to improve the lives of tomorrow June 2000 
Table III-1: Summary of RHP Recommendations 
Category Initiative 
# 
Policy 
# 
Page 
# 
Brief Description 
1 30 Support and enhance existing initiatives focused 
on improving infant and perinatal outcomes. 
Infants/Perinatal 2 30 Implement Medicaid reimbursement and procedural reforms 
that eliminate barriers to the provision of prenatal care in the 
first trimester for eligible and presumptively eligible pregnant 
females. 
Child/Adolescent 3 31 
community focused initiatives to support family unity and 
child and adolescent healthy lifestyles. 
Child/Adolescent 1 31 Implement and market a peer support and advisory system 
for Sussex County teens. 
Child/Adolescent 2 32 Support the expansion, depth, and optimal utilization of 
SBHC services. 
Adults 3 33 Undertake intensive and coordinated injury prevention 
education efforts targeting motor vehicle crashes, workplace 
injuries, and substance use related injuries. 
Adults 4 33 Undertake intensive diabetes mellitus health improvement 
initiative. 
Geriatric 5 34 Undertake a formal data collection and planning initiative, 
with a specific Sussex County and local community focus, to 
better understand the health and social service needs of 
elderly adults currently and for the next decade of anticipated 
high geriatric population growth. 
Geriatric 6 34 Use the output obtained from the above to inform and 
execute a recruitment strategy for geriatric specialists, 
physician extenders, and primary care physicians with an 
interest in caring for the elderly, to Sussex County. 
Mental/Behavioral 7 35 Develop a behavioral health provider staffing plan, as well as 
an active recruitment and retention strategy, for mental and 
behavioral health practitioners for Sussex County, which 
ensures adequate provider staffing and access for county 
residents. 
Mental/Behavioral 4 36 Review practitioner licensure regulations and MCO network 
credentialling requirements with the goal of permitting, and 
enabling reimbursement for, the supervised practice of 
behavioral health counseling and therapies by qualified prelicensees 
during their periods of practical professional 
training. 
Cultural/Minority 5 37 Establish dialogue and a mutually receptive environment 
between key employers of ethnic and racial minority 
residents and their workers in health planning activities; 
Solicit multilateral long term participation in strategy 
development. 
Infants/Perinatal 
Actively plan, implement, and promote family and 
Section III Page 43

Delaware Rural Health Plan 
Planning today to improve the lives of tomorrow June 2000 
Cultural/Minority 
and Access 
9 38 Actively support, pursue, and create opportunities for nontraditional 
access to health care services attractive to racial 
and ethnic minority as well as non-minority residents of 
Sussex County. 
Access 6 39 As a matter of public policy, encourage the statewide 
consolidation and reorganization of existing resource 
compendia and directories into a master directory of services. 
Leadership and 
Planning 
7 39 As a matter of public policy, mandate the collection and 
distribution of all statewide health (including vital statistics) 
demographic, epidemiologic, and sociologic data on at least a 
county level and preferably on a ZIP code level. 
Leadership and 
Planning 
8 40 As a matter of public policy, support and encourage 
leadership development within ethnic and non-ethnic 
communities of Sussex County. 
Leadership and 
Planning 
9 41 As a matter of public policy, commit to ongoing collaborative 
planning and strategy for health improvement in Sussex 
County. 
Leadership and 
Planning 
10 41 Set, and monitor progress towards, specific improvement 
goals for health status, access, planning, and implementation 
for Sussex County related to key recommendations in the 
RHP. 
Leadership and 
Planning 
10 42 As a matter of public policy, continue support of community 
infrastructure improvement initiatives, including ongoing 
planning and upgrading based on a sound understanding of 
the growth and use characteristics of the region. 
Section III Page 44 

Delaware Rural Health Plan 
Planning today to improve the lives of tomorrow June 2000 
Table III-2: Master Table of Suggested Collaboration 
Agencies/Advocacy GroupsCDCCHEERChambers/EmployersCounty AdministrationDHIDHS/DAAPDDHSS/(all other)
DHSS/DPHEMSFaith CommunitiesHospitalsLegislatureMCOsSchool DistrictsState PoliceOther 
Initiatives 
1 x x x x x x 
2 x x x x x x 
3 x x x x x x x 
4 x x x x x 
5 x x x x x 
6 x x x x x 
7 x x x x x 
8 x x x x x x 
9 x x x x x x x 
10 x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x 
Policies 
1 x x x x x 
2 x x x 
3 x x x x x 
4 x x x x x x 
5 x x x x x x x x 
6 x x x x 
7 x x x x 
8 x x x x x x x 
9 x x x x x x x 
10 x x x x x x x 
Section III Page 45 

Planning today to improve the lives of tomorrow 
Delaware Rural Health Plan 
Section IV 
Leadership and Staffing 

Delaware Rural Health Plan 
Planning today to improve the lives of tomorrow June 2000 
IV. Leadership and Staffing 
Introduction 
Leadership and staffing are key to successful implementation of policies and targeted initiatives 
developed as a result of the RHP. Leadership must provide overall vision, direction, and 
guidance for initiatives, while project staff attends to day-to-day operational issues. Without 
capable leadership, projects will either fail to “get off the ground” or will be limited in their 
effectiveness. Issues of leadership simultaneously constitute the key to success, as well as the 
greatest potential vulnerability for the RHP. 
Staffing community-based initiatives may take various forms. For large-scale projects, a 
dedicated program staff may be necessary. For shorter term or smaller initiatives, volunteers or 
contributed staff time from supporting organizations may be sufficient. 
Developing leadership for community-based programs is challenging. Collaboration and joint 
action, while advantageous in bringing organizations together, may also lead to unintended 
consequences such as diffusion of responsibility, or alternatively stated, a lack of clear 
accountability. 
Stakeholders Defined 
For the purpose of the RHP, “stakeholders” may be defined as organizations and individuals that 
have an interest in the health of a community’s population and share responsibility for 
monitoring, assessing, and improving community health. As a group, stakeholders may include 
consumers, providers, businesses, government, and other relevant sectors of the community. 
Entities comprising stakeholders may expand or contract in number, and membership may 
change, to reflect shifts in health issues and strategies that present themselves. 
Accountable Entities and Shared Responsibility 
Accountable entities are stakeholders or groups of stakeholders that are clearly identified as 
“leading change” and which are expected to achieve specific results as part of the community’s 
strategy for addressing health issues. Realizing the true benefits of collaborative efforts requires 
a paradigm of shared responsibility supported by all stakeholders. Shared responsibility in the 
context of health care planning begins as individuals and organizations explicitly take ownership 
for improving health status, show commitment to collaboration focused on measurable goals, and 
assume mutual accountability for creating change. 
The process of creating responsibility for actions in the form of specific accountable entities will 
differ from problem to problem, from strategy to strategy, from time to time, and from place to 
place. The basis for designating a stakeholder as an accountable entity may include regulatory 
requirements, legislative mandates, social pressures, market forces, lobbying, voluntary 
initiatives, enlightened self-interest or, most likely, a combination of these and/or other factors. 
Section IV Page 46 

Delaware Rural Health Plan 
Planning today to improve the lives of tomorrow June 2000 
Accountability in Sussex County 
Section III (Strategic Approaches to Improvement – Policies and Initiatives) identifies 
“suggested initial collaborators.” These represent those accountable entities which must be “at 
the table” to begin to discuss and advance the RHPs recommended policies and/or initiatives. 
They are not, in themselves, responsible for staffing or funding recommendations but without 
their commitment and support, it is unlikely that forward motion can be attained. The following 
accountable entities are anticipated to play key roles in multiple policies and initiatives and 
deserve special mention in this discussion: 
• Delmarva Health Initiative: DHI emerged from the Health Summit of 1998. Its very 
existence is a reflection of the county-wide appreciation of the value of accountable and 
collaborative leadership. The membership of DHI is currently composed primarily of hospital 
affiliated representatives – equally balanced between Bayhealth Medical Center, Beebe 
Medical Center, and Nanticoke Health Services representatives, including both 
administrative staff and board members. In addition, a number of state and independent 
agencies are represented, including the United Way. DHI’s primary role may be 
characterized as the overall convener of county-wide planning, and thus the “keeper of the 
RHP.” Going forward DHI will need to take central accountability for advancing RHP 
recommendations. 
• Regional/Community Health Coalitions: Other coalitions, such as the regional Health 
Councils as well as various hospital-affiliated community health boards, provide additional 
leadership. Ideally, these organizations would maintain active participation with DHI. 
• Hospitals: The three Sussex County hospitals play a pivotal role both in the communities 
they serve as well as throughout the county through shared accountability for most urgent 
care and substantial non-urgent care. Each hospital provides a full range of acute care 
services and leadership support to projects impacting their distinct service areas. The 
hospitals are also committed to improving overall health in Sussex County and fully 
recognize that impacting community health is dependent on many more factors than the 
delivery of direct hospital sponsored services. Participation in DHI by the hospitals 
underscores the ability of otherwise competitive entities to collaborate on a larger vision of 
health improvement. 
• Other health care providers: Development of leadership among physicians, other medical 
and dental care providers, behavioral health providers, and other providers is an important 
strategy for promulgating policies and initiatives that directly impact their practices or 
agencies. Minimally, these categories of stakeholders need to play a role in project 
development, from designing the initiative to recruiting participation from consumers who 
are their clients, and finally to monitoring and interpreting outcomes. 
• State Agencies: In the course of developing the RHP, interviewees representing both 
community organizations and state government indicated that Sussex County is often 
“overlooked,” “ignored,” and/or “not considered,” in state level planning or by state 
agencies. This occurs even though DPH hosts both the state’s Office of Rural Health and 
Section IV Page 47 

Delaware Rural Health Plan 
Planning today to improve the lives of tomorrow June 2000 
Southern Health Services which have provided valuable support to Sussex County 
development. 
• Sussex County Administration: Local government has a major stake in improving health 
care, social services, and both employment and commerce within the county. It has 
supported DHI from its inception and is expected to be an important influence on any 
county-wide initiatives going forward. 
• Faith Community Leaders: Faith leaders can play important roles in supporting both 
individual healthy behaviors and enhanced community activism. Indeed, they have 
demonstrated positive influence on health and infrastructure issues, particularly in the 
African-American and Hispanic communities. Clergy and clergy-led community efforts can 
also be influential at the policy level, as exemplified by the Strong Communities' success in 
drawing attention to inadequate infrastructure. 
Allocating Resources for Leadership Development and Staff Support 
Resources allocated toward strategies identified in the Plan should be balanced between direct 
services and supporting structures (e.g., leadership development, communication, infrastructure, 
etc.). Indeed, the need for leadership development was highlighted in Section III of the RHP. 
While direct service resources are focused on eliminating gaps, funding should also be channeled 
to training leaders, providing staff to develop and facilitate coalitions of stakeholders and 
accountable entities, and to supporting systems that can deliver county specific, statistical and 
other data essential to making sound decisions. The RHP has documented the significant need to 
leverage available resources through concerted shared responsibility. RHP objectives will be best 
met if leadership is multi-disciplinary, cross-organizational, and inclusive of ethnic, racial, and 
minority populations. 
Section IV Page 48 

Section V 
Planning today to improve the lives of tomorrow 
Delaware Rural Health Plan 
Funding 

Delaware Rural Health Plan 
Planning today to improve the lives of tomorrow June 2000 
V. Funding
Introduction 
Consistent with the themes for the RHP, applying business concepts is a useful mechanism to 
help consider, as well as enable, funding strategies. The RHP is not itself a grant application or a 
direct funding mechanism. Rather it is a potential guide to local or state agencies for setting 
funding priorities based on delivering value to Sussex County. Discrete initiative 
recommendations from the RHP can be extracted and enhanced for presentation as funding 
requests whereas policy recommendations may create the vehicle for a range of fundable 
opportunities. 
The funding necessary to support new initiatives stemming from the RHP can be considered as 
similar to “startup capital” in the business world where firms seeking to implement new ideas (or 
“dot.com” strategies) compete for initial funding from external investors (“venture capitalists”). 
In business, sustained funding is derived from returns on ongoing operations. Sustained funding 
for rural health initiatives must be justified on the basis of a return on funding which takes the 
form of improved health outcomes and diminished public spending on illness, accident, or 
addiction services. The parameters of funding competition thus remain: value, capacity to 
execute, and potential for “return on investment.” 
Using the RHP to Finance Health Improvement 
Firms seeking capital develop business plans and then seek the support of venture capital 
investors who perceive a potential for a favorable return. Similarly, projects and initiatives 
identified in the RHP also require “venture/startup capital.” Sources of such funding include 
private foundation grants as well as both state and federal government grants and allocations. 
The RHP supports project development by contributing to the justification and/or demonstration 
of the effectiveness of a program. Funders increasingly require ongoing program evaluation to 
ensure that programs meet initial expectations. The outcomes can be expressed as improved 
health status and translated into “dollars saved” in unnecessary health care costs, reduced 
employer benefit costs and enhanced profitability for business, decreased loss of work capacity, 
increased worker productivity, and enhanced attractiveness of Sussex County to new residents, 
businesses, and professionals. Dovetailing initiatives with Healthy Delaware 2010 objectives, 
for instance, can represent a credible and “pre-qualified” return opportunity. 
The “grants as venture capital” analogy thus creates a useful framework. The community 
program or initiative becomes a “business” and external funding sources become “investors.” 
This approach is particularly relevant in addressing the issue of long-term sustainability. Few 
external funders are interested in contributing resources indefinitely to sustain projects that are 
appropriately funded as “pilots.” This reality often leads grantees to focus significantly on the 
time frame of the grant, whereas the “business planning” frames a longer-term perspective that 
identifies stakeholders and benefits and seeks internal sources of funding or enhance sustained 
fundability from external sources. 
Section V Page 49 

Delaware Rural Health Plan 
Planning today to improve the lives of tomorrow June 2000 
General Funding Strategy Process 
Steps towards a general funding strategy process are as follows: 
1. Identify a community need based on observation, data, and an understanding of resource 
gaps along the value delivery continuum; 
2. Understand and communicate the impact of that need in the context of what target customers 
value and the potential return on investment as described above; 
3. Develop a project, service, or intervention that is targeted to address a specific problem (e.g., 
relieve a “bottleneck” in the value delivery chain) and which “fits” or complements the other 
initiatives; 
4. Define and clearly state the project’s goals, objectives, deliverables, etc. and determine an 
appropriate budget and return; 
5. Identify potential funding sources (e.g., foundation grant, local stakeholders, and federal or 
state grants or allocations) for whom value delivery is a priority and, therefore, whose goals 
are complementary to the project goals; pursue multiple funding vehicles if possible and 
permitted; consider seed funding with “follow-on” sustained funding based on demonstrated 
return; 
6. Receive funding, implement the program and develop a sustainability plan; and 
7. Monitor and report performance against goals using metrics that are directly relevant to 
measurement of return and value delivery and, thus, to enhancing and assuring sustainability. 
Stakeholders should plan to use the understanding of Sussex County needs, value creation, and 
gaps in resources, presented in the RHP, to support funding requests. Focusing on these 
elements will support responsive project development and will increase the likelihood of 
receiving funding from competitive sources seeking optimal value for invested funding. 
The process of defining the projects and initiatives is well underway. Section III of the RHP 
(Strategic and Operational Improvements [Broad Policy and Targeted Initiative 
Recommendations]) provides broad policy and specific implementation recommendations as 
they were identified in the development of the RHP. Additional focused planning may be 
required to create specific business plans for these and to bring them to the implementation 
phase. 
Sources of Funding 
Since value delivery is largely measured in terms of achieving population and health system 
goals, governmental (federal, state, or local) funding sources should be sought for sustained 
direct support, in anticipation of population-wide returns or benefits. In addition, private 
foundations often support the development of effective, efficient, and exportable models for 
health improvement. The unique “value orientation” of the Delaware RHP, and of projects 
spawned by it, can provide competitive advantage in obtaining such funding. Consistency with 
Healthy Delaware 2010, CDC initiatives, and other consensus improvement efforts can support 
the appropriateness of funding requests. 
Section V Page 50 

Delaware Rural Health Plan 
Planning today to improve the lives of tomorrow June 2000 
Pursuing grant dollars may be expensive in terms of the “person hours” required between 
developing the grant and securing the funding decision. Not every grant application is successful 
– few grant writers achieve “hit rates” over 50 percent. Local alternatives to grant funding are 
appropriate and desirable to seek including, but not limited to, private contributors, grassroots 
fundraising, and cost sharing from collaborating agencies. 
• Federal Programs: A wide array of federal programs focused on health already exists. 
Three major sources of funding are the Health Resources and Services Administration 
(HRSA)1, the Federal Office of Rural Health Policy (ORHP)2, and the Agency for Health 
Care Research and Quality (AHCRQ)3. Staff to Delaware’s US Representative and/or 
Senators may also be able to assist in identifying and facilitating opportunities at the federal 
level. 
• State and Local Government: Significant state funding is directed at Sussex County 
through direct service programs and insurance (e.g., Medicaid, Children’s Health Insurance, 
etc.). The state has also created the Delaware Health Fund, which provides significant 
resources to support community health initiatives. Local government may also be positioned 
to provide financial support to efforts that will result in improved health for local citizens. 
Healthy Delaware 2010 is funded by DPH and federal sources. The Behavioral Risk Factor 
Survey is funded through grants. 
• Private, State or Local Foundations: The duPont/Nemours philanthropies distribute funds 
for child health in Delaware, operate clinics, and may have an interest in providing additional 
support to Sussex County. The Robert Wood Johnson (RWJ) Foundation4 is the largest 
private foundation making grants exclusively in health care and has historically funded 
demonstration programs. Current areas of interest include access, care of chronic conditions, 
and harm reduction strategies – all of which link directly to Sussex County needs as 
identified in this RHP. Information on other foundations can be found though the Foundation 
Center5. 
• Local Industry and Business: Depending on the issue, local businesses may be willing to 
contribute to initiatives. For example, the employer may underwrite a work site wellness 
program by emphasizing benefits such as reduced absenteeism or lower health care costs. 
Similarly, promoting access to state health insurance programs for dependents of low 
income, part time, or non-benefited employees may be advantageous to businesses. 
Hospitals, under their charitable giving programs, may be willing to contribute to seeding 
direct service or infrastructural initiatives which directly or indirectly enhance their 
community mission, benefit residents of their catchment areas, and/or indirectly enhance 
their attractiveness to a referral base. 
• Individuals: Support from individuals may take one of two forms: large gifts from wealthy 
contributors or smaller gifts from broader community fundraising. Expenses associated with 
fundraising from a broader base of individuals may be significant in terms of “person hours,” 
mailing, phone calls, etc. Raising money from individuals also may put one in “competition” 
with agencies that use fundraising as their main source of income and support (e.g., United 
1 Internet address: www.hrsa.gov
2 Internet address: www.nal.usda.gov/orhp/
3 Internet address: www.ahcpr.gov/
4 Internet address: www.rjwf.org
5 Internet address: www.fdncntr.org
Section V Page 51 

Delaware Rural Health Plan 
Planning today to improve the lives of tomorrow June 2000 
Way) and which also address health care or social service missions. This speaks for careful 
consideration of collaborative initiatives rather than stand-alone competitive grassroots 
fundraising. 
Section V Page 52 

Section VI 
Planning today to improve the lives of tomorrow 
Delaware Rural Health Plan 
Risks and Uncertainties 

Delaware Rural Health Plan 
Planning today to improve the lives of tomorrow June 2000 
VI. Risks and Uncertainties 
Introduction 
Risks and uncertainties denote potential barriers to successful implementation of the RHP. By 
recognizing these, proactive strategies and planning may be undertaken to minimize risks of 
achieving less than full value through the RHP. While it is not possible to predict all the 
potential barriers to success for each initiative and policy recommendation in the RHP, it is 
nonetheless worthwhile to focus some attention on major anticipated areas of risk and 
uncertainty for the RHP as a whole. As specific projects are planned in more depth, stakeholders 
should determine which of the following concerns apply, or if other risks and uncertainties will 
present themselves and should be understood. 
Potential Risks and Uncertainties 
Market Risks 
• Demographic/Epidemiological: The population characteristics of Sussex County are 
dynamic. Continuing change can be anticipated in age, socioeconomic status, race, and 
ethnicity mixes. Each sub-population has unique health needs and access considerations. 
While ongoing monitoring and planning efforts will help ensure accurate forecasts of these 
changes, the risk exists that services developed for today’s population will not serve the 
changing population’s health needs. Implementation of the RHP as currently outlined might 
then be irrelevant. 
Strategic/Planning Risks 
• Data Integrity and Availability: The relatively small population of Sussex County may create 
difficulties in analysis of health indicators and data at an optimal level of statistical 
significance. The RHP was significantly limited in its assessment of needs due to the 
unavailability of statistically valid information finer than state-level data. For this reason, 
some vital statistics data is regularly aggregated over multiple years in an effort to enhance 
its significance. When collecting data at the county or sub-population level (e.g., age bands, 
socioeconomic status, racial/ethnic sub-populations, etc.), stakeholders should therefore 
exercise caution in both data collection and interpretation. While failure to consider local 
data represents a profoundly flawed approach to planning, the limitations of that data can 
also be problematic. In the limited instances where reliable vital statistics data by county is 
available, important differences between counties and sub-county (urban) regions have been 
seen. 
• Maintaining Focus: As indicated in Section I of the RHP, health status has a wide variety of 
determinants. A focus of improvement efforts on the provision of identifiable and direct 
health related services (e.g., access to care, more clinics, etc.) may result in overlooking 
infrastructure issues (e.g., clean air, clear water, sewer, fluoridated water, etc.) which are 
critically important to maintaining a healthy population. Failure to maintain focus in 
Section VI Page 53 

Delaware Rural Health Plan 
Planning today to improve the lives of tomorrow June 2000 
multiple areas simultaneously risks uneven implementation or omission of important policies 
or initiatives. 
Competitive Risks 
• Service Area Competition: Providers, hospitals, and agencies naturally operate in 
competition with one another for many services. There are examples (among the hospitals, 
for instance) suggesting that this approach has resulted in improvements to health care in 
each service area despite a relative lack of coordinated planning at the county level. On the 
other hand, as the “bar is raised” to include more county-level policies and initiatives under 
the strategic influence of the RHP, there is potential that local competitive issues may 
interfere with coordinated action. RHP success will be driven by the relative ability of the 
three hospitals, as important leading health organizations, to maintain a commitment to 
working together on important county-wide health issues. If such collaboration is not 
achievable, the resulting gap in the commitment by the hospitals could be paralytic. 
Similarly, agencies and other providers that are unable to manage the delicate balance 
between local competition and county-wide collaboration may pose implementation risk to 
the RHP. 
• Funding Competition: There will always exist some amount of competition among agencies 
for limited funding sources. In addition to a finite “pie” of dollars, structural elements of 
available funding mechanisms may contribute to competition. For example, human service 
agency directors’ experiences indicated that while collaboration is encouraged by state 
funding sources from a strategic perspective, it may be discouraged operationally through 
funding rules and application requirements that make collaboration disadvantageous. To the 
extent that such “disconnects” or misalignments are present, there is risk that agencies will 
not collaborate at the level required for successful RHP implementation leading to health 
improvement interventions. The policies and initiatives recommended in the RHP represent 
more that any single agency can implement; funding that divides rather than amalgamates 
stakeholders poses implementation risk to the RHP. 
Leadership and Staffing Risks 
• Human Resources: Much of the work that needs to be done to implement the RHP will be 
performed by volunteers. This includes both individuals using “personal time” or 
organizations contributing staff and/or administrators to certain projects. There are a 
relatively small number of Sussex County residents who work on community health projects; 
many are already stretched thin. In any human resource intensive program, there always 
exists a risk that individuals will tire, become distracted or impatient, lose interest, or that 
sponsoring organization priorities may change. Staffing and leadership personnel can thus be 
lost. 
• Collaboration: Launching successful policies and initiatives requires high levels of 
collaboration between and among community agencies and with governmental or nongovernmental 
funders. Such coalitions are often difficult to convene, and even harder to 
functionally sustain. Program success may be limited when coalitions dissipate while 
Section VI Page 54 

Delaware Rural Health Plan 
Planning today to improve the lives of tomorrow June 2000 
waiting for grant funding, or other support, to materialize. The potential for distraction and 
attrition of stakeholders is high since people (especially entrepreneurial people) typically 
want to do something. If the ability to work on one initiative is slow or stalled, it is not 
uncommon for constituencies to seek other opportunities for fulfillment. “Re-recruitment” 
may be difficult due to lack of individual time or resources. 
• Stewardship of the RHP: To date, DHI has provided the leadership necessary to complete 
and launch the RHP, meeting monthly as a Steering Committee. DHI membership is heavily 
represented by the hospitals’ senior management, administrative staff, and board members. 
In addition, DPH, other state agencies, and community agencies (such as the United Way) 
are participants. 
The best DHI membership mix going forward is uncertain. This is not a negative comment 
regarding the skills and capabilities of the current DHI participants. Rather, the question 
reflects a deeper set of legitimate concerns regarding the fate of the RHP going forward: 
(1) “Do current members have the interest and skill sets required for RHP implementation?” 
(2) “Do the sponsoring organizations each share a commitment to provide staffing and 
leadership support for implementation?” (3) “What other stakeholders are available, or 
required, who could contribute meaningfully and are potentially interested in participating in 
DHI?” and (4) “If changes to membership are made, can the size, level of commitment and 
resource, and operability of DHI, be workable and successful?” These uncertainties, if not 
positively resolved, can become risks to RHP success. 
• Broadening the Collaboration – Health Professionals: It may be advisable, for instance, to 
define a direct role for health care professionals (e.g., physicians, nurses, mental health 
providers, etc.) as RHP implementation supporters. Indeed, providers who may credibly 
“champion” specific issues may be valuable experts for individual projects. There is a 
profound need for participation of health care professionals who can influence their peers in 
the support of programs impacting county health. While essential to the process, such 
provider involvement is rendered difficult by economic realities as well as multiple 
conflicting demands for professional and personal time. Success on initiatives requiring 
professional time may be at risk if expansion of participation to include these providers 
cannot be accomplished. 
• Broadening the Collaboration – Clergy: When behavior change is required, clergy can often 
provide the positive influence necessary to enable people to make changes and may also 
provide the important support system for personally making healthy lifestyle changes. Most 
significantly, the clergy are critical components of the overall “health” system as they are 
essential linkages between physical and spiritual health. The faith communities do not speak 
as one, however, and represent a spectrum of doctrine, philosophy, and tolerance of racial 
and ethnic diversity. Some faith leaders expressed disappointment regarding their inability to 
recruit their peers into greater involvement with health and social welfare issues. Others 
have indicated that some peer clergy can be the source of unintended counterproductive 
influences on behaviors in situations where rigid adherence to doctrine precludes positive 
engagement with “at risk” populations. While the availability of faith communities 
Section VI Page 55 

Delaware Rural Health Plan 
Planning today to improve the lives of tomorrow June 2000 
represents an opportunity for leadership and support, the uncertainty about their positive 
engagement around the RHP represents a risk. 
Operational Risk 
• Sustainability of Effort: Given the comprehensive nature of the RHP, there is a risk that 
policy and implementation efforts will be started, but not sustained over the long term. This 
risk is also present for any projects that may be grant funded and led by a professional staff. 
• Sustainability of Stakeholder Participation: Beyond leadership and staffing, ongoing 
stakeholder participation is essential to RHP success. Stakeholders provide important 
knowledge about needs and resources, as well as key expertise in effectively intervening for 
improvement. The Health Summit may be used to sustain stakeholder interest and energy, 
celebrate periodic progress, and assist in recruitment and retention of committed 
stakeholders. However, attendance at the Health Summits has diminished and it is uncertain 
if there is sufficient interest for future summits to be held. If stakeholder participation 
cannot be sustained, the RHP will be at great risk of failure. 
Financial Risk 
• Policy and Initiative Funding: Obtaining and sustaining revenues to undertake policy 
development and fulfillment as well as initiative execution are the most tangible critical 
elements required for success. Whether it is obtained by public funding, grant funding, “in 
kind” contribution or investment by key participants (such as hospitals), successful 
maintenance of funding streams will be required to execute the RHP. While numerous 
funding strategies were considered in Section V, all are uncertain. As described in that 
section, sound financial planning, demonstrable public health “returns” on “invested 
funding,” a continuing high level of knowledge and acumen in identifying and advantaging 
available funding sources, and maintaining sound performance metrics to demonstrate value 
are all required to hedge against funding crises. 
Section VI Page 56 

Section VII 
Planning today to improve the lives of tomorrow 
Delaware Rural Health Plan 
Strategic Synthesis 

Delaware Rural Health Plan 
Planning today to improve the lives of tomorrow June 2000 
VII. Strategic Synthesis 
Introduction 
A strategic synthesis serves as a “double check” to ensure that a business plan considers and 
applies key strategic principles appropriately. The synthesis has been approached as a series of 
questions applied to “test” the integrity of the RHP. These same questions can, and should, be 
re-applied to specific strategies and initiatives developed in the course of implementing the RHP. 
Principles/Tests of the RHP Strategy 
1. Is the RHP strategy consistent with the environment? 
Yes. Policies and initiatives recommended in the RHP were based in, and respond to, a 
thorough analysis of the unique nature and health care needs of Sussex County 
2. Does the RHP strategy have consistent (internal) intent (e.g., “strategic fit”)? 
Yes. Strategies were developed for the RHP using a value chain context that assured an 
appropriate and consistent framework for policies and initiatives for increasing value in the form 
of health status improvement. 
3. Does the RHP strategy focus existing or available resources? 
Yes. The strategy focuses significantly on both understanding and leveraging existing and 
available resources. The gap analysis technique utilized indicates points of alignment, where 
existing resources meet needs, as well as areas of misalignment where additional resources 
(enhanced or new) should be focused. 
4. Does the RHP strategy focus strength against weakness? 
Yes. The strategy actively focuses the strengths of committed stakeholders and accountable 
entities, through county-wide collaboration addressing some of Sussex County’s current 
deficiencies. 
5. Does the RHP strategy address garnering resources effectively? 
Yes. The RHP positively addresses resource development in its recommendations. The outcome 
of implementation will remain in doubt until practical tests are applied. The risks of 
implementation are addressed in Section VII. 
6. Does the RHP strategy appropriately limit and evaluate risk? 
Yes. Section VII anticipates and evaluates the major risk and uncertainty areas associated with 
implementation of policy changes and initiatives in the RHP. Development of collaborative 
Section VII Page 57 

Delaware Rural Health Plan 
Planning today to improve the lives of tomorrow June 2000 
leadership and maintenance of stakeholder constituency participation has been identified as risk 
limiting strategies. 
7. Is the RHP strategy controlled, and in control? 
Yes. The RHP strategy for policies and initiatives reflects an approach that is feasible and 
manageable. It was constructed to provide realistic goals and to stress measurement and 
accountability as key controls. Despite this, it is clear that effective community health 
improvement requires a high degree of trust among stakeholders as well as substantial 
collaboration. While these factors are inherently difficult to control, the RHP has addressed 
those key controls that are most likely to contribute to stability. 
8. Does the RHP strategy build on previous success and become stronger? 
Yes. A central theme in the RHP is honoring and building upon the past successes of joint 
planning and action targeting improved health status. In addition, implementation of 
recommended policies and initiatives will solidify the core strengths of the health maintenance 
and delivery apparatus in Sussex County, thereby amplifying prior accomplishments. The 
synergistic contributions of many resources are recognized in Section II of the Plan. 
9. Is there awareness and support for the RHP from community leaders? 
Yes. The RHP was nurtured and supported, in its development, by a multilateral constituency 
that included representation and participation from public health authorities, key provider 
entities, representative agencies, as well as a broad spectrum of stakeholders. Throughout the 
process of RHP development, care was taken to be inclusive, notably through use of multiple 
personal interviews, stakeholder and Steering Committee focus groups, and a widely publicized 
stakeholder retreat (Health Summit). However, broad dissemination of the RHP will only occur 
after it is published. The challenge to obtain broad based and ongoing community leadership 
support will begin at that time. 
10. Does the RHP strategy build advantage for Sussex County? 
Yes. The RHP clearly documents existing needs, resources, and service gaps and is designed to 
improve deficiencies and position Sussex County for a healthier, more productive, and higher 
quality future for its residents. It provides a guiding framework for making improvements with 
specific recommendations for how these can be instituted. This level of planning at a county 
level is unique. It may be the “raw material” for funding/grant support, which provides an 
opportunity for stakeholders to make drastic improvements in the population’s health status. 
Section VII Page 58 

Planning today to improve the lives of tomorrow 
Delaware Rural Health Plan 
Appendices 

Delaware Rural Health Plan 
Planning today to improve the lives of tomorrow June 2000 
Appendix A. Medicare Rural Hospital Flexibility Program (MRHFP) 
Relevance to Delaware (Sussex County) Rural Health Plan 
The Balanced Budget Act (BBA) of 1997 created the Critical Access Hospital (CAH) program. 
CAH constitutes a new and distinct designation category available for smaller rural inpatient 
facilities. Under the BBA Medicare Rural Hospital Flexibility Program (MRHFP), rural hospitals 
designated as CAH qualify for cost-based Medicare reimbursement under customized Medicare 
Conditions of Participation, in return for restructuring their clinical programs to conform to 
statutory limits on both inpatient lengths of stay and total bed count. Implementation of a CAH 
program at the state level requires the development of a Rural Health Plan approved by the 
Health Care Financing Administration (HCFA). The BBA designated State Offices of Rural 
Health as lead agencies and conduits for Federal funding in support of the CAH program. 
Federal regulations governing the MRHFP provide states considerable latitude in some areas of 
the program, while constricting their authority in others. The CAH designation is available to 
existing hospitals, certain qualifying rural health clinics that wish to undergo conversion to 
inpatient facilities, and to recently closed/downsized (within 10 years) hospitals that wish to 
reopen as CAH. Hospitals may be of any ownership type (public, private, or not-for-profit), but 
must be located in a designated rural area, including those rural census tracts that lie within 
Metropolitan Statistical Areas (MSAs). Federal regulations specify a requirement for a minimal 
35-mile distance from a CAH to the next nearest full service facility; however, states may bypass 
this test through the use of separate criteria for designating “necessary providers.” 
Applicability of MRHFP to Existing Facilities in Delaware 
Each of the three Delaware counties encompasses rural areas. New Castle and Kent Counties, 
while part of the Wilmington MSA, have rural census tracts. Sussex County is outside of the 
MSA and is considered rural in its entirety. 
None of the Delaware hospitals currently meet Federal guidelines for the CAH program, nor do 
they appear to be a good match for the program. CAHs must agree to limit their total bed count 
to 25, with no more than 15 acute patients at any one time and up to 10 “swing beds” available 
for patients receiving a skilled nursing level of care in the inpatient setting. In addition, the CAH 
length of stay must not exceed a limit of 96 hours determined on an average annual basis. With 
respect to bed complement, usage, and length of stay experience, the three Sussex County 
hospitals greatly exceed CAH requirements. According to the State of Delaware, Health 
Resources Management Plan (updated July 26, 1999), these rural Delaware hospitals are: 
• Bayhealth Medical Center, with locations in Dover and Milford, operates as a not-for-profit 
community hospital. The Milford site, in Sussex County, is approved for 122 
medical/surgical beds and 9 obstetrical beds. 
• Beebe Medical Center, located in Lewes, operates as a not-for-profit community hospital. It 
is approved for 111 medical/surgical beds and 8 obstetrical beds. 
Appendix A Page 1 

Delaware Rural Health Plan 
Planning today to improve the lives of tomorrow June 2000 
• Nanticoke Memorial Hospital, located in Seaford, operates as a not-for-profit community 
hospital approved for 90 medical/surgical beds and 8 obstetrical beds. 
None of the facilities is greater than 35 miles from the next nearest hospital. Due to this 
geographic factor as well as operating scope, none of the facilities is considered a viable 
candidate for CAH under either the MRHFP or this RHP. 
Potential for New Facilities under MRHFP 
In the future, there may be interest in developing new facilities as CAHs in Sussex County. 
Because the federal regulations do not permit facilities to open as CAHs, interested parties who 
may wish to build or convert a facility in an eligible location would first need to be licensed as a 
general acute hospital. For example, an area of Sussex County with a rising elderly population 
may be targeted for a CAH emphasizing outpatient services, but with a few acute care beds. 
The requirement that a hospital must first be designated as a general acute facility permits the 
State of Delaware to evaluate specific proposals under its Certificate of Need (CON) process. As 
of the July 26, 1999 updating of the Health Resources Management Plan, no additional bed 
capacity is needed in rural Delaware. 
Should additional bed capacity be considered through the CAH designation, application of the 
“necessary provider” provision will mirror the review criteria for general hospital CON, 
including: 
• The relationship of the proposal to the Health Resources Management Plan; 
• The needs of the population for the proposed project; 
• The availability of less costly and/or more effective alternatives to the proposal including 
alternatives involving the use of resources located outside the State of Delaware; 
• The relationship of the proposal to the existing health care delivery system; 
• The immediate and long-term viability of the proposal in terms of the Applicant’s access to 
financial, management, and other necessary resources; 
• The anticipated effect of the proposal on the costs of, and charges for, health care; and 
• The anticipated effects of the proposal on the quality of health care. 
Should a proposed new facility receive CON approval, it will automatically be considered a 
“necessary provider” by the State and thus become eligible for CAH designation under the 
MRHFP independent of other geographic considerations. Its review and licensure will follow all 
applicable state and federal law. 
Appendix A Page 2 

Delaware Rural Health Plan 
Planning today to improve the lives of tomorrow June 2000 
Appendix B. Northland Health Group (NHG) 
Brief Overview of the Firm 
NHG is a healthcare consulting firm with offices in South Portland and Bangor, Maine. Founded 
in 1985, the firm’s professionals have developed expertise in the areas of healthcare strategic 
planning and implementation, rural healthcare, integrated delivery/financing system 
development, provider network development, medical practice management, and physicianhospital 
relations. For work on the RHP, NHG subcontracted with Westport Group, another 
Maine-based rural health care consulting practice, which provided support for some sections of 
this Plan. 
Rural healthcare is a principal focus for NHG. The firm’s clients have included State Offices of 
Rural Health; rural hospitals, health centers, physicians, and other providers; and larger 
institutions serving as referral centers and/or seeking affiliations with rural providers. Additional 
descriptive information regarding NHG, including staff, publications, and resources on rural 
health, can be found at the firm’s Internet site: www.nhgmaine.com or by contacting the firm 
directly at: 
7 Ocean Street
South Portland, ME 04106
Tel: 207-767-7500
FAX: 207-767-7504
E- mail: srb@nhgmaine.com
Project Staffing 
Stephen Blattner, MD, MBA (Senior Consultant): Dr. Blattner served as project manager. He 
was principal liaison to the Steering Committee and participated in conducting on-site 
interviews, facilitating the stakeholder focus groups and retreat, and was a principal author of the 
Rural Health Plan. His interests and experience include: strategic and hospital program 
planning, rural health planning, organizational and patient care program development, quality 
improvement programs, medical staff affairs (organization, relationships, leadership, and 
credentialing), regulatory and accreditation compliance. 
Brian Haapala, MHSA (Consultant): Mr. Haapala provided data analysis support, participated 
in conducting on-site interviews, facilitating the stakeholder focus groups and retreat, and was a 
principal author of the Rural Health Plan. His experience includes: small rural hospital planning, 
operations development, business planning, applying quantitative data to decision-making 
processes, and health policy analysis. 
Jonathan Sprague, MS (Partner): Mr. Sprague served as a senior advisor to the Rural Health 
Plan. He works with health care organizations, communities, and physicians in strategic 
planning with engagements ranging from large hospitals to small physician practices and health 
Appendix B Page 1 

Delaware Rural Health Plan 
Planning today to improve the lives of tomorrow June 2000 
businesses. He has in-depth experience with health systems development and hospital-physician 
relations and has worked on engagements in southern Delaware for many years. 
Karen Travers (Westport Group): Ms. Travers assisted the NHG effort by investigating and 
reporting on the needs of special populations for the Rural Health Plan. She specializes in the 
development of multi-provider rural health networks, and in the regulatory and reimbursement 
strategies available to support this development. She provides services in the areas of grant 
writing, practice management, health care plan design and development, Board training, quality 
assurance programs, and cost reimbursement options. 
Appendix B Page 2 

Delaware Rural Health Plan 
Planning today to improve the lives of tomorrow June 2000 
Appendix C. Value Chain Detail 
The value chain for rural health care was introduced and defined in Section I. This model served 
as the basis for framing the needs and resources analyses and for developing recommendations 
and funding strategies for the RHP. The schematics which follow present explanatory details of 
the individual components of the model. The examples shown are not exhaustive, but provide the 
reader enough detail to understand key aspects of the value chain model. 
Note that expressed linearly along the top of the value chain are the direct services, projects, and 
initiatives that directly result in the “production” of health care delivery. They include: 
• Public awareness, education, and information; 
• Access, intake, registration, and recruitment; 
• Provision of direct services; 
• Discharge, referral, and placement; and 
• Surveillance, assessment, monitoring, and prevention. 
Expressed vertically under the direct activities (and literally “supporting them”) are the key 
supporting structures or policies which enable direct value production in each primary area. 
These include: 
• Infrastructure; 
• Leadership and staffing; 
• Planning; and 
• Communication. 
Appendix C Page 1 

Delaware Rural Health Plan 
June 2000 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
jjPlanning today to improve the lives of tomorrow 
Public Awareness, Education, Information 
There is broad public awareness of services, including location, availability, cost, etc. 
Consumers can learn more about services from readily available materials. 
Advocates are knowledgeable about where to obtain informational materials 
Information about services is accessible to consumers of different cultures 
Providers and services have knowledge about complementary services and programs 
Proects and Initiatives 
Provision 
of Direct 
Services 
Infrastructure 
Leadership/Staffing 
Planning 
Communication 
Discharge, 
Referral, 
Placement 
Public 
Awareness, 
Education, 
Information 
Policies and Structures 
Surveillance, 
Assessment, 
Monitoring, 
Prevention 
Access, 
Intake, 
Registration 
Recruitment 
Value = 
Optimal 
Health Status 
for Sussex 
County 
Residents Finance, Environmental Factors 
Accountability, Recruitment, Stakeholders, Training 
Proect Development, Improvement, Pilots 
Coordination, Partnering, Information Sharing, IT 
Access, Intake, Registration, Recruitment 
• Service/program is geographically and physically accessible 
• Intake procedures function efficiently 
• Intake and access function well for consumers of different cultures 
• Collateral providers and services are aware of the intake requirements and provide 
consumers with the necessary prerequisites for intake 
• Consumers are actively encouraged to participate in the program or service 
j/
jProects and Initiatives 
Provision 
of Direct 
Services 
Infrastructure 
LeadershipStaffing 
Planning 
Communication 
Discharge, 
Referral, 
Placement 
Public 
Awareness, 
Education, 
Information 
Policies and Structures 
Surveillance, 
Assessment, 
M onitoring, 
Prevention 
Access, 
Intake, 
Registration 
Recruitment 
Finance, Environmental Factors 
Accountability, Recruitment, Stakeholders, Training 
Proect Development, Improvement, Pilots 
Coordination, Partnering, Information Sharing, IT 
Value = 
Optimal 
Health Status 
for Sussex 
County 
Residents 
Appendix C Page 2 

Delaware Rural Health Plan 
Planning today to improve the lives of tomorrow June 2000 
• 
• 
• 
• 
Projects and Initiatives 
Access, 
• 
• 
• 
• 
Projects and Initiatives 
Access, 
Surveillance, Assessment, Monitoring, Prevention 
Systems are in place to provide information to planners, providers, and consumers about 
the overall functionality of the program or system of care 
An ongoing process exists for comparing outcomes to “standard” or “benchmark” 
performance 
There are mechanisms to promote performance improvement 
Anticipatory care and programs are in place to prevent and avoid further health 
complications 
Provision 
of Direct 
Services 
Infrastructure 
Leadership/Staffing 
Planning 
Communication 
Discharge, 
Referral, 
Placement 
Public 
Awareness, 
Education, 
Information 
Policies and Structures 
Surveillance, 
Assessment, 
Monitoring, 
Prevention 
Intake, 
Registration 
Recruitment 
Value = 
Optimal 
Health Status 
for Sussex 
County 
Residents Finance, Environmental Factors 
Accountability, Recruitment, Stakeholders, Training 
Project Development, Improvement, Pilots 
Coordination, Partnering, Information Sharing, IT 
Infrastructure, Leadership, Staffing, Communication 
Infrastructure: Sufficiency of resources in terms of system capacity, human resources, 
finances, etc. 
Leadership and Staffing: Leaders have vision, are capable, competent, and are held 
accountable for health system development; Training, credentialling, and ongoing 
education programs are present for staff. 
Planning: Leaders translate and execute their visions into specific projects and 
initiatives and can execute strategies 
Communication: Communication within the organization and/or between system 
components is prioritized and functional; Information systems support the efficient and 
accurate sharing of knowledge and essential dataProvision 
of Direct 
Services 
Infrastructure 
Leadership/Staffing 
Planning 
Communication 
Discharge, 
Referral, 
Placement 
Public 
Awareness, 
Education, 
Information 
Policies and Structures 
Surveillance, 
Assessment, 
Monitoring, 
Prevention 
Intake, 
Registration 
Recruitment 
Value = 
Optimal 
Health Status 
for Sussex 
County 
Residents Finance, Environmental Factors 
Accountability, Recruitment, Stakeholders, Training 
Project Development, Improvement, Pilots 
Coordination, Partnering, Information Sharing, IT 
Appendix C Page 3

Delaware Rural Health Plan 
Planning today to improve the lives of tomorrow June 2000 
Appendix D. Stakeholders Contributing to the Rural Health Plan 
Prue Albright Division of Public Health 
Cathy Anderson Easter Seals 
Jo Ann Baker Division of Public Health 
Chris Bauer Nanticoke Health Services 
Don Berry Division of Management Services, Health Statistics Center 
Michael Berry Delaware State Police 
Sgt. Sheri Benson Delaware State Police 
Steven Blessing DPH/Office of Emergency Medical Services 
Gene Bookhammer Beebe Medical Center Trustee 
Letia Boseman Division of Public Health 
Joan Boyce Greater Millsboro Chamber of Commerce 
Mary Bradley Sussex Central Wellness Center/Bayhealth Medical Center 
John Bryant Division of Social Services 
Norene Broadhurst Beebe Medical Center 
Judith Ann Chaconas Delaware Health Care Commission 
Germaine Chapis Division of Public Health 
Richard Cherrin Visiting Nurses Association 
Linda Chick Southern Delaware Community Health Partnership, Inc. 
Don Clark Nanticoke Health Services/Retired 
Elsburgh Clarke, M.D. Bayhealth Medical Center 
Alice Davis Perinatal Association 
Dee Davis Children and Families First 
Barbara Debastiani Division of Public Health 
Nancy Diehl United Way of Delaware 
Elizabeth Dubravcic Division of Alcoholism, Drug Abuse, and Mental Health 
Florence Fickes Division of Public Health 
John Forest, M.D. Delaware Institute for Medical Education and Research 
Stephany Foster Electronic Data Systems liaison to DE Healthy Children 
William Gallery, DVM 
Edward Goate Central Delaware Community Health Partnership, Inc. 
Kent Gory CHEER Home Services 
Anne Green Dental Hygienist 
Vonda Green Helping Hands Wellness Center Physician 
Leatha Gregory-Foreman Division of Social Services 
Pat Gunnin Boys and Girls Club 
Susan Gumbs Division of Alcoholism, Drug Abuse, and Mental Health 
Eileen Gureke Division of Public Health 
Appendix D Page 1 

Delaware Rural Health Plan 
Planning today to improve the lives of tomorrow June 2000 
Appendix D. Stakeholders Contributing to the Rural Health Plan 
Barbara Hanson Division of Social Services 
A. Leroy Hathcock Division of Public Health 
Renata Henry Division of Alcoholism, Drug Abuse, and Mental Health 
Catrina Hinds Division of Youth Rehab Services 
Rev. John Hird Beebe Medical Center Trustee 
Wallace Hudson Beebe Medical Center 
Bishop Major Foster Philadelphia Pentecostal Church 
Gloria James Division of Public Health 
Rev. Leslie James First State Community Action Agency 
Theodore Jarrell Bureau of Health Planning & Resource Management 
Bob Jewitt First State Community Action Agency 
Kae Johnson Division of Public Health 
Rev. Kurt Johnston First Presbyterian Church, Milford 
Debbie Jones Sussex County Emergency Medical Services 
Finley Jones Sussex County Council 
Eleanor Kane Division of Aging and Physical Disabilities 
Traci Kasten 
John Kennedy Division of Public Health 
Gregory Kenyon Perinatal Association of Delaware 
Michael Kersteter People's Place 
Margot Kia VISTA/DTCC/Owens 
Judy Knutstad Bayhealth Medical Center 
Paul Lakeman Bayhealth Medical Center 
Maureen Leary AIDS Association - Rehoboth 
Ann Lee Delaware State Police 
James Lewis La Esperanza 
Joe Liefbroer Johnson Wax 
Arlene Littleton Sussex County Senior Services 
Cindy Madden Delmar Wellness Center/Nanticoke Health Services 
Lisa Marcum Division of Public Health 
Dianna Maredo Coventry Health Care 
Colonel Mike Martin Dover Air Force Base 
Gonzalez Martinez La Esperanza 
Walter Mateja Division of Alcoholism, Drug Abuse, and Mental Health 
Gregory B. McClure Division of Public Health 
Bill McGowan Cooperative Extension, UD 
Ross Megargel, DO Office of Emergency Services 
Anthony Mellone Perdue Farms 
E. James Monihan Beebe Medical Center 
Appendix D Page 2 

Delaware Rural Health Plan 
Planning today to improve the lives of tomorrow June 2000 
Appendix D. Stakeholders Contributing to the Rural Health Plan 
Renee Morris Nanticoke Health Services 
Charles Moses Southern Delaware Community Health Partnership, Inc. 
Renie Mullaney Nemours Children's Clinic 
Loretta Newsom Division of Public Health 
Gina Perez Division of Public Health 
Barbara Peterson Bayhealth Medical Center 
Deborah Pfaffenhauser Bayhealth Medical Center 
Maria Picazo La Esperanza 
Anthony Policastro, M.D. Nanticoke Health Services 
Joan Powell Division of Public Health 
Mariann Powell Perinatal Association 
Polly Pusey Seaford Wellness Center 
Betsy Reamer Lewes Chamber of Commerce 
Allen Reese AIDS Delaware 
Carol Reid Hall The ARC of Delaware 
Francisco Rodriguez Nanticoke Surgical Association 
Paula Roy Delaware Health Care Commission 
Michael Schnyder Office of Emergency Services 
Donna Shaffer Cape Henlopen Wellness Center/Beebe Medical Center 
Gail Short Woodbridge High School 
Paul Silverman Division of Public Health 
Val Siktar Sussex Family YMCA 
Debra Singletary Delmarva Rural Ministries, Inc. 
Melinda Sletter 
Beverly Smith Division of Public Health 
Carol Smith 
Bill Stevenson DPH/Office of Emergency Medical Services 
Lois Studte Southern Delaware Community Health Partnership, Inc. 
Suzanne Tait Coventry Health Care 
Richard Tator Division of Public Health 
Terry Tipton 
George Torbert Sussex County Emergency Medical Services 
Harold Truxton Ellendale Civic Association 
Sally Van Schaik Easter Seals-Georgetown 
Mary Lee Verdi Beebe Medical Center 
Alma Villalobos Nemours Children's Clinic 
Penny Vlach Delaware Healthcare Association 
Sandi Voss Bayhealth Medical Center 
Appendix D Page 3 

Delaware Rural Health Plan 
Planning today to improve the lives of tomorrow June 2000 
Appendix D. Stakeholders Contributing to the Rural Health Plan 
Gary Webb Division of Public Health
Joan Weinman Delaware Helpline
Beth Wetherbee Division of Public Health
Betsy Wheeler Management Concepts, Inc.
Linda Wolfe Department of Education
Terrance Zimmerman Division of Public Health 
Appendix D Page 4 

Delaware Rural Health Plan 
Planning today to improve the lives of tomorrow June 2000 
Appendix E. Table of Authorities 
Introductory Note: 
The RHP analysis and recommendations rely heavily on a substantial body of prior analysis and 
research regarding the health status and needs of Sussex County residents. The authors reviewed 
an exhaustive library of such resources. While many were of great value, the utility of others 
was more modest due to a variety of methodologic, technical, or “age of findings” limitations. 
The sources listed below represent those which were most relevant and applicable to 
development of the RHP. 
Community Mental Health Services Block Grant FY 1999 State Plan: Implementation 
Report; Delaware Health and Social Services, Division for Alcoholism, Drug Abuse and 
Mental Health; November 29, 1999. 
Community Prioritization in Delaware; by Don Berry & Ted Jarrell; July 28, 1998. 
Delaware Emergency Medical Services: Report to the governor and General Assembly; 
Improvement Committee; May 26, 1999. 
Delaware Health Care Commission: Delaware Institute of Medical Education & Research; 
Report from the DIMER Committee on Rural Health to the DIMER Board of Directors 
October 1999. 
Delaware Population Consortium, Annual Population Projections; Delaware Population 
Consortium; July 1, 1999. 
Delaware Vital Statistics Annual Report 1998; Delaware Health Statistics Center; Dec. 1999 
Delawareans Without Health Insurance 1998; by Edward C. Ratledge; May 1999. 
Dental Care: Access Improvement Project; Draft Summary of Presentations and Staff 
Research. 
Dentist in Delaware 1998; by Edward C. Ratledge. 
EMS System Review; Prepared for Office of the Governor (State of Delaware); Dec. 1998 
Final Report: Focus Groups of School Based Health (Wellness) Centers; Research Dept., 
Family Planning Council; June 1999. 
Health Needs Assessment; Western Sussex County; Richard Tator, DPH Clinic Manager & Jan 
Crouch, Prevention Team Leader. 
Health Resources Management Plan; Delaware Health Resources Board; 1995. 
Appendix E Page 1 

Delaware Rural Health Plan 
Planning today to improve the lives of tomorrow June 2000 
Appendix E. Table of Authorities 
Health Status Assessment; Kent and Sussex Counties: Southern Delaware Partnership 
Healthy Delaware 2000; Delaware Health and Social Services, Division of Public Health; 
January 1994. 
Healthy Delaware 2010: Summary of Stakeholder Interviews and Focus Groups; Prepared 
by the Public Health Foundation. 
.
Hospital Discharge Summary Report; Delaware Health and Social Services; 1992-1998.
Kids/Families Count in Delaware; Family Services Cabinet Council Fact Book; 1999.
Needs Assessment; Georgetown and Southeastern Sussex.
Primary Care Physicians in Delaware; by Edward C. Tatledge; 1998.
Report on the Strategic Assesment of: Care & Services for Adults with Disabilities in
Delaware; Sponsored by Longwood Foundation under the Leadership of Easter Seals of 
Delaware and Maryland’s Eastern Shore. 
Southern Delaware Health Survey; Beebe Medical Center; February 10, 1997. 
Appendix E Page 2 

Delaware Rural Health Plan 
Planning today to improve the lives of tomorrow June 2000 
Appendix F. Summary of Notes for Policy and Initiative Development 
Introductory Note: 
The table in this Appendix contains an “unprocessed” cumulation of all stakeholder commentary 
and relevant source findings which served as background for RHP recommendations. It served as 
the earliest draft or outline for Section III of the plan. The material is generally organized along the 
same dimensions of analysis as the RHP however no attempt has been made to formally structure or 
edit it. Inputs for this table included: 
• Stakeholder Interviews 
• Steering Committee Focus Groups 
• Notes from Source Materials 
• Stakeholder Focus Groups 
• Stakeholder Retreat Work Group Output 
This material is provided in order to document and preserve those inputs which informed the RHP 
but did were not directly retained in the form of policy or initiative recommendations. This was 
generally either due to lack of consensus, duplication, lack of feasibility, or the fact that they were 
already being addressed by other projects or initiatives. As DHI and accountable entities explore 
specific recommendations, it may be useful to examine these inputs for opportunities and/or 
guidance regarding the breadth of scope of their activities 
Appendix F Page 1 

Delaware Rural Health Plan 
Planning today to improve the lives of tomorrow June 2000 
Appendix F. Summary of Notes for Policy and Initiative Development 
• 
Table 1: Summary of Notes for Policy and Initiative Recommendations - By Life Cycle 
Key Identified Needs Areas 
Policy Notes – REC’S TO BE DEVELOPED 
1. 
Infants-Perinatal (age <1) 
Infants-Perinatal (age <1) 
1. Support for PRAMS/AAPP/Prenatal Board
cycles (1993-1997 and 1994-1998) as compared
• 
Rising infant mortality for past two 5-year 
initiatives and activities – expand monitoring
to State – most striking in white population
activities in Sussex County 
2. Prenatal Care Access and Outreach policies
by births to teen and African-American females
• 
LBW paralleled by State rates which are driven 
3. 
Low Birth Weight (Related to prenatal care, access, 
and teen pregnancy) policy initiatives
exceeds that of State or US
• BUT in Sussex County, LBW to white mothers 
4. 
Must study the results of fragmentation that 
occurred when managed care decentralized the 
• 
High births to single mothers compared to State 
maternal child health care system (i.e. the one stop 
and other counties
system) 
*
5. 
Change reimbursement to Ob/Gyn physicians as 
they relate to first trimester services and 
“presumptive eligibility” - correct disincentives to 
provision of first trimester care to indigent mothers. 
Current policies requiring physicians to honor 
presumptive eligibility should be enforced. 
6. 
Advocate for policies to implement wellness 
centers in Middle Schools and to provide a 
comprehensive human sexuality curriculum, age 
appropriate for all grades. 
7. 
Advocate for improved transportation services. 
8. 
Develop a study to measure other health indicators 
as contributors to low birth weight and infant 
mortality and develop prevention services 
accordingly. 
9. 
Develop and expand leadership to existing 
committees. These include: 
• 
Western Sussex Coalition 
• 
Perinatal Board (which maintains a 
Kent/Sussex Outreach Committee) 
• 
Alliance for Adolescents (prevention) 
• 
Title X agencies (family planning) 
• 
Others 
Initiative Notes – REC’S TO BE DEVELOPED 
Infants-Perinatal (age <1) 
A. Prenatal Care initiatives 
B. Insurability initiatives 
C. Teen pregnancy initiatives (see Adolescent 
Lifecycle Needs) 
D. Projects which address reduction in births to single 
women OR support systems for non-traditional 
families (?Hispanic Pop) 
E. Genetic Counseling initiatives 
F. Resource mother/father programs – expansion and 
creation 
G. Insure bi-lingual services and geographic access at 
clinic services. 
H. Use non-traditional methods to get health related 
information in the hands of teens. (For example, 
computer screen savers and LCD Banners in the school 
cafeterias.) 
I. Look at marketing materials and information in nontraditional 
ways to improve access. These include 
evenings, and Saturdays and locations like the mall. 
And maximizing “One stop” service availability 
J. Planning and leadership could be improved/expanded 
by staffing existing health committees that have solely 
relied on volunteers and state public health employees. 
K. Expansion of the voucher system would improve 
access to care when presumptive eligibility is not 
accepted. 
L. Improve and/or coordinate pregnancy prevention 
outreach/education after the first pregnancy. 
M. Leverage SBHCs and extend availability of 
sexuality services 
N. Use curricular vehicles to disseminate data and 
trends to school aged children 
Appendix 
F 
Page 2 

Delaware Rural Health Plan 
Planning today to improve the lives of tomorrow June 2000 
Appendix F. Summary of Notes for Policy and Initiative Development 
Key Identified Needs Areas 
Policy Notes – REC’S TO BE DEVELOPED 
Initiative Notes – REC’S TO BE DEVELOPED 
2. Children (ages 1-12+) 
Children (ages 1-12+) 
Children (ages 1-12+) 
• MCH Grant documents needs and approaches 
• Any task force addressing child and adolescent 
very well – should be supported in RHP 
• Support MCH grant initiatives 
needs should include this age group. 
• Seek balance in resources currently 
• Special Health Care Needs population 
disproportionately focused on NCC 
• Inadequate services for OT, PT, Speech therapy 
• ? Potential for expansion of duPont/Nemours role 
needs 
• Child care needs for population believed to be
inadequate and currently under study
• Care coordination and management
deficiencies in children > age 3 with special
needs
• 
Culturally and racially compatible specialty
care access inadequate
• 
Child development problems as a potential
indicator/marker of family substance abuse should
be explored
Adolescents (age 13-19)
Adolescents (age 13-19) 
Adolescents (age 13-19) 
• Downstate presence for AAPP should be increased 
• Teen live birth rates well above US, State, and 
• As a matter of policy, stress community and family 
• Teen Advisory Panel for public policy input from 
County rates for both younger and older teens 
focus for priority funding and development. 
youth 
• White teen rates rising whereas US is 
Project development should be supported in such in
falling.
• PCP education initiatives re: adolescent health 
improving areas such as: 
• Scholarships for “at risk” youth
similar to US and greater than State
• African-American teen rates falling at a rate 
• Family communication 
• Develop mentoring programs linking youth with 
• Mental behavioral health services 
peers, business community, adults 
• Rates in several census tracts (Bridgeville, 
• Parenting classes and educational initiatives 
Selbyville, and Laurel) stand out as 
• Support and extend SEED (Student Education 
• After school activities and recreational 
extraordinarily high 
and Economic Development) 
opportunities 
• Many teen Primary Health Care needs not met 
• Teen Crisis line / peer counseling programs? 
• Job initiatives for teens 
as determined through interviews and school 
• Support extended DPH clinic services in 
based health clinic (SBHC) data 
“adolescent friendly” ways 
• Support School Based Health Services 
• High School dropout rates exceed State and 
• Extended hours (incl summer)
• Extend services to middle and elementary 
other Counties for all ethnic and racial groups
school level
• Enhance confidentiality preserving approaches 
except Hispanic 
and services 
• Enhance mental health services 
• Self reported substance use in older adolescents 
• Dispense contraception and STD treatment at 
• Support sex education initiatives 
exceeds State and rise from grade 8 to grade 11 
point of service 
exceeds State increase 
Appendix 
F 
Page 3 

Delaware Rural Health Plan 
Planning today to improve the lives of tomorrow June 2000 
Appendix F. Summary of Notes for Policy and Initiative Development 
Key Identified Needs Areas 
Policy Notes – REC’S TO BE DEVELOPED 
Initiative Notes – REC’S TO BE DEVELOPED 
Adolescents (age 13-19) (cont) 
Adolescents (age 13-19) (cont) 
Adolescents (age 13-19) (cont) 
• 
Teen mental health needs not adequately met 
• Continue to support recruitment of adolescent 
• Achieve consensus and commitment to on capture 
based on interview findings. Thirty six percent 
trained providers in key areas 
and report County and ZIP level data to assist 
(36%) of SBHC visits are for mental health 
planning of services for youth – create performance 
• 
Mental health 
instrument panel to assess efficacy of interventions 
• 
No eating disorder services 
• 
Primary care 
• 
SBHC intake and contact statistics 
• 
SBHC limitations 
• 
OB/GYN 
• 
SBHC focus group findings 
• 
SBHC need to be started at elementary or 
• Integrate data on adolescent substance use, STDs,
middle school level
• 
Alliance for Adolescent Pregnancy 
and pregnancy into academic curriculum to 
• 
Handoff post graduation to PCP inadequate 
increase awareness 
• 
Information from Youth Development Model 
(Wilmington DPH pilot) 
• 
Children with special health care needs 
• 
Increase public service programming re: key 
adolescent issues 
• 
DCMHS
• 
Homeless adolescents an increasing problem in 
Sussex 
• 
Engage churches/faith leaders proactively and in an 
• Nontraditional hours for SBHC (weekends, 
organized fashion based on Strong Communities 
evenings, summer) 
model 
• 
Easier links to complementary services from 
• Alignment of school response to truancy with 
SBHC 
appropriate incentives to remain in school 
• 
Enhanced MH services at SBHC 
• 
Support continuation/extension of community 
policing models 
• 
Task Force, including MCO Medical Directors to 
address needs broadly 
• 
Suggested initial collaborators: 
• 
DPH and DHI 
• 
MCOs 
• 
Faith communities 
• 
Hospitals 
• 
DADAMH 
Appendix 
F 
Page 4 

Delaware Rural Health Plan 
Planning today to improve the lives of tomorrow June 2000 
Appendix F. Summary of Notes for Policy and Initiative Development 
Key Identified Needs Areas 
Policy Notes – REC’S TO BE DEVELOPED 
Initiative Notes – REC’S TO BE DEVELOPED 
3. 
Adults (age 20-64): 
Adults (age 20-64): 
Adults (age 20-64): 
• 
Overall Mortality 
• 
Target healthy lifestyle promotion and awareness 
• Ongoing commitment to obtain and report BRFSS 
programs and public education to county level 
county level data 
• 
Sussex County exceeds State and US
BRFSS data – address:
mortality rates for all adult age bands 
• Use tobacco settlement funds for patch “give away” 
except 35-44. 
• 
Smoking cessation emphasis 
program 
• 
Sussex County mortality rates exceed State 
• Diabetogenic diets and lifestyles
and US across all age groups for cancer,
• Screening of high risk populations
heart disease, motor vehicle accidents
• Recruitment of high risk individuals into 
(MVA). 
programs 
• 
Cancer 
• 
Physical exercise promotion 
• 
Mortality for all invasive cancers combined 
• Foot care, retinal care, self management 
is high for Delaware compared to US 
support for diabetics 
(SEER). DE ranks 2nd in US for SEER 
• 
Injury prevention (target MVA) 
cancer mortality/100,000 (194 v 170) 
• Safety education beginning in schools aimed at 
• 
DE cancer mortality rates are 2nd 
accident prevention in adulthood 
highest in US (1992-1996 SEER data) 
• 
Child safety initiatives 
• 
Mortality from lung prostate,
colorectal, cervical, and lung cancers
• Driver education curriculum strengthening for
extremely high in State
MVA prevention 
• Trauma Center (each Sussex County hospital)
State (Vital Statistics data)
• 
County level incidence largely mirrors the 
based prevention and education initiatives aimed at 
reducing MVA fatalities 
• 
African-American cancer mortality rates
significantly exceed African-American US
• Population wide awareness and education
rates for all cancers combined and
• PCP
specifically for lung, colorectal, prostate
• 
Population 
and cervical cancers 
• 
Cervical cancer screening and education for 
• 
African-American men (lung, 
African-American females 
prostate, colorectal) and African•
 Education, awareness, screening for African-
American women (cervical) 
American males 
predominate in excess mortality 
• 
Engage industry (business) in a constructive 
• 
Heart Disease 
dialogue regarding workplace safety, primary care 
• 
Sussex County death rates from CHD 
provision, and strategic spending of their health 
exceed State rates. Cardiac disease is most 
care dollars
frequent cause for hospitalization 
Appendix 
F 
Page 5 

Delaware Rural Health Plan 
Planning today to improve the lives of tomorrow June 2000 
Appendix F. Summary of Notes for Policy and Initiative Development 
Key Identified Needs Areas Policy Notes – REC’S TO BE DEVELOPED Initiative Notes – REC’S TO BE DEVELOPED 
Adults (age 20-64) (cont): 
• Lifestyle and controllable risk factor issues 
predominate (BRFSS) as predisposing 
factors 
• Smoking 
• Overweight 
• Hypertension 
• MVA/MVC 
• No seat belt use 
• OUI/DWI 
• Diabetes 
• All ethnic groups in Sussex County exceed 
US mortality rates 
• African-American females in Sussex 
County have a strikingly high mortality (> 
50/100,000) which exceeds State (40) and 
US (28) rates 
• STD rates 
• State rates for AIDS deaths, syphilis, 
chlamydia, and gonorrhea exceed US rates 
• Sussex County rates for syphilis, gonorrhea, 
and chlamydia exceed State rates 
• Increase focus on occupational health is needed 
both in terms of injury prevention as well as 
primary care encouragement 
• There is concern about female unintentional 
injury rates and the degree to which they are 
both unrecognized and may indicate a more 
serious and dangerous underlying pattern of 
abuse 
Appendix F Page 6 

Delaware Rural Health Plan 
Planning today to improve the lives of tomorrow June 2000 
Appendix F. Summary of Notes for Policy and Initiative Development 
Key Identified Needs Areas 
Policy Notes – REC’S TO BE DEVELOPED 
Initiative Notes – REC’S TO BE DEVELOPED 
4. 
Geriatric (age 65+): 
Geriatric (age 65+): 
Geriatric (age 65+): 
• 
Rapidly growing elderly population anticipated 
• Planning and study needs are significant at State 
• Count geriatricians when measuring primary care 
to continue through 2010 
and County level – data needs to be generated to 
needs 
characterize geriatric needs 
Suggested Accountability: 
• 
Greatest growth rate will be in the > 85 age
band
• DASAPD/Univ. Of Delaware study needs 
• DPH and Hospitals 
Sussex focus and data 
• 
Mortality rates for elderly population in Sussex 
County exceed State and US in all > 65 age 
• 
Coordinate/pool transportation for elderly 
• Medical Ombudsman to accompany elderly 
bands 
patients to medical visits 
• 
More geriatricians should be recruited as 
• 
Rates significantly higher than State and 
• Establish communications vehicle between care 
US for pneumonia and influenza and MVA 
specifically that specialty - not lumped in with 
systems for the elderly 
"Primary care". 
• 
Striking lack of data to support understanding of 
Suggested Accountability: 
• 
Accountability for this should initially include 
DHSS/DAAPD/DPH and Rural Primary Care 
needs or resources 
• 
DPH and Hospitals 
• 
Understanding or resource development 
recruiters 
• 
CHEER,AARP 
• 
Anecdotal (interview) data suggests needs in: 
• Utilize geriatric nurse practitioners as physician 
• 
Faith communities 
• 
Primary Care 
extenders and to lessen some of the cultural barriers 
• 
Geriatric Specialties 
older females may have. 
• 
Needs data focused on elderly must be collected 
• 
Home Care 
• Accountability for this should initially include 
and monitored for Sussex County 
• 
Transportation 
the Medical Society and Hospitals. 
• 
Social activities 
• Use older volunteers from AARP or CHEER to 
Suggested Accountability: 
accompany elderly patients to physician visits to 
• 
Behavioral Health Services for elderly and 
• DPH and Hospitals 
ensure communications between elderly and their 
their families; including coping issues 
• 
CHEER, AARP 
physican so that diagnosis and treatment are 
• 
Need for geriatric specialists and primary care 
comprehended correctly. 
physicians interested in the elderly 
• 
The problems are LOCAL and cry for customized 
• Accountability for this should initially include 
• 
Access and intake considerations 
local planning. DHS/DPH/DAAPD should 
"neighbor to Neighbor" (MMH), AARP, 
dialogue to solve the issues collaboratively. We 
• 
Planning needs for elderly and populations 
Cheer. 
suggest an annual Geriatric Summit. 
growth 
• Home health providers are adequate, the number of 
• 
Any resource directory effort should include a 
visits the MCO's will pay for is not, esp. for 
specific geriatric section 
homemakers. AARP could lobby for this change, 
and engage MCO Medical Directors as well as 
DHSS/DAAPD 
• 
DHSS/DAAPD should be charged with data 
collection on elderly health needs by county. 
Appendix 
F 
Page 7 

Delaware Rural Health Plan 
Planning today to improve the lives of tomorrow June 2000 
Appendix F. Summary of Notes for Policy and Initiative Development 
Table 2 : Summary of Notes for Policy and Initiative Recommendations - By Service/Provider Category 
Policy Notes – REC’S TO BE DEVELOPED 
Initiative Notes – REC’S TO BE DEVELOPED 
Following Retreat 
Need/Data Issues/Gaps 
Following Retreat 
1. 
Primary Care 
Primary Care 
Primary Care 
• 
Data and analysis from DPH/Univ Del Survey 
• Improved data capture and maintenance re: PCP 
• DEDO (Delaware Economic Development Office) 
(1998) and DIMER report (10/99) 
practice and capacity characteristics 
“relocation packet” should include Finding a 
• 
Sussex County currently qualifies under as a 
• 
Support 1999 DIMER report policy initiatives 
characterization 
Doctor section informed by improved practice 
Federal MUA. Additionally, northern Sussex 
• Monitor supply of PCP and tailor DIMER
qualifies as a primary care shortage area. These
• 
Create “PCP finding” advocacy services as a 
recruitment initiatives to need as it evolves
are based on population and FTE available
collaborative hospital initiative in each catchment 
• Improve use and acceptance of mid-level 
area
• 
BUT: Confusing and contradictory information 
practitioners
exists re: access to practitioners and practices:
• 
Renewed attempts to create functional annual or 
• 
Encourage minority candidates for 
biennial PCP surveys as part of licensure renewal 
• 
Open v. closed 
professional education 
• 
Further leverage J-1 Visa Program 
• 
Insurance acceptance and participation 
• Study and utilize alternative access strategies 
• 
Form Steering Committee for broad ongoing 
• 
FTE v. productivity v. capacity 
to address transportation and other socioplanning 
to address: 
economic barriers to access 
• 
Absolute v. relative access 
• Consider creation of centralized recruitment 
• 
Timing/hours of operation 
Eligibility and Intake Level: 
clearing house 
• 
Physical access 
• Explore loan repayment programs as 
• 
Cultural accessibility (Hispanic population) 
• 
Simplify access DHCP-enrollment 
recruitment strategy 
• 
Additional resources are required by elderly 
• 
Increase Case Management Services and 
• Study and consider use of hospitalists 
populations 
Provider Communication 
• Monitor and support the Downstate Residency 
• 
Lowest use of mid-level practitioners in State 
Rotation Pilot 
Provider Level Access: 
• 
Mal-distribution issues – are there some areas of 
• Better coordination of existing planning efforts 
• 
Surveillance & Monitoring-Consistent 
over-saturation?? 
- DIMER, Healthy Delaware 2010, DPH, 
measurement of access and outcomes 
• 
Disparity between study data and consumer 
Hospitals, etc. 
across all access points for a reasonable 
perception 
length of time (longer than one month). 
• 
Planning Improvement Needed 
• 
Linking office staff with information 
• 
Communications Enhancement 
regarding access to available services. 
• 
Access and Intake Deficiencies 
• 
Surveillance & Monitoring-Identify 
reasons for access barriers 
• 
Extend office hours through the promotion 
of non-physician clinicians (NPs & PAs) 
Appendix 
F 
Page 8 

Delaware Rural Health Plan 
Planning today to improve the lives of tomorrow June 2000 
Appendix F. Summary of Notes for Policy and Initiative Development 
Need/Data Issues/Gaps Policy Notes – REC’S TO BE DEVELOPED 
Following Retreat 
Initiative Notes – REC’S TO BE DEVELOPED 
Following Retreat 
Primary Care (cont.) 
• Coordination of education, intake, and 
discharge referral that results in timely and 
adequate access 
Transportation Level Access: 
• Engage DOT 
• Bring services to the community 
• Increase use of mobile, community based, 
services 
Suggested Accountability: 
• Jointly DHCC/DHSS-DPH 
• Include DIMER, Hospitals, etc. 
2. Dental Dental Dental 
• DHC report confirms Sussex County meets 
MUA criteria 
• There is a shortage of culturally compatible 
dentists for special populations (Hispanic, 
African-American) 
• The situation for dental care is likely to 
deteriorate due to planned retirements 
• Enable/encourage community recruitment efforts 
• Support Dental Care Access Improvement 
Committee (DCAIC) report (3/2000) policy 
recommendations 
• Changes to DIDER 
• Training and recruitment policies 
• Dental and hygienist licensure reform 
strategies 
• Translate DCAIC report recommendations into 
targeted initiatives for recruitment, training, and 
access improvement 
3. Behavioral Health 
• DIMER report documents “severe shortage” of 
mental health practitioners in Sussex County 
• Ambulatory Chemical Dependency and 
Substance Abuse Services (CD/SA) appear to be 
insufficient (DADMA interviews) in Sussex 
County 
• Deficiency in CTT services 
Behavioral Health 
• Mental health resource study in Sussex County is 
needed 
• Licensure and MCO network reform for MSW 
level providers 
• SBHC MH services (see adolescent Lifecycle 
Section) 
• DIMER report recommendations 
• CD/SA program enhancement 
Behavioral Health 
• Nanticoke/Western Sussex Health Council survey 
as tool for development of prototype compendium 
and referral guide 
• Work with DCMHS to develop county specific 
mental and behavioral health needs data 
• Systematically identify individuals using 911 for 
primary behavioral health needs and proactively 
deliver services in more appropriate settings 
Appendix F Page 9 

Delaware Rural Health Plan 
Planning today to improve the lives of tomorrow June 2000 
Appendix F. Summary of Notes for Policy and Initiative Development 
Need/Data Issues/Gaps Policy Notes – REC’S TO BE DEVELOPED 
Following Retreat 
Initiative Notes – REC’S TO BE DEVELOPED 
Following Retreat 
Behavioral Health (cont.) 
Problem Areas Identified as: 
• ACCESS 
• INFRASTRUCTURE: 
• DIRECT SERVICE: 
Behavioral Health (cont.) 
• Greater community awareness re: programs 
which DO exist 
• Access enhancement for existing programs 
• Provider recruitment 
• Licensure Credentialing of non-licensed providers 
working under professionals 
• Diminish stigma of mental health care requirement 
– mental health parity 
• Educational System / Working to break stigma 
• Environmental/Move Services to more 
decentralized location 
• More Providers/ No available referral options 
currently 
• No Involuntary Admissions 
• General Psychiatry beds not broadly available 
Behavioral Health (cont.) 
Suggested Accountability: 
• NASW (Association of Social Workers) 
Educational System 
• Legislature 
• MCOs 
4. Home Health Home Health Home Health 
• No quantitative data at this time 
• Categories of need defined as: 
• Skilled nursing 
• Homemaker services 
• Personal care services 
• VNA 
• Child aide/attendant services 
• Advocacy at federal MCARE policy level in 
light of BBA pressures Information gathering remains a priority to better 
understand needs. Additional sources include: 
. Association of Home and Community Care 
Providers 
. Hospital Discharge Planners 
. Del Tech Business and Economic Development 
Workgroup 
• Consider impact of PPS on agencies and 
referrals 
• Consider impact of labor pool on staffing 
Appendix F Page 10 

Delaware Rural Health Plan 
Planning today to improve the lives of tomorrow June 2000 
Appendix F. Summary of Notes for Policy and Initiative Development 
Table 3 Summary of Notes for Policy and Initiative Recommendations -Special Considerations 
Needs/Data Issues/Gaps Policy Notes – REC’S TO BE DEVELOPED 
Following Retreat 
Initiative Notes – REC’S TO BE DEVELOPED 
Following Retreat 
1. Infrastructure and Environment Infrastructure and Environment Infrastructure and Environment 
• “At Risk” Communities 
• Major water, sewer, housing deficiencies in 
over 30 communities in Sussex County 
(DPH; First State Community Action 
Agency) 
• Strong Communities to be considered as 
subset of “at risk” communities 
• Lack of public transportation is a major physical 
barrier to access for health care 
• Vulnerable populations particularly impacted 
• Adolescents 
• Continue to support infrastructure planning and 
improvement throughout Sussex County 
• Support community policing initiatives 
• Alternative health care delivery addressing 
transportation deficiencies 
• Public and/or private-public partnering 
transportation initiatives and alternatives 
• Use of inactive agency vehicles 
• Enhancements to current public 
transportation 
• Focused studies of linkages between 
infrastructure deficiencies (water, sewer, 
housing) and health indicators 
• Elderly 
• Poor 
• Rapid population growth impacts availability of 
services, labor, and providers 
2. Poverty / Insurability Poverty / Insurability Poverty / Insurability 
• Sussex County uninsured fraction (16.3%) 
exceeds State (12.9%) despite the presence of state 
sponsored insurance programs for which many are 
eligible 
• Unemployed and self-employed predominate in 
this population 
• Limited availability/scope of insurance coverage, 
and benefits in retail, service, and poultry industries 
• NB: High injury rates in poultry industry 
• Leadership Development at all levels 
• Awareness of available programs to be enhanced 
• “Culture of poverty” must be reversed 
• Target service/trade industries due to ! insured 
rates and " injury rates 
• Occupational education – injury prevention 
• Job based health services 
• Employer forums on “best practices” in 
expending health care dollars 
• Encourage Development of “Universal Access 
Product” 
• Health Fund as funding vehicle for extending 
primary coverages through business incentives 
Potential Accountabilities: 
• Collect and analyze OSHA data re: 
occupational injuries 
• Collect and analyze data re: poultry 
industry injuries 
• Targeted initiatives to enroll eligibles in state 
sponsored health insurance programs 
• Develop compendium or database of charity 
care programs/parameters listing: 
• Attributes by program/Barriers to 
obtaining assistance/Sliding fee scales 
• Mentoring 
Business owners/Insurance purchasers 
Appendix F Page 11 

Delaware Rural Health Plan 
Planning today to improve the lives of tomorrow June 2000 
Appendix F. Summary of Notes for Policy and Initiative Development 
Needs/Data Issues/Gaps Policy Notes – REC’S TO BE DEVELOPED 
Following Retreat 
Initiative Notes – REC’S TO BE DEVELOPED 
Following Retreat 
Poverty / Insurability (cont.) 
Suggested Accountabilities: 
• School Based Health Clinics 
• Marketing awareness of available care 
programs 
• Non traditional access 
3. Cultural Barriers to Care (including White, Cultural Barriers to Care (including White, Cultural Barriers to Care (including White, 
Ethnic, and Non-White Populations) Ethnic, and Non-White Populations) Ethnic, and Non-White Populations) 
• Hispanic (from 1999 DPH survey) 
• Lack of health insurance 
• Insufficient primary care services 
• Plant clinics provide limited services and 
access 
• Cumbersome access during work 
hours 
• Limited availability of culturally 
compatible physicians 
• Lack of services for family members 
of employees 
• Poor preventive service utilization 
• Dental care difficult to obtain 
• Poverty as access limiter 
• Denial of care 
• Non-seeking of care 
• Lack of culturally compatible services 
• African-American (integrated into lifecycle 
sections) 
• Lack of understanding re: cultural competency of 
existing and/or programs (e.g CHIP) 
• Racism exists! While white middle and upper 
class may believe this is no longer a problem, 
there is still an atmosphere of mistrust and even 
paranoia running as an undercurrent. 
1. Improved communication 
1.1 Develop venues for engaging consumers 
1.2 Use this input for innovative development 
of new services 
1.3 Approaches for meeting non-traditional 
family units 
1.4 Family based care 
1.5 Free clinic 
1.6 Rx programs 
1.7 Continuous improvement of existing 
programs 
2. Lowering barriers to care 
2.1 Diminish legal status as a factor for 
accessing care 
2.2 Confidential and non-traditional “off-site” 
services 
2.3 When necessary to access the “system,” 
lower barriers and seek to provide: 
2.4 A bilingual medical environment that feels 
safe 
2.5 Open during non-traditional work times 
2.6 Close to the population 
1. Use clergy/churches, service groups such as 
sororities, civic organizations, education or 
other groups that clients might trust to get 
client feedback and “sell” programs. 
2. Get information from community leaders on 
the best method to inform their communities 
of various programs. Consider literacy levels, 
which “buttons” to push. 
• Employers, churches, educational institutions 
all have a role in providing the training on an 
ongoing basis but must be supported from top 
leadership. Individuals need to carefully 
explore their personal value systems and be 
acutely aware of their personal reactions to 
people of color. 
Potential Accountabilities: 
• First State Community Action providing 
“Public Allies” program to build grass roots 
leadership. DHI leadership and CBOs need to 
support this effort. 
• Del. State Police Community policing can play 
an active role in safety/support. 
• Governmental agencies, community based 
organizations, hospitals, and basically all 
potential employers 
• Legislative mandates and requirements 
Appendix F Page 12 

Delaware Rural Health Plan 
Planning today to improve the lives of tomorrow June 2000 
Appendix F. Summary of Notes for Policy and Initiative Development 
Policy Notes – REC’S TO BE DEVELOPED 
Initiative Notes – REC’S TO BE DEVELOPED 
Following Retreat 
Needs/Data Issues/Gaps 
Following Retreat 
Cultural Barriers to Care (cont.) 
Cultural Barriers to Care (cont.) 
3. Getting employers to the table
minority populations
• 
Lack of identified leadership in ethnic and 
3.1 
Engage employers and solicit their long 
term participation in strategy development
compatibility issues
• 
Lack of staffing for programs to address cultural 
3.2 
Emphasize the intersection of shared 
benefit from improved health status 
3.3 
Support outreach initiatives at or near the 
workplace 
3.4 
Focusing on caring and prevention for the 
types of injuries and illnesses common to 
the poultry industry risks 
4. Striving for continuity of care 
4.1 
Opportunities for providing continuity of 
care for those with established residence 
exist 
4.2 
Requires access, availability, and 
affordability of: 
4.3 
Medical services, 
4.4 Prevention, and 
4.5 
Dental care 
• 
Obtain information and feedback from clients on 
their perceptions of various programs and 
possible trust factors involved (ie: how is 
personal information I am giving going to be 
used?, will it affect other benefits that I might 
use?) 
• 
Enable provider training on population based 
social/cultural competency. 
• 
Build leadership capabilities within 
minority/ethnic communities and identify and 
address barriers/threats to potential leaders (for 
example, threats from the drug culture). Provide 
active support to enable leaders to carry out their 
roles 
• 
Adequately staff and resource the programs 
developed to address the needs that are targeted 
Appendix 
F 
Page 13 

Delaware Rural Health Plan 
Planning today to improve the lives of tomorrow June 2000 
Appendix F. Summary of Notes for Policy and Initiative Development 
Needs/Data Issues/Gaps Policy Notes – REC’S TO BE DEVELOPED 
Following Retreat 
Initiative Notes – REC’S TO BE DEVELOPED 
Following Retreat 
Cultural Barriers to Care (cont.) 
(don’t try to do all things to all people all at 
once) Providers need to identify specific 
priorities and then place adequate staff/resources 
in place to actually make a difference. 
• Staff/resources need to reflect the population 
served. Need to hire more racially, ethnically, 
culturally, and developmentally different 
• Delaware Health Fund needs to ensure that the 
special linguistic and cultural needs of racial, 
ethnic, cultural, and special needs populations 
are identified and reflected in any contracts or 
other funds disbursement. 
4. EMS EMS EMS 
• Fitch Report (12/98) and Improvement 
Committee Report (5/99) detailed design and 
operational deficiencies of EMS system 
• Support findings and recommendations of Fitch 
Report and Improvement Committee Report 
• In addition, concentrate Sussex County efforts in 
those areas within County sphere of influence: 
• Establish non-emergency call line (i.e. “211”) 
for resource advice and referral based on well 
maintained compendium 
• Human resources and training 
• Develop and implement strategies to recruit 
and retain qualified EMS volunteers and 
professionals at all levels of service 
• Implement joint Continuing Education, 
training (ACLS, ATLS, CPR), and skills 
verification programs with hospital 
personnel to share resources and improve 
relationships 
• Identify strategies to increase the cultural 
sensitivity of EMS providers 
• Communication 
• Broaden the definition of the 
communication component (e.g., radios, 
telemetry, etc.) to include coordination of 
services with other components of the 
health system 
• Work with social service resources on the 
Appendix F Page 14 

Delaware Rural Health Plan 
Planning today to improve the lives of tomorrow June 2000 
Appendix F. Summary of Notes for Policy and Initiative Development 
Policy Notes – REC’S TO BE DEVELOPED 
Initiative Notes – REC’S TO BE DEVELOPED 
Following Retreat 
Needs/Data Issues/Gaps 
Following Retreat 
EMS (cont.) 
efficient referral (e.g., State Services Center 
resources directory at dispatch center) and “hand 
off” of 911 callers with non-emergent needs 
• 
Public information and education 
• 
Establish a prevention effort with trauma 
centers -- individually or as a group --to 
reduce the number of preventable deaths 
due to motor vehicle accidents and other 
unintentional injuries 
• 
Increase resources for educational efforts re: 
appropriate use of EMS and hospital 
emergency room services 
• 
Medical direction 
• 
Ensure state-level recommendations re: 
quality assurance and medical oversight are 
fully implemented in Sussex County 
• Lack of protocols, 
• 
Little coordination among system 
components at county level, 
• 
Limited physician involvement, and 
• 
Unsatisfactory retrospective medical control 
• 
Document “best practices” components of 
Sussex County system is strong and 
leverage this information for system 
improvements (e.g., physician involvement, 
collection of data) 
Appendix 
F 
Page 15 

Delaware Rural Health Plan 
Planning today to improve the lives of tomorrow June 2000 
Appendix F. Summary of Notes for Policy and Initiative Development 
Needs/Data Issues/Gaps Policy Notes – REC’S TO BE DEVELOPED 
Following Retreat 
Initiative Notes – REC’S TO BE DEVELOPED 
Following Retreat 
5. Lack of Coordinated Resources Inventory; Lack of Coordinated Resources Inventory; Lack Lack of Coordinated Resources Inventory; 
Lack of County Level Planning and of County Level Planning and Monitoring Data Lack of County Level Planning and Monitoring 
Monitoring Data • State level commitment to production of Data 
• Consultants observed, and validated in County level data on health indicators, health • Develop consolidated resources compendium 
interviews, that minimal and inconsistent County status, behavioral risks, demographics and (under State Service Center Office??) which is 
level data is available to document needs and epidemeology, etc. regularly updated, widely disseminated, 
monitor delivery system functionality in Sussex available electronically, and which provides 
County relevant access information 
• Resources exist which are not well known of 
documented and for which duplicative but poorly 
focused public information efforts exists 
• Multiple resource compendia with overlapping / 
incomplete data and poor distribution 
Appendix F Page 16