Public Health Policy Analysis Essay Paper

Select a current or proposed health care policy that is designed to improve a specific population’s access to quality, cost-effective health care. In a paper of 1,000-1,250 words, include the following:

Explain the policy and how it is designed to improve cost-effectiveness and health care equity for the population. Is the policy financially sound? Why or why not? How does the policy account for any relevant ethical, legal, and political factors and the nursing perceptive one must consider when implementing it?
To what state, federal, global health policies or goals is this particular policy related? How well do you think the policy is designed to achieve those goals?
Finally, discuss the advocacy strategies you would employ on behalf of your population to ensure they have access to the benefits of the policy. Explain, from a Christian perspective, the professional and moral obligation of advanced registered nurse to advocate for and promote health and prevent disease among diverse populations.
You are required to cite five to 10 sources to complete this assignment. Sources must be published within the last 5 years and appropriate for the assignment criteria and nursing content.

Prepare this assignment according to the guidelines found in the APA Style Guide, located in the Student Success Center. An abstract is not required.

This assignment uses a rubric. Please review the rubric prior to beginning the assignment to become familiar with the expectations for successful completion.

You are required to submit this assignment to LopesWrite. Please refer to the directions in the Student Success Center.

Public Health Policy Analysis

The Families First Coronavirus Response Act (FFCRA) was signed into law on 18^th March 2020. With the novel Covid-19 epidemic wreaking havoc in the USA and having been declared a national emergency on 13^th March 2020, it is not surprising that the legislation was enacted. As provided under the legislation, employers are expected to provide for two things. Firstly, expanded family and medical leave under the Emergency Family and Medical Leave Expansion Act. Secondly, paid sick leave for their employees under the Emergency Paid Sick Leave Act (Congress.Gov, 2020; Moss et al., 2020).

Covid-19 outbreak is an unprecedented national pandemic that FFCRA seeks to impact from the social and health perspectives. The virus does not differentiate between victims, and has indiscriminately spread within the country with cases multiplying on a daily basis. The infection rates have been concerning both in the rural and urban settings. Given this awareness, medical personnel and organizations have advised that exposure reduction is critical to limiting Covid-19 infections. They have repeatedly recommended that nonessential public institutions and services should be closed, social distancing practices, and masks worn in order to limit infections. In addition, there is a need for fair public policies to manage medical facilities, testing, and use of medical resources. The virus and efforts to control its spread have caused economic disruptions to include ongoing financial insecurities face by American workers who are unable to attend work either because they are sick or are trying to protect themselves from infection (Moss et al., 2020).

ORDER A PLAGIARISM-FREE PAPER HERE

Although the FFCRA includes expanded family and medical leave, and paid sick leave provisions targeted at easing the financial pressures that families are facing as the Covid-19 epidemic continues and they stay at home, the measures are limited. The provisions are insufficient to address the ongoing financial insecurities that American workers are facing. To be more precise, the legislation does not meet the need of Americans who are disproportionately and historically impacted by poverty, an issues that goes hand in hand with no or low health insurance coverage. The Americans who do not qualify for the benefits offered by FFCRA are likely to feel that the advice to stay at home and avoid work to reduce exposure is disadvantageous as it adds to their financial pressure. Instead, they would be forced to go to work in order to reduce the financial pressure, where unfortunately, they face a higher risk of being infected by the virus (Congress.Gov, 2020; Boesch, Glynn & Phadke, 2020).  Public Health Policy Analysis Essay Paper

While the Covid-19 epidemic has propelled the benefits offered by FFCRA to the forefront of controlling and managing the virus within the USA, it leaves out many American workers thereby presenting ethical concerns. There are many American workers who provide essential services that require them to interact with the public, and yet are not eligible to receive FFCRA benefits. These frontline workers are exposed to a high risk of infection but the legislation only covers organizations that employ between 50 and 500 personnel. They should have the opportunity to stay safe at home without suffering financial distress. An ethically framed legislation should not require Americans to choose between protecting themselves, their families and others, and meeting their financial obligations such as putting food on the table. For instance, reports indicate that service personnel continue to report for work even when sick, citing that they do so because they fear losing their wages and jobs as reasons for continuing to attend work even when sick (Congress.Gov, 2020; Ziebarth & Pichler, 2019).

The provisions included in the FFCRA legislation have traditionally been applied to high wage earners who enjoy the associated benefits. In fact, 32 million American workers (38% of the American workforce) did not have access to paid sick leave prior to the virus epidemic. This implies that 32 million American workers are not eligible to receive paid leave benefits for sick days regardless of the epidemic. These workers include homecare givers who support persons who cannot stay home alone, pharmacy workers, and food service workers (Economic Policy Institute, 2020).

The FFCRA does not cover American workers who receive cash payments, consultants or personnel at organizations with less than 50 personnel or more than 500 personnel. This group of workers are primarily comprised of persons from low income communities. Under the legislation, about 12% (19 million) of American workers employed in the private sector do not enjoy the associated benefits. Besides that, the inequities presented in the legislation have implications for health care access and costs. For instance, the majority of Covid-19 cases are being reported among essential workers who have limited access to paid sick leave and preventive services. These workers end up missing work, loosing earnings, and having to pay billions in health care costs. If the billions spent on health care could be redirected to expanding FFCRA coverage to more workers, then essential workers would be prevented from having to choose between working to meet their financial obligations, and having to risk their lives by going to work. Moreover, the legislation should include a mandatory testing provision for Covid-19 to ensure that they remain healthy, are able to protect themselves, and can stay at home if required to protect the public (Economic Policy Institute, 2020).

It is evident that FFCRA presents health equity concern. The legislation has failed to not only prioritize the protection of all American workers, but has also failed to reduce the social inequalities in financial and health protection from Covid-19. This concern can be addressed by expanding the beneficiaries of FFCRA to enable sufficient and timely response to the emerging need of Covid-19 epidemic (Cookson et al., 2017).

Advocacy offers an opportunity for convincing beneficiaries to use the policy/legislation. This is important from a Christian, professional, and ethical perspective as it ensures that the targeted populations receive the benefits. To be more precise, beneficiaries are at a lower knowledge level and it requires a more knowledgeable person to educate them on the associated benefits to enable them maximize the policy’s use (Mason, Leavitt & Chaffee, 2014). There are four advocacy strategies that can be applied to ensure that ensure that American workers have access to the benefits of FFCRA. The first strategy is to tell stories about the policy, not statements. Stories present narratives that empathize with beneficiaries and immerse them in the benefits they could derive from the legislation. The second strategy is to engage digital platforms. Digital communities have become an important part of the American life. An effective social campaign can inform the beneficiaries about the policy. The third strategy is to conduct an organizing campaign that engages volunteers who are passionate about the policy and willing to apply their efforts in engaging beneficiaries at the grassroots. The final strategy is to persuade beneficiaries through open-ended conversation in which they are offered information, and allowed to ask questions that are answered in order to convince them to make use of the policy (Lustig, 2013).

References

Boesch, D., Glynn, S., & Phadke, S. (2020). Lack of Paid Leave Risks Public Health During the Coronavirus Outbreak. https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/women/news/2020/03/12/481609/lack-paid-leave-risks-public-health-coronavirus-outbreak/

Congress.Gov (2020). H.R.6201 – Families First Coronavirus Response Act. https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-bill/6201/text

Cookson, R., Mirelman, A., Griffin, S., Asaria, M., Dawkins, B., Norheim, O., Verguet, S., & Culyer, A. (2017).  Using Cost-Effectiveness Analysis to Address Health Equity Concerns. Value in Health, 20(2), 206-212. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2016.11.027

Economic Policy Institute (2020). Senate coronavirus bill is crucial—but it’s a fraction of what’s needed. https://www.epi.org/blog/senate-coronavirus-bill-is-crucial-but-its-a-fraction-of-whats-needed/

Lustig, S. (2013). Advocacy Strategies for Health and Mental Health Professionals: From Patients to Policies. Springer Publishing Company, LLC.

Mason, D., Leavitt, J., & Chaffee, M. (2014). Policy and Politics in Nursing and Healthcare. Elsevier Health Sciences.

Moss, K., Dawson, L., Long, M., Kates, J., & Musumeci, M. (2020). The Families First Coronavirus Response Act: Summary of Key Provisions. https://www.kff.org/coronavirus-covid-19/issue-brief/the-families-first-coronavirus-response-act-summary-of-key-provisions/

Ziebarth, N., & Pichler, S. (2019). “Labor Market Effects of U.S. Sick Pay Mandates.” Employment Research 26(1): 4-6. https://doi.org/10.17848/1075-8445.26(1)-2  Public Health Policy Analysis Essay Paper