HCM 320 Discussion 1 Health Policy

HCM 320 Discussion 1 Health Policy HCM 320 Discussion 1 Health Policy Module 1: Discussion Forum Welcome to the first discussion of the course. In this module, you have started considering the major categories of health determinants. Please select one of the six health determinants listed in the textbook reading (e.g., biology, behaviors, social environment, physical environment, public/private sector programs, and quality health services). HCM 320 Discussion 1 Health Policy For your initial post, address the following questions: Which current health policies (public or private) attempt to impact this health determinant? How do these policies impact health determinants in a way that increases overall health and well-being? Support your ideas with research from attached sources and/or outside, scholarly sources using the. Cite a minimum of 2 articles. the_process_of_health_policymaking_ch.3.pdf policy_capacity_meets_politics.pdf health_and_health_policy_ch.1.pdf ORDER NOW FOR CUSTOMIZED AND ORIGINAL ESSAY PAPERS http://ijhpm.com Int J Health Policy Manag 2015, 4(10), 707–708 doi 10.15171/ijhpm.2015.134 Commentary Policy Capacity Meets Politics Comment on “Health Reform Requires Policy Capacity” Patrick Fafard* Abstract It is difficult to disagree with the general argument that successful health reform requires a significant degree of policy capacity or that all players in the policy game need to move beyond self-interested advocacy. However, an overly broad definition of policy capacity is a problem. More important perhaps, health reform inevitably requires not just policy capacity but political leadership and compromise. Keywords: Policy Capacity, Health Reform, Leadership, Health Politics Copyright: © 2015 by Kerman University of Medical Sciences Citation: Fafard P. Policy capacity meets politics: Comment on “Health reform requires policy capacity.” Int J Health Policy Manag. 2015;4(10):707–708. doi:10.15171/ijhpm.2015.134 L arge-scale, meaningful and durable policy and program change is very hard to achieve. Forest et al1 seek to offer an explanation as to why. They argue that a lack of policy capacity, both inside and outside government, is a large part of the problem. They argue that this is an especially serious issue in health policy given that the vast range of factors that determine health. This leads them to suggest, inter alia, that the process by which policy is made needs to be better informed and more pluralistic. While I agree with the overall thrust of their argument, there are three areas that I would like to focus on in this short commentary: the definition of policy capacity; the need for all players in the policy game to move beyond agenda setting and advocacy; and, something missing from the model – politics. Forest et al1 offer a very broad and sweeping definition of policy capacity: “Policy capacity is the sum of competencies, resources, and experience that governments and public agencies use to identify, formulate, implement, and evaluate solutions to public problems.” This definition, especially when linked to the idea that a diversity of players is needed to make good policy, has the merit of encouraging those who would seek to foster change to take into account the wider range of what is required to make good policy. To put it bluntly, I agree that reform requires more than good ideas; it requires an appreciation of the importance of adequate resources, both human and financial, well-designed organizations, and an appreciation of local context (ie, one size does not fit all). But this broad approach defines “policy capacity” to include most of what governments do. It expands beyond the usual focus on the formulation of new policies to extend the concept to their implementation (eg, programs; regulations; budgets) and their evaluation. If policy capacity becomes everything it risks becoming nothing. There is merit in distinguishing between the challenges associated with say, agenda setting, and those associated with program design or evaluation. Moreover, the authors are, in my view, too quick to suggest that the concept of policy capacity is not widely understood in Article History: Received: 7 July 2015 Accepted: 17 July 2015 ePublished: 22 July 2015 *Correspondence to: Patrick Fafard Email: [email protected] academic policy analysis. HCM 320 Discussion 1 Health Policy This is arguably true for those who focus solely on health policy. It may also be true for those who, often trained in the United States, who privilege quantitative analysis to the exclusion of almost all else. Yet, there is a rich literature in political science that offers a more expansive and holistic account of policy change. For example, we now have a more sophisticated understanding of policy advisory systems and the role and function of a wide range of players inside and outside of government.2 One aspect of the vision of policy capacity articulated by Forest et al,1 is the idea that all of the players in the policy game need to be more than mere advocates and must develop their own policy capacity and speak not only to what should be done but also to how it should be done with some sense of the tradeoffs that will, inevitably, be required. I could not agree more. This means, for example, that when the associations representing health professions, notably but not limited to physicians and nurses, engage in policy work and proffer policy advice, their contribution needs to advance the public interest and not just the self-interest of their profession.3 Similarly, there is a constant stream of public health research that identifies the factors that contribute to ill health and premature death. But true policy capacity, as Forest et al1 conceive of it, requires that the public health community move well beyond trying to set the policy agenda by calling for things like less sugar in our diets, more walking and cycling in our daily commute, or a serious reduction in income inequality, to name but three. While these are noble and important goals, a more fulsome contribution to the policy debate would include some discussion of how to get there. There is some irony here insofar as the public health community broadly defined has the advantage of having experienced the long, difficult and as yet incomplete battle to reduce tobacco consumption. Yet, the sophistication of the public health arguments around tobacco control has not been replicated in a number of other areas of public health concern. Forest et al are concerned, first and foremost with policy Graduate School of Public and International Affairs, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, Canada Fafard transformation. To do this they argue we need to “raise the level of policy conversation by making it better informed and more pluralistic.”1 But there are limits as to what can be accomplished by making the policy process better informed. Yes, some efforts at policy and program change processes suffer from being dominated by voices that are insufficiently diverse or simply ill informed. But real change often requires difficult tradeoffs and/or the resolution of deep value conflicts. And this is the stuff of politics. Much can be accomplished by enhancing policy capacity. However, as the authors freely acknowledge, change also requires leadership. My fear is that in our efforts to improve our collective policy capacity we will lose sight of the fact that one of the most important competencies, resources and experience for policy and program change is political leadership. Enhanced policy capacity is essential but even the most well-informed and inclusive policy conversation has to be accompanied by the ability to identify and implement the compromises and tradeoffs that are inevitably required. HCM 320 Discussion 1 Health Policy As Richard French has put it, “The demands of politics are unpredictably diverse and protean and thus political reason is unusually resistant to generalisation and codification; it remains tacit and only obtusely articulable even for those who possess it. To some significant extent, the ability to deploy it effectively must be the product of nature and of the accidents and vicissitudes of life, rather than of any more intentional preparation.”4 Simply put, we elect representatives to make decisions on our collective behalf and then defend them against the inevitable critics. This 708 is not and cannot be a purely analytical or managerial process. Enhanced policy capacity is both essential and desirable. But if the goal is sustained and sustainable policy and program change, a considerable amount of politics is required, and this in the best sense of the word. Ethical issues Not applicable. Competing interests Author declares that he has no competing interests. Author’s contribution PF is the single author of the manuscript. References 1. Forest PG, Denis JL, Brown LD, Helms D. Health reform requires policy capacity. Int J Health Policy Manag. 2015;4(5):265-266. doi:10.15171/ijhpm.2015.85 2. Craft J, Howlett M. Policy formulation, governance shifts and policy influence: location and content in policy advisory systems. J Public Policy. 2012;32(2):79-98. doi:10.1017/ S0143814X12000049 3. Lewis S. Some Wicked Thoughts on Nursing Leadership. Nurs Leadersh (Tor Ont). 2014;27(4):65-70. doi:10.12927/ cjnl.2015.24138 4. French RD. The professors on public life. Polit Q. 2012;83(3):532540. doi:10.1111/j.1467-923X.2012.02320.x International Journal of Health Policy and Management, 2015, 4(10), 707–708 … Purchase answer to see full attachment Student has agreed that all tutoring, explanations, and answers provided by the tutor will be used to help in the learning process and in accordance with Studypool’s honor code & terms of service . Get a 10 % discount on an order above $ 100 Use the following coupon code : NURSING10

Read more

HCM 320 Discussion 1 Health Policy

HCM 320 Discussion 1 Health Policy HCM 320 Discussion 1 Health Policy Module 1: Discussion Forum Welcome to the first discussion of the course. In this module, you have started considering the major categories of health determinants. Please select one of the six health determinants listed in the textbook reading (e.g., biology, behaviors, social environment, physical environment, public/private sector programs, and quality health services). HCM 320 Discussion 1 Health Policy For your initial post, address the following questions: Which current health policies (public or private) attempt to impact this health determinant? How do these policies impact health determinants in a way that increases overall health and well-being? Support your ideas with research from attached sources and/or outside, scholarly sources using the. Cite a minimum of 2 articles. the_process_of_health_policymaking_ch.3.pdf policy_capacity_meets_politics.pdf health_and_health_policy_ch.1.pdf ORDER NOW FOR CUSTOMIZED AND ORIGINAL ESSAY PAPERS http://ijhpm.com Int J Health Policy Manag 2015, 4(10), 707–708 doi 10.15171/ijhpm.2015.134 Commentary Policy Capacity Meets Politics Comment on “Health Reform Requires Policy Capacity” Patrick Fafard* Abstract It is difficult to disagree with the general argument that successful health reform requires a significant degree of policy capacity or that all players in the policy game need to move beyond self-interested advocacy. However, an overly broad definition of policy capacity is a problem. More important perhaps, health reform inevitably requires not just policy capacity but political leadership and compromise. Keywords: Policy Capacity, Health Reform, Leadership, Health Politics Copyright: © 2015 by Kerman University of Medical Sciences Citation: Fafard P. Policy capacity meets politics: Comment on “Health reform requires policy capacity.” Int J Health Policy Manag. 2015;4(10):707–708. doi:10.15171/ijhpm.2015.134 L arge-scale, meaningful and durable policy and program change is very hard to achieve. Forest et al1 seek to offer an explanation as to why. They argue that a lack of policy capacity, both inside and outside government, is a large part of the problem. They argue that this is an especially serious issue in health policy given that the vast range of factors that determine health. This leads them to suggest, inter alia, that the process by which policy is made needs to be better informed and more pluralistic. While I agree with the overall thrust of their argument, there are three areas that I would like to focus on in this short commentary: the definition of policy capacity; the need for all players in the policy game to move beyond agenda setting and advocacy; and, something missing from the model – politics. Forest et al1 offer a very broad and sweeping definition of policy capacity: “Policy capacity is the sum of competencies, resources, and experience that governments and public agencies use to identify, formulate, implement, and evaluate solutions to public problems.” This definition, especially when linked to the idea that a diversity of players is needed to make good policy, has the merit of encouraging those who would seek to foster change to take into account the wider range of what is required to make good policy. To put it bluntly, I agree that reform requires more than good ideas; it requires an appreciation of the importance of adequate resources, both human and financial, well-designed organizations, and an appreciation of local context (ie, one size does not fit all). But this broad approach defines “policy capacity” to include most of what governments do. It expands beyond the usual focus on the formulation of new policies to extend the concept to their implementation (eg, programs; regulations; budgets) and their evaluation. If policy capacity becomes everything it risks becoming nothing. There is merit in distinguishing between the challenges associated with say, agenda setting, and those associated with program design or evaluation. Moreover, the authors are, in my view, too quick to suggest that the concept of policy capacity is not widely understood in Article History: Received: 7 July 2015 Accepted: 17 July 2015 ePublished: 22 July 2015 *Correspondence to: Patrick Fafard Email: [email protected] academic policy analysis. HCM 320 Discussion 1 Health Policy This is arguably true for those who focus solely on health policy. It may also be true for those who, often trained in the United States, who privilege quantitative analysis to the exclusion of almost all else. Yet, there is a rich literature in political science that offers a more expansive and holistic account of policy change. For example, we now have a more sophisticated understanding of policy advisory systems and the role and function of a wide range of players inside and outside of government.2 One aspect of the vision of policy capacity articulated by Forest et al,1 is the idea that all of the players in the policy game need to be more than mere advocates and must develop their own policy capacity and speak not only to what should be done but also to how it should be done with some sense of the tradeoffs that will, inevitably, be required. I could not agree more. This means, for example, that when the associations representing health professions, notably but not limited to physicians and nurses, engage in policy work and proffer policy advice, their contribution needs to advance the public interest and not just the self-interest of their profession.3 Similarly, there is a constant stream of public health research that identifies the factors that contribute to ill health and premature death. But true policy capacity, as Forest et al1 conceive of it, requires that the public health community move well beyond trying to set the policy agenda by calling for things like less sugar in our diets, more walking and cycling in our daily commute, or a serious reduction in income inequality, to name but three. While these are noble and important goals, a more fulsome contribution to the policy debate would include some discussion of how to get there. There is some irony here insofar as the public health community broadly defined has the advantage of having experienced the long, difficult and as yet incomplete battle to reduce tobacco consumption. Yet, the sophistication of the public health arguments around tobacco control has not been replicated in a number of other areas of public health concern. Forest et al are concerned, first and foremost with policy Graduate School of Public and International Affairs, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, Canada Fafard transformation. To do this they argue we need to “raise the level of policy conversation by making it better informed and more pluralistic.”1 But there are limits as to what can be accomplished by making the policy process better informed. Yes, some efforts at policy and program change processes suffer from being dominated by voices that are insufficiently diverse or simply ill informed. But real change often requires difficult tradeoffs and/or the resolution of deep value conflicts. And this is the stuff of politics. Much can be accomplished by enhancing policy capacity. However, as the authors freely acknowledge, change also requires leadership. My fear is that in our efforts to improve our collective policy capacity we will lose sight of the fact that one of the most important competencies, resources and experience for policy and program change is political leadership. Enhanced policy capacity is essential but even the most well-informed and inclusive policy conversation has to be accompanied by the ability to identify and implement the compromises and tradeoffs that are inevitably required. HCM 320 Discussion 1 Health Policy As Richard French has put it, “The demands of politics are unpredictably diverse and protean and thus political reason is unusually resistant to generalisation and codification; it remains tacit and only obtusely articulable even for those who possess it. To some significant extent, the ability to deploy it effectively must be the product of nature and of the accidents and vicissitudes of life, rather than of any more intentional preparation.”4 Simply put, we elect representatives to make decisions on our collective behalf and then defend them against the inevitable critics. This 708 is not and cannot be a purely analytical or managerial process. Enhanced policy capacity is both essential and desirable. But if the goal is sustained and sustainable policy and program change, a considerable amount of politics is required, and this in the best sense of the word. Ethical issues Not applicable. Competing interests Author declares that he has no competing interests. Author’s contribution PF is the single author of the manuscript. References 1. Forest PG, Denis JL, Brown LD, Helms D. Health reform requires policy capacity. Int J Health Policy Manag. 2015;4(5):265-266. doi:10.15171/ijhpm.2015.85 2. Craft J, Howlett M. Policy formulation, governance shifts and policy influence: location and content in policy advisory systems. J Public Policy. 2012;32(2):79-98. doi:10.1017/ S0143814X12000049 3. Lewis S. Some Wicked Thoughts on Nursing Leadership. Nurs Leadersh (Tor Ont). 2014;27(4):65-70. doi:10.12927/ cjnl.2015.24138 4. French RD. The professors on public life. Polit Q. 2012;83(3):532540. doi:10.1111/j.1467-923X.2012.02320.x International Journal of Health Policy and Management, 2015, 4(10), 707–708 … Purchase answer to see full attachment Student has agreed that all tutoring, explanations, and answers provided by the tutor will be used to help in the learning process and in accordance with Studypool’s honor code & terms of service . Get a 10 % discount on an order above $ 100 Use the following coupon code : NURSING10

Read more
Enjoy affordable prices and lifetime discounts
Use a coupon FIRST15 and enjoy expert help with any task at the most affordable price.
Order Now Order in Chat

Start off on the right foot this semester. Get expert-written solutions at a 20% discount