gov

 

• Observation08:11
• Per professor need to restructure paper to math the paper structure shown in the sampler paper he said08:12
• He said the recall that my issue area section must only show five issues questions No praragraph or anything else under the issue areas section08:13
• He suggestion should move all paragraphs and place them under solution section and the solution paragraph correspond with each issues quetstion need it done by end of today08:14
• let me know once you get is completed

1

Funding Shortfalls in Public Health Programs

Student’s Name

Institutional Affiliation

Course Code & Title

Professor’s Name

Date

Article Name: “Funding Shortfalls in Public Health Programs” (https://www.thenationshealth.org/content/54/1/1.1)

Section 1: Problem Statement

The article I will be discussing deals with the highly pervasive issue of underfunding of federal programs involved in public health initiative work around the nation. There seems to be a consensus that low funding levels are one of the major impediments that significantly reduce the effectiveness of services such as immunizations, health education, and chronic disease prevention programs. These budgetary constraints are uniquely problematic in that they undermine the foundational role of public health in protecting communities against widespread health threats. Traditionally, federal funding for public health comes through agencies such as the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), then is funneled to state and local health departments, where money is used to address priorities ranging from vaccination campaigns to obesity prevention programs. On the contrary, it reflects a history of erratic and usually meagre allocations, which political transitions and economic declines persistently reinforce by downplaying or deprioritizing health funding. Although the article enumerates some of the near-term effects of underfunding-slower responses to public health emergencies, fewer resources available for rural areas, and reduced access to healthcare services in general, the article does not delve into detailed issues relating to any deeper structural problems in the mechanisms for funding. It also does not take up sustainable long-term solutions that may help stabilize funding flows and increase the capacity of local and state governments to serve community health needs more positively.

This paper explores the areas the article mentioned above left uncovered and attempts to examine the remaining issues in-depth. It also presents workable solutions that may help stabilize United States public health funding.

Section 2: Issues that the Article Failed to Address

1. Why has a minimum funding level yet to be developed for critical health programs?

One glaring omission of this article is any mention of a minimum funding threshold necessary for essential health programs. The cuts in the public health funding budget are not buffered by the ups and downs of political and economic cycles by a hard floor, which shields the essential services in entitlement programs like Medicare or Medicaid. Because there is no requisite level of core funding, core services-including disease outbreak capabilities and prevention-oriented health services, suffer reductions. This fiscal unpredictability leaves state and local health agencies unable to engage in strategic planning or infrastructure development that might lessen the impact of an adverse future health event. A set funding floor would protect essential health services, preserving core services regardless of fluctuating federal priorities.

2. How do federal funding delays affect the most timely implementation at the state level regarding health programs?

Funding inadequacy was discussed in the article, but it did not include such factors as delays in federal funding that negatively affect program implementation at the state level. Delays, with the rather complex nature of budget approval and attendant bureaucracy, may deprive states of their ability to undertake and implement essential health interventions on time. For instance, delays in influenza vaccines compromise immunization efforts during peak flu seasons, leaving populations exposed to the disease and overstressing health facilities. Delays in funding require state and local health departments to resort to either temporary measures or operating with limited resources, negatively impacting quality and access to health services.

3.What administrative inefficiencies does the current funding process cause, and at what level?

Another major concern that should be considered in this article is the administrative burden concerning receiving federal money, which is often subjected to vigorous application and reporting processes. The complexities of these administrative needs lead to inefficiency at many levels, which diverts precious time and staff from service delivery. Secondly, some local health departments need more administrative capacity to support intensive reporting requirements, so dollars are spent less quickly. Programs move more slowly, and dollars are wasted in administrative purgatory while health needs nationwide still need to be addressed. Resources would surface sooner while streamlining the process by which funds are allotted, and public health needs could be met far sooner.

4.Why are preventive health programs accorded a lower priority status than all other federal programs?

Preventive health programs are systemically biased through federal funding at the expense of true cost-effectiveness and long-term health outcomes. The article fails to explain the systemic bias due to poor resourcing for vaccination programs, disease screening, and health education. Lacking preventive funding, public health can’t be proactive against health problems. It acts in reverse where a health problem has already taken hold. Funding for preventive health saves dollars is unquestionable, as research estimates that every dollar spent on preventive health saves $5 in future healthcare expenses. Due to competing national interests and short-run budgetary concerns, preventive health programs usually need more support. Lack of transparency in decision-making regarding funding has undermined the populace’s trust in government health programs.

Transparency in funding decisions is critical to sustaining confidence in the institutions of government, and this article has yet to discuss how the lack of transparency has affected public perception regarding fund allocation priorities within public health systems. People need to be aware of how funding priorities are set and how resources are allocated; this may encourage scepticism or distrust among the common people towards public health. It can also make it difficult for the general public and their stakeholders to hold them accountable for decisions over funding choices. Transparency of funding decisions openly assures the general public of the workability and, thus, confidence in government health programs.

Section 3: Solutions

1. Minimum Funding Threshold for Basic Health Programs:

a. No federal law can guarantee that investments in public health are protected from political decision-making regarding funding. That is, a minimum level of funding is ensured for basic health services. Core health services, such as infectious disease surveillance, vaccination, and health education, would be represented by a base amount of funding reflective of those services core to the health of each community. For example, a guaranteed floor allocation to the CDC for immunization services would ensure that vaccination programs are predictably funded to support public health readiness for outbreaks and reduce the burden of vaccine-preventable diseases. This will give the local health departments long-term programming that is financially secure and help them realize greater stability and dependability of the public health services throughout the nation.

2. Provide Funding According to Schedules that Are on Time and Predictable:

Federal agencies can become more efficient and predictable in their timelines for releasing funds to state health departments. A standardized timeline for funding, such as quarterly or semi-annual allocations, would provide states with the adequate opportunity to budget and prepare to launch programs needed to address needs in public health. For instance, if federal agencies can ensure that funding for preparedness against influenza is available every October of the year, states will be better equipped to prepare for the flu season, purchase vaccines in advance, and kick-start awareness campaigns in good time. Such predictability minimizes the number of disquieting moments resulting from delays in funds and allows state and local governments to develop proactive responses toward challenges in public health.

3.Simplify Administrative Processes for the Allocation of Funds:

a. Simplify the application and reporting processes for federal funding to minimize administrative burdens on the local health departments. Federal agencies might consider creating a single application portal through which health departments could apply for various funding streams to avoid duplication of paperwork. Secondly, automated tracking systems reduce the burden of compliance reporting, making it easier for local health agencies to report on the use of funds and outcomes associated with that use. This will enable federal agencies to decrease the bureaucratic burden on health departments so that more resources can be freed to shift direct health services that would improve community health.

4.Enhance prioritization to active preventive health programs.

a. Incentivize the federal government to provide adequate budget lines for prevention services within general health funding. For example, the higher allocations to routine screenings and vaccination programs translate to earlier detections and interventions in health issues, reducing burdens on acute care services. Evidence has shown that preventive services improve population health and save long-term healthcare costs. These would be furthered by providing incentives for state programs that focus on prevention, ensuring that cost-effective measures receive a high funding allotment and are available at all levels of communities.

5.More Funding Transparency, Public Participation:

Increase trust in government health programs by being more open about funding decisions. Through federal health agencies, create publically available web-based dashboards that outline funding levels, program spending, and outcomes for each region. For instance, an online portal on the distribution and impact of funds across states would add to the citizenry’s knowledge base of how resources are distributed and which communities benefit the most. Besides this, agencies might hold public forums where stakeholders can provide input into funding priorities, thereby developing a sense of shared responsibility with greater community support for public health efforts. Transparency in funding instils trust, but it does something more crucial: leading to a better educated and active populace.

NAME OF PAPER ANALYTICAL PAPER ASSIGNMENT

TWO FULL SINGLE SPACE -10 POINT FONTS 2 PAGES

1.
3 SECTION REQUIRED

2.
TOPIC IN GOVERNMENT INTERESTED IN WRITING

3.
LOCATE NEWSPAPER ARTICLE REPUTABLE SOURCE OR ONLINE NO CHAT GROUP OR NO GOSSIP GROUP. LIKE DALLAS MORNING NEWS ETC. IS GOOD SOURCES CHICAGO, NEW YORK NEWSPAPER SOURCE IS GOOD.

FOUND ONE ARTICLE THAT RELATE TO GOVERNMENT. NEED ONE ARTICLE MAKE CONNECTION BETWEEN FEDERAL STATE AND GOVNEMENT. BROAD ARENA OF GOVERNEMENT.

(NO BOOKS OR MAGAZINE

Not include no bibliography page.

Student name

First section Name of Article

Articulate and write the problem of the article wordy first section

Sec section

Issues Areas

Read your article give some thoughts what was not said in the article. Think 5 issues question you must frame of issues that was not included in the article. Detailing reason short not long. And how to address issues. Start question why and how, when could.

3rd section

Solutions

5 corresponding paragraph to address solution to question of your first issues.

Second issues corresponding to solution paragraph to each issues you address. let I flow

Analytical Paper Rubric

· Write in a logical understandable fashion for reader.  Convey analytical position, perspective through the written word. 

· Follow the required paper structure shown in the example/template paper posted on course front page (See structure only)

· Watch the video lecture detailing assignment instruction

· Write two full pages, single spaced paper, 11 font, 1 inch margins (Do not submit 1 and half or LESS page(s) FINAL papers) 

· SOLUTION section-  See video lecture detailing a suggested approach for the solution section

· Stop at the end of your second full text page, no reference page needed

Each student will be required to write a paper on a topic of the student’s choice that relates to government. 

The FINAL paper will be due Thursday November 21 on or before 11:59PM
 
(ELECTRONIC submission), 
DRAFT PAPER is DUE Thursday November 14 on or before 11:59PM, electronic submission. No extensions will be granted. More instructions will be provided during the first week of class. The paper will account for 30% of the grade.

Example

image1

image2