To install StudyMoose App tap and then “Add to Home Screen”
Save to my list
Remove from my list
Public health policy analysis
Introduction
Legalization of marijuana has been a heated issue and is featured both in local and national media. The use of marijuana by adults and youth in United States is on the increase. Marijuana use remains a medical problem concern since marijuana users are more susceptible to disorders associated to marijuana use. In the last decades state policies aimed marijuana use for medical purposes, while recent policies are advocating for legalization of marijuana to adults. Public relations campaigns fully advocate for the legalization of marijuana.
The main reason being that prohibition of marijuana cause more harm than good and also fuel violence in the markets. The increased use of marijuana amongst the youth is enough evidence of failed control measures against marijuana. These opinions come together to enhance promotion of marijuana legalization (Gerber et al, 2004).
The recent opinions to legalize marijuana raised concerns to (ASAM) American Society of Addiction Medicine. In April 2012, they had to form committee to develop the reaction due to the proposal of marijuana legalization.
Verified writer
Proficient in: Addiction
5 (234)
“ Very organized ,I enjoyed and Loved every bit of our professional interaction ”
The committee aims at informing the public about marijuana legalization of marijuana and their judgment to the public policymakers. The ASAM recommends that the chemicals in marijuana that deem an effective treatment against some illnesses should be legalized as characterized and standardized products; permitted by the Food and Drug and be dispensed by professional pharmacies just like any other medicine. ASAM’s greatest concern is due to the opinion that marijuana is the most common abused illegal drug in America.
Clear distinction between decriminalization and legalization is necessary in explanation of objectives and negative impact of marijuana legalization. Legalization deals with the commercialization of production, use and sale of marijuana. On the other hand, decriminalization removes penalties to personal use while sale and production of marijuana is prohibited. However, ASAM does not support legalization of marijuana since their research findings reveal that marijuana smoking is not a medicine.
Background and relevance
Marijuana use has several dreadful health effects which raise concern to public health sector. Marijuana can lead to addiction as well as effects of (THC) delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol. Research reveals that 9% of marijuana becomes addicted. Marijuana smokers who try to quit suffer from anxiety, depression, insomnia, irritability, and appetite disturbance. In 1993, the National Institute on Drug Abuse carried a study that found that marijuana led to an estimate of 7% of treatment admissions funded by the government. The number increased to 18% in 2009. In Central and Western Europe marijuana use is a critical public health issue. Marijuana is said to be the basic drug being abused in 21% of the incidents in addiction reform services in Central and Western Europe, and 14% of incidents in addiction reforms services in Southeast and Eastern Europe. Research found that of all drug treatment teenage patients, 83% were undergoing treatment for basic marijuana use. Retrieved from http://www.asam.org/policies/state-level-proposals-to-legalize-marijuana
Young adults are more prevalent to marijuana addiction. Research from U.S. treatment centers shows that if drug use is started at tender age there is greater risk of dependence. Early use of marijuana might be one of the causes of increased admissions for marijuana addiction treatment. In Europe, the number of patients seeking treatment due to marijuana addiction increased from 200% from 1999 till 2006, and recently stands at 30% of overall admission cases. There are other many health hazards associated to marijuana use apart from addiction. ASAM great concern put a lot of weight to the following major areas.
The brain: substances from marijuana results to short-term impact on the brain in relation to attention, verbal fluency, sensory perception, learning, memory, and perception of time. The greatest concern is marijuana consumption during teenage where brain development is in progress. This results to decreased neurocognitive activity.
Mental health: NIDA found that marijuana use is associated to increased anxiety, schizophrenia and depression. Research studies brought out age factor as a significant risk factor. Research shows that there is correlation between early marijuana consumption and worsening and development of symptoms of schizophrenia. High usage of marijuana can cause acute psychotic reaction as well as initiating the beginning or degeneration of schizophrenia in susceptible persons.
Prenatal or perinatal: some research findings have suggested that marijuana causes retarded fetal growth including length, gestational age, birth weight, and head circumference. Other long-term effects vary with age. They include depression, decreased wit, and addiction.
Respiratory or pulmonary: research reveals that marijuana contains more tar, carcinogen and carbon monoxide as compared to tobacco. Marijuana is likely to deposit tar four times as compared to tobacco. Chronic smoking has detrimental effects to the lungs. Marijuana smokers inhale greater volumes of smoke and hold it for longer periods. Research reveals that marijuana smokers are more susceptible to bullous disease as compared to cigarette teen smokers.
Addiction among other health hazards associated to marijuana outlines that marijuana use affects both the user and their family members. ASAM is concerned since they see that the current discussion is only concerned with reforms to the ongoing marijuana policy and less concerned with detrimental impact of marijuana consumption. Harmful health and safety impacts of marijuana will be of great importance in the decision making in the development a marijuana policy with an aim of improving public health.
Objectives of marijuana legalization
Legalization of marijuana is considered as a public and safety measure aimed at reducing drug-associated crimes and as a remedy to harm caused by marijuana control such as incarceration among others. Advocators of marijuana believe that legalization of marijuana will reduce illegal marijuana trade and violent crimes associated with the illegal trade. They also believe that it will be a source of revenue as well as reduce cost of law enforcement. There is an ongoing research to investigate the impact of marijuana legalization in United States. Prohibition of drugs such as marijuana increases costs of businesses operations due to violence involved to the illegal drug trafficking. The price of marijuana is expected to reduce to 80% since the social price depend on regulation and taxes. Retrieved from http://www.asam.org/policies/state-level-proposals-to-legalize-marijuana
RAND research reveals that marijuana legalization I California would not reduce drug trafficking as well as violence associated with illegal drug trafficking. Research reveals that diverted marijuana from legalized production in a given country affects all the others since it would lead to reduction of marijuana across that country. Price elasticity of marijuana under legalized plan is complicated since addictive substances behave differently from non-addictive substances. Marijuana legalization will change it from being luxury for first time users to basic necessity to the marijuana addicted persons. Legalization of marijuana is likely to be accompanied by legal advertisement of commercial use marijuana this is likely to increase marijuana consumption. Although most research were carried to investigate effect of marijuana legalization in California, the findings might also apply in another state. Legalization of marijuana might cause effects to the taxes, prices, markets as well as spilling over their effects to the neighboring countries. Legalizing marijuana might be a right step since it will substantiate impact of violent related to illegal drug trafficking. It is also believed that public health problems of criminal justice interventions exceed their benefits. This leads to the question as to whether legalization proposals should be passed and amended. Lessening toughness to marijuana use might not be so much fruitful since there can be little or no reduction in the level of substantial costs and incarceration rates (Morgan, 2011).
Negative impact of legalizing marijuana
Any state considering altering legal condition of marijuana should consider the health hazard involved as well as the profit of coping up with criminalization of marijuana use and sale. Legal drug use provides evidence that it is national public health issue. Legal drugs recently cause a havoc on public health sector since it results to substantial health and financial burden. Legalizing marijuana is likely to lead to an increase in the social costs due to taxes imposed due to the sale of the drugs. The cost of coming up with a regulatory plan for legal marijuana is also unknown. Although legalization of marijuana might be aimed at increasing funding for prevention, addiction and treatment of commercial activities linked to legal marijuana. Health effects of gradual increase use of marijuana would rise sharply. It is also likely that legalization of marijuana will be accompanied by increase in number of marijuana related issues such as driving under marijuana influence, violations in act regulating age limits as well as public use violations. Research reveals that marijuana is the most famous drug associated to drugged driving. Fatal injuries, crashes and even deaths are commonly linked to habitual marijuana use. Drugged driving will raise the cost of injuries, loss of lives and crashes. Decreased highway safety is a major negative impact of marijuana legalization (Gerber et al, 2004).
American Academy of Pediatrics predicted that legalizing marijuana will result to increased use of marijuana amongst the youth. The fact is that there is a positive relationship between drug use and availability. Advocators of the policy should consider detrimental effects of marijuana availability to the society if the law was passed and amended. There will be an increased incidents of marijuana related cases, addiction as well as the regulatory cost that will be passed to the public in form of taxes.
International context
The advocators of marijuana legalization policy usually come from experience from nations with less strict policies on drug use. It should not be understood that no country has ever legalized marijuana. Most countries use decriminalization policies where they have a specific limit of marijuana or a given drug use for personal purposes while drug use for commercial services remains illegal. In a country like Netherlands, commercial drug businesses are illegal and are constrained with criminal sanctions. Other than being arrested, drug users are put in check by the Commission for the Dissuasion of Drug Abuse (CDT). This commission dispenses the appropriate punitive measures to the drug user where some are withdrawn if they obtain treatment against addiction. A country may be penalized for imposing such a policy to the citizens. For example, recently there was a proposal that Uruguay government would sell marijuana for personal use to the public. However, the fate of this proposed law is not clear. In addition, if the law was to be passed Uruguay would be fined by the United Nations International Narcotics Control Board for going against the United Nations Single Convention of 1961. ASAM encourage exhaustive study and evaluation of distinct drug laws and programs both local and international which will enlighten the public on future strategies that aim at enhancing public health. Retrieved from http://www.asam.org/policies/state-level-proposals-to-legalize-marijuana
2012 State-Level proposals on marijuana legalization
Several states such as Oregon, Colorado and Washington brought up proposals to legalize marijuana. For instance, Colorado Amendment 64 also known as Regulate Marijuana Like Alcohol Act, if passed the policy would legalize possession, purchase, use, transport and display certain amount of marijuana by people aged 21 years and above. The state will be responsible for regulation of marijuana sector via licensure of manufacturing, cultivation and retail stores and testing facilities. The Oregon Cannabis Tax Act if passed would bring up Oregon Cannabis Commission to regulate cultivation and sale of marijuana to people aged 21 years and above. The Washington State Initiative Measure No. 502, if passed it would regulate and license marijuana distribution, possession and production to people aged 21 years and above. Washington policy would also withdraw civil and criminal activities authorized by the policy. Upon passing these policies, would change everything for example, it would change marijuana from being luxury to first time users to personal use, it will also accelerate tax collection, and commercial use and sale of marijuana. The full impact of effect of legalizing marijuana are unknown (Morgan, 2011).
Conclusion
There is great need of considering public health consequences of a policy before proposing to make changes. There are more negative consequences linked to marijuana legalization as compared to the benefits that advocators think of. People are called upon to study various polices and programs so that they can be able to make appropriate policies that aim at improving the public health of citizens. The legalization policy will make marijuana more accessible thus increasing the risk to the youths who might fall in the trap of consuming the drugs. Marijuana legalization will also lead to an increased activities associated to marijuana such as drugged driving which leads to loss of lives, injuries and crashes.
Recommendations
I oppose proposals to legalize use of marijuana in any of the states in America. There is more harm than good of implementing this policy. The predicted public health costs associated to marijuana legalization are high and hurt the citizens and the public policymakers. Health professionals and physicians should enlighten people on the probable effects of implementing such a policy. Marijuana is associated to a lot of negative effects and thus should not be legalized.
The following should be recommended:
References
Gerber, R. J. (2004). Legalizing marijuana: drug policy reform and prohibition politics. Westport, Conn.: Praeger.
Morgan, K. (2011). Legalizing marijuana. Edina, MN: ABDO Pub. Co..
State-Level Proposals to Legalize Marijuana. (n.d.). State-Level Proposals to Legalize Marijuana. Retrieved May 6, 2014, from http://www.asam.org/policies/state-level-proposals-to-legalize-marijuana
Source document
Introduction:
This paper will discuss the necessity for social policy change in regards to the mental health system (or lack thereof) within the United States as well as internationally. The need for reform is tantamount in order for marginalized groups with mental disabilities to function well-beyond their capacities. An analysis of policy is needed to better understand the challenges that face current social workers and mental health professionals at this time. Therefore, this paper will discuss eight articles that pertain to the social work school of thought, and will be utilized to a great degree in making an argument for social reform.
The peer-reviewed, scholarly articles are presented and discussed to frame a basic foundation on what needs to be done, and if these changes are feasible in nature to our society. Since the topic is on Mental Health Policy, it is important to note any biases or hesitations that a social worker may have towards intellectual and mentally handicapped persons, and view this problem with an open mind free from negative beliefs.
Looking at this in the broad sense, this is not just a financial problem, nor a personal problem, but rather, this is a societal problem. There are many different ways in which mental health disorders can be attributed to. Crime, drug addiction, and many other factors are linked to some mental health issues. Depression, which affects millions worldwide can be treated through cognitive behavioral therapy. The best way to treat this problem would be prevention, and that is something that the United States, and the world has been lacking for quite some time. It is important to discuss this issue and provide long-term answers now, lest we face more financial burden and social burdens due to our own ineptitude.
See more: how to write an analysis paper on an article examples
Literature Review:
The first article that will be discussed for this analysis is titled Mental Health and Poverty in the Inner City. This piece of literature examines the correlation between the rise in urbanization and mental health problems (Anakwenze & Zuberi, 148, 2013). It is a fact that the number of people who live in urban populations steadily increased within the millennium and is projected to go up in the next decade (Anakwenze & Zuberi, 148, 2013). This article provides evidence linking the rise of the urban population to the growing number of mental health disorders within it.
Living in a densely populated area can bring about many factors that can stimulate mental health problems. Noise, pollution, and lack of adequate green space are some of the problems that individuals face within cities (Anakwenze & Zuberi, 148, 2013). It is no wonder that mental health is of vital importance to the urban population, particularly the urban poor. Poverty is a strong characteristic of city life, and thus, it is necessary to see if there is causation between city-life and mental instabilities (Anakwenze & Zuberi, 148, 2013).
The article argues that the relationship between an urban environment and mental health problems can be described as cyclical and non-linear (Anakwenze & Zuberi, 148, 2013). The cycle is reinforced through poverty and this can nurture mental illness if not properly taken care of. The authors challenge current mental health policy and advocate for a system that specializes in prevention and treatment across all populations (Anakwenze & Zuberi, 148, 2013).
Crime, substance abuse, and other mechanisms that originate from urban environments can have a bi-directional relationship in regards to mental health and urbanization (Anakwenze & Zuberi, 148, 2013). They reinforce each other, causing a strong hold around the community. It is necessary for a new mental health policy to advocate for interventions within individuals and institutions in order to promote such an improvement in urban life. The many mechanisms that cause socio-economic disparities are outlined in great detail within the article; for example, dense and diverse populations, can cause great stress to the individual (Anakwenze & Zuberi, 149, 2013). It requires a person to be homogenous in their frame for social networking and diversification (Anakwenze & Zuberi, 149, 2013). The advocacy for a better social policy for urban environments cannot be valued enough. The second article, titled: Grand Challenges: Integrating Mental Health Services into Priority Health Care Platforms highlights the necessity for integrating mental health care into global programs designed for health.
This synthesizing of mental health policy into global health can have a significant impact in the lives of many individuals all across the globe (Patel et al.,1, 2013). The authors state that mental health problems are among the most frequent and disabling conditions within the planet. It is important to have everyone recognize the gravity of the situation and not take mental health lightly, because it is associated with chronic health problems that can worsen over time (Patel et al.,1, 2013). If left untreated, mental health disorders can have a significant impact on one’s self-care and can be linked to increase morbidity and mortality around the world (Patel et al.,1, 2013). Ineffective treatments can also increase the cost of healthcare and decrease productivity at work, requiring employers to cut costs and become ineffective themselves (Patel et al.,1, 2013). Knowing this, it is important to note that effective treatments for common mental health problems that plague the entire population can be utilized in order to help those in need (Patel et al.,1, 2013).
However, current policies do not allow easy access to such treatments, therefore, reform is needed to make sure that people have access to the treatments they deserve. The authors argue for a more cohesive network for doctors and patients to communicate about mental health (Patel et al.,1, 2013). For example, there are less psychiatrists in the continent of Africa, than there are in the state of Massachusetts (Patel et al.,1, 2013). Even in developed countries such as the United States, primary care facilities are the governing parties involved in the mental health care system (Patel et al.,1, 2013). This does not allow for adequate treatment and can exacerbate problems even further (Patel et al.,1, 2013). The article states that there needs to be integration in regards to primary care facilities and mental health professionals. The next article, Service development for intellectual disability mental health: a human rights approach talks about the population of people with intellectual disabilities (ID) in regards to mental health reform.
The authors state that people with intellectual disabilities suffer from major mental disabilities more frequently than their peers (Evans et al., 1098, 2012). Thus, it is imperative to review the current mental health policy and if necessary, change it to better suit the growing need for people with intellectual disabilities (Evans et al., 1098, 2012). The article uses the mental health policies in Australia as an example, appraising the standards set up by the United Nations on the rights of persons with disabilities. The article demonstrates the need for an in-depth analysis on mental health care on a global scale and must understand the paradigm in which mental health policies are shaped (Evans et al., 1098, 2012). They use the human-rights framework as the perspective in which to base all mental health problems accordingly. Public mental health services must be aware of the ever growing number of patients with intellectual disabilities and plan accordingly to suit the needs of this population (Evans et al., 1098, 2012).
In order to adequately perform these services, great amounts of funding is required to create a stable environment in which to get help for mental disorders (Evans et al., 1109, 2012). This is the problem the authors face and recognize. However, they urge to apply more funding into the mental health system because mental health should be higher on the priority for the population than most would realize (Evans et al., 1109, 2012). They see it as an investment into the well-being of the community. Considering the human-rights approach, it is necessary to improve specialist services and apply better social practice foundations to help these marginalized groups (Evans et al., 1109, 2012). Mental Health Parity: Moving Closer to an Effective National Policy states that mental illness is one of the most leading causes of disabilities in North American’s between the ages of 15-44 (Hebert, 28, 2009). Even with this wide and diverse population, the problem of mental illness still goes unrecognized in the eyes of the public (Hebert, 28, 2009). Thus, the cost of individuals and families, be it emotional, or financial, can skyrocket if left untreated (Hebert, 28, 2009).
As with all the articles, the author advocates for a stronger mental health system for children and adults. They discuss the growing inequity of coverage between mental and physical health, as well as the proportion of insurance coverage in regards to mental health (Hebert, 28, 2009). Therefore, it is important to utilize every resource available to combat mental illness, and the burden should not have to be on the sufferer alone. More resources and a better capacity for understanding mental disorders must be initialized and maintained for proper care of individuals in need (Hebert, 28, 2009). Individuals with dual diagnoses of mental illness and substance abuse disorders are rampant and left untreated by the public, increasing crime and social problems nationwide.
The article stresses that “mental illness is as frightening and debilitating as any major physical disorder” (Hebert, 28, 2009). Social workers and advocates for parity between the mental healthcare system and the physical healthcare system have made great strides within the last decade, however there is still much to be done (Hebert, 28, 2009). Research shows that mental health is directly related to physical health, and the equity between the two systems needs to be further enhanced in order to achieve considerable gains within the community (Hebert, 28, 2009).
The article, Cultural Access and Mental Health: An Exploratory Study, talks about the rising rates of depression and other mental illnesses in regards to public concerns. The authors focus on twenty Italian regions and the relationship between health expenditures and hospital discharge rates (Crociata et al., 219, 2013). They cite that mental health disorders are growing in an exponential rate and that proper care must be maintained and development of new programs must be issued in the future (Crociata et al., 219, 2013).
Well-being deprivation has been discussed in the article as one of the major causes of mental illnesses among the population (Crociata et al., 219, 2013). This increases the rates of depression and other psychological problems and can stem from factors such as poverty (Crociata et al., 219, 2013). In accordance with the title, the authors believe that culture-related programs can produce positive effects to combat these epidemics (Crociata et al., 219, 2013). Well-being deprivation, in particular, is a preventable problem that results from the lack of attention to oneself. It is important to recognize this as a growing problem and something that the public needs to be aware of in order to maximize prevention and minimize contracting other mental health problems (Crociata et al., 219, 2013).
Cultural access allows for empowerment of the self (Crociata et al., 219, 2013). These can include going to concerts, or reading books, and strengthens involvement within the community or within the self. It provides a sense of who we are in this world and how we relate to others in a given timeframe (Crociata et al., 219, 2013). Being involved in these activities can stimulate the ability to take care of one’s physical, emotional, and mental well-being. Thus, advocacy is important in order to allow a greater number of people to be able to take care of themselves through cultural activities (Crociata et al., 219, 2013).
Outlining the Scope of Behavioral Health Practice in Integrated Primary Care: Dispelling the Myth of the One-Trick Mental Health Pony, is an article that addresses integrated primary care practices in conjunction with mental health treatments. The authors indicate that in order to adequately prepare for all aspects of health, primary care facilities must be equipped to handle mental health problems (Miller et al., 2013).
They conducted a literature review of several research articles to determine the service of behavioral health practices in regards to primary health care facilities. Depression was the most dominant screening and the most likely to be treated (Miller et al., 2013). However, many other illnesses are lacking in proper treatment by primary care facilities because they do not have the full range of services of other mental health care facilities (Miller et al., 2013). This fragmentation care between the two facilities is apparent in society, as mental health problems are still rampant and left untreated. Therefore, the best option is to have primary care facilities incorporate many of the practices of mental health care and in turn, will help those that need medical treatment (Miller et al., 2013).
Allowing a collaboration between healthcare practices is empirically supported to add to the continuity of the primary healthcare system. It will enhance and create opportunities for collaboration in order to improve the prognosis of many mental health patients. It is also seen to have a boosting effect on the economy of the primary healthcare system, as more patients will utilize these facilities more (Miller et al., 2013).
If left fragmented, it will lead to higher costs and poorer outcomes and will eventually exhaust those who are willing to help mental health patients and their families (Miller et al., 2013). The authors advocate for integration and de-fragmentation of services in order to help the public.
The next article, International and national policy challenges in mental health, discusses mental health in regards to the global health agenda. The global health agenda is a list of health problems that are being focused on in order to better humanity (Jenkins et al., 101, 2011). These goals are backed by several financial institutions and thus, are more likely to have better research and development against these problems (Jenkins et al., 101, 2011). However, mental health is not specified in the agenda, and therefore, are not fully funded and less likely to have results.
The authors talk about the World Health Organization (WHO), along with the World Bank, as key players in the financial and global resources that entail such research (Jenkins et al., 102, 2011). They insist that not much attention is given to mental health because physical ailments such as AIDS, or influenza, take a much more precedent over mental health concerns. It is not specified at all in the priorities of the WHO and the World Bank (Jenkins et al., 102, 2011).
The WHO and World Bank created Millennium Development Goals in order to have a structured itinerary on research and development against public health problems (Jenkins et al., 102, 2011). However, there are no goals specifically for the quality of mental healthcare, leaving the mental healthcare system to be on the backend of financial funding and backing by these major organizations (Jenkins et al., 102, 2011).
The lack of goals presented by the WHO presents many challenges to mental health, including invisibility and marginalization of people with mental disorders (Jenkins et al., 103, 2011). This is a travesty in its’ own right because many people suffer from these disorders with no help or no treatment available to them.
The final article that I will incorporate to support my argument for a better mental health policy is titled, What kind of evidence do we need for evidence-based mental health policy? The case of the Better Access initiative. This article discusses the Better Access scheme of Australia’s commonwealth on health and aging (Allen & Jackson, 696, 2011). While being very expensive, the authors state that the new mental health policy by Australia helps many of its’ citizens by becoming one of the most significant advances of mental health policy to date (Allen & Jackson, 696, 2011).
While not perfect by any means, this new policy has helped those with mental disorders attain better prognoses and a higher quality of living as opposed to the previous regime (Allen & Jackson, 696, 2011). The Better Access initiative has raised many positive evaluations from several governmental sources and while expensive, is projected to help even more in the future (Allen & Jackson, 696, 2011). The authors, who are both psychiatrists themselves and do not get money from the Better Access Initiative assess the risks and rewards of this system and weighs in on the future outcome of the new policy (Allen & Jackson, 696, 2011). In summary, they believe that this initiative is a step closer to achieving a better quality of healthcare for those with mentally disabling disorders (Allen & Jackson, 696, 2011).
It is important to note that this is a somewhat new system and that there are relatively many problems, however as with any new policy, it is a step in the right direction even with the humongous financial cost to the government.
Discussion:
I chose the topic of mental health because there are a lack of policies towards such a large problem that affects millions of Americans. I thought that there is no substitution for quality care in regards to mental disorders and disabilities and this is indeed a heavy burden that we place upon ourselves. I am diagnosed with severe major depressive disorder and it took a long time for me to realize what I was doing was out of the norm in society. Therefore, I have taken great care to advocate for those with mental disorders in order to ensure that they get quality care, myself included, and that we get a chance for a quality of life equitable to those without mental disorders.
While major depressive disorder is common among Americans, it is important to note that cognitive behavioral therapy is only available to those who have insurance, and they need a referral to see a specialist in the matter. I know this from experience, and I am deeply saddened to know that not many people are as lucky as me when it comes to medical expenses. I am a United States Veteran, and I am subject to free healthcare services provided by the Department of Veterans Affairs. However, if it were not for this, I would not be among those who will be receiving help due to lack of monetary and financial backing. I can only imagine those people who do not receive treatment for their disorders. It is truly sad that we live in a world where families can be torn apart due to lack of healthcare and prevention, and we need to focus on this problem now rather than later.
I believe that the new Affordable Care Act within the United States is a step in the right direction, however, we must be sure to maintain a strong foothold in regards to mental health. I agree with many of the articles that call for an integration between primary care and mental health facilities in order to accommodate those with mental health needs. In order to do this, a policy would need to be enacted that would combine both healthcare systems into one, with the backing of the American Medical Association among other groups. Many groups may be opposed to this scenario, as this will place a great amount of financial burden among insurance companies. However, in order to do what is right, I believe that we must make great financial sacrifices to help those in need. We need to make the changes now, rather than later to see results.
I may not know much about the entire healthcare system, however, I do know that it we are morally obligated as a society to take care of those who are in need of help. Perhaps the materialistic nature of capitalism has led us astray, but I have to believe that people are generally good. If we start to implement some of these problems as goals worldwide, we can increase the financial backing and research into solving these mental health disorders. Doing this will increase functionality of humanity as a whole, and we will be better able to tackle problems of other natures.
When we look at what is at stake, it is easy to gather than many of our problems in society can be attributed to some sort of mental health problem. Crime, drug addiction, and many other factors can be controlled easily with the right treatment plan. I am not saying that this will be the cure for everything, but I do believe that if we take better care of our citizens, then we will gain greater rewards as well.
Financially this will come at a great cost, but I believe the cost can be negated by the potential rewards that a new policy will bring. It is up to us to make sure that this happens, because the problem of mental health disorders will not go away if we ignore it. In fact, it will become widespread and until we can find a way to prevent or contain it, then we are only digging ourselves deeper and we will have to involve more financial backing as opposed to taking care of it in the first place. I see it as an investment to the future, because in reality, people are the future, and whether we like it or not, the more functional a person can be, the greater amount of good that she or he can give to the world.
References
Allen, N., & Jackson, H. (n.d.). What kind of evidence do we need for evidence-based mental health policy? The case of the Better Access initiative. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry, 696-699. Anakwenze, U., & Zuberi, D. (2013). Mental Health and Poverty in the Inner City. Health & Social Work, 147-157. Crociata, A., Agovino, M., & Sacco, P. (2013). Cultural Access and Mental Health: An Exploratory Study. Soc Indic Res, (118), 219-233. Evans, E., Howlett, S., Kremser, T., Simpson, J., Kayess, R., & Trollor, J. (n.d.). Service development for intellectual disability mental health: A human rights approach. Journal of Intellectual Disability Research, 1098-1109. Hebert, A. (2009). Mental Health Parity: Moving Closer to an Effective National Policy. Journal of Financial Service
Professionals, 63(2), 28-31. Jenkins, R., Baingana, F., Ahmad, R., McDaid, D., & Atun, R. (2011). International and national policy challenges in mental health. Mental Health in Family Medicine, 8(2), 101-114. Miller, B., Levey, S., Payne-Murphy, J., & Kwan, B. (2014). Outlining the Scope of Behavioral Health Practice in Integrated Primary Care: Dispelling the Myth of the One-Trick Mental Health Pony. Families, Systems, and Health, 32(3), 338-343. Patel, V., Belkin, G., Chockalingam, A., Cooper, J., Saxena, S., & Unützer, J. (n.d.). Grand Challenges: Integrating Mental Health Services into Priority Health Care Platforms. PLoS Medicine, E1001448-E1001448.
Public health policy analysis. (2015, Oct 18). Retrieved from https://studymoose.com/public-health-policy-analysis-essay
👋 Hi! I’m your smart assistant Amy!
Don’t know where to start? Type your requirements and I’ll connect you to an academic expert within 3 minutes.
get help with your assignment
