Prime Nursing Papers > Blog > Past Papers > Justification for NOT Financing a National Public Health Initiative Response
11
Jul

Justification for NOT Financing a National Public Health Initiative Response

  • Author Charly
  • Past Papers
  • Comments Off on Justification for NOT Financing a National Public Health Initiative Response

Provide Justification for NOT Financing a National Public Health Initiative.

Public health financing contributes to desired population outcomes. However, sustained funding requires taking measures like cost-effectiveness and cost-benefit analysis into account. Public health professionals can influence financing decisions, given their contribution to establishing a political will, which may entail utilizing economic analyses and scientific evidence (Lezine & Reed, 2007). Therefore, this discussion encompasses how public health professionals affect financing decisions and describes the significance of measures suitable for such initiatives. Public Health Professionals’ impacts on future financing by reducing communicable diseases through education and treatment are achievable through public health financing (Laureate Education, 2012). Since public health professionals are involved in such activities and witness their outcomes firsthand, they will likely recommend or advocate for financing policies. Besides, their organizations may incur high costs when population health worsens, especially when preventive services are lacking due to limited funding.

According to Lezine and Reed (2007), public health professionals can influence political will, which requires collaborative practice. Such collaboration creates an avenue for economically analyzing the impacts of the initiatives, which they should also support with scientific evidence. Therefore, balancing the expected outcomes backed by scientific evidence affects financing decisions. Measures that Justify Public Health Financing Cost-effectiveness and cost-benefit analyses are considerable in justifying public health financing. Banta and de Wit (2008) indicated that though significant, cost-effectiveness is rarely utilized in decision-making without disregarding difficulties like inadequate information on costs and outcomes. Cost-effectiveness enables rational choices when it comes to deciding which program to finance. Getzen (2013) showed the cost-benefit analysis’s implications when determining the value of technologies or programs against their costs. For instance, cost-benefit analysis may direct financing for prevention programs rather than expensive technologies that do not guarantee improved outcomes, like those used in cancer treatment.

The discussion encompasses how public health professionals affect financing decisions and describes the significance of measures suitable for such initiatives. Public health professionals’ involvement in interventions supported by financing, alongside their establishment of a political will, indicates their influence. Cost-effectiveness and cost-benefit analyses are suitable in justifying public health financing, considering that they enable rational choices.

References: