Assignment: Policy Analysis Paper

Assignment: Policy Analysis Paper

Assignment: Policy Analysis Paper

ALL in latest APA FORMAT. Recent last 5 years. Only United states articles only

Policy Analysis Paper: This project requires you to critically analyze a health policy of your choice. You will write an 7page paper, examining a particular policy of interest to professional nursing practice and applying a policy analysis framework to understand the impact associated with the implementation of the policy. The paper includes discussion of the policy’s relation to theoretical underpinnings, health advocacy, and leadership requirements, as well as opportunities/needs for inter-professional collaboration..

ORDER A CUSTOMIZED, PLAGIARISM-FREE Assignment: Policy Analysis Paper HERE

Good News For Our New customers . We can write this assignment for you and pay after Delivery. Our Top -rated medical writers will comprehensively review instructions , synthesis external evidence sources(Scholarly) and customize a quality assignment for you. We will also attach a copy of plagiarism report alongside and AI report. Feel free to chat Us

To prepare:

[elementor-template id="165244"]

Select a health care policy and a policy analysis framework to utilize for this Assignment.

To complete:

Write an 7page analysis paper  in which you succinctly address the following:

• Part 1: Define the policy issue.
  • How is the issue affecting the policy arena?
  • What are the current politics of the issue?
  • At what level in the policy making process is the issue?
• Part 2: Apply a policy analysis framework to explore the issue using the following contexts:
  • Social
  • Ethical
  • Legal
  • Historical
  • Financial/economic
  • Theoretical underpinnings of the policy
• Include in this section:
  • Who are the stakeholders of interest?
  • Is there a nursing policy/position statement on this health care issue? If so, who developed it?
• Part 3: Policy options/solutions
  • What are the policy options/solutions for addressing the issue? Include at least three levels of options/solutions: no change; partial change; radical change or maximum change.
  • What are the theoretical underpinnings of the policy options/solutions?
  • What are the health advocacy aspects and leadership requirements of each option?
  • How does each option/solution provide an opportunity or need for inter-professional collaboration?
  • What are the pros and cons of each suggested change? Include the cost benefits, effectiveness, and efficiency of each option along with the utility and feasibility of each option.
• Part 4: Building Consensus
  • Outline a plan for building consensus around your recommended option/solution for solving the policy issue.
• Part 5: References
  • ONLY Latest APA format and recent article no morentan 5 years all from united states

On  separate page: include two references separate for this section below

One page

Write 1- to 2-paragraph succinct summary of your policy analysis paper. Include at least two of the options or solutions for addressing the policy and the resulting implications for nursing practice and health care consumers.

A Sample Of This Assignment Written By One Of Our Top-rated Writers

Policy Analysis Paper

Policy analysis is a systematic assessment of the technical and political consequences of alternatives suggested to address public problems. It entails the evaluation of policies or programs and the outcome of the analysis. Policy analysis uses quantitative and qualitative data and various approaches to the identified problem. It produces opinions for debates about public policy and generates evidence used in decision-making in public policy. The purpose of this paper is to conduct a policy analysis of a policy of interest and employ a policy analysis framework to establish the impact of implementing the policy.

Part 1: The Policy Issue

The selected policy is the Smoke-Free Arizona Act, which stipulates that individuals will not be subjected to secondhand smoke in a majority of public places and workplaces. The only exemptions to this law are private residences (if not used as a licensed child/adult care or health care facility), retail tobacco stores, hotel and motel rooms not above 50% designated as smoking, veterans and fraternal clubs when not open to the public, ceremonial use by American Indians, outdoor patios, and various theatrical performances.

How the Issue Is Affecting the Policy Arena

The issue of smoking in public places and workplaces has affected the policy arena as individuals are pushing more states to enact similar policies that will promote smoke-free air. Consequently, many cities, states, and countries are passing policies that mandate all public places and workplaces be smoke-free (Flor et al., 2021). Besides, the issue has led to immense progress in the US and globally to enact strong smoke-free laws. Currently, 28 states and hundreds of counties and cities in the US have passed comprehensive smoke-free policies covering restaurants, bars, and workplaces. Public health authorities have come to the conclusion that the only approach to protect non-smokers from secondhand smoke is to enact policies mandating completely smoke-free workplaces and public places (Flor et al., 2021). Besides, the authorities have agreed that other approaches, like separate smoking and non-smoking sections and air ventilation systems, do not eliminate exposure to secondhand smoke.

The policy does not hinder a political subdivision of the State from adopting other laws or regulations that are more restraining than the act. Besides, the act does not revoke any existing laws or regulations that are more restrictive. According to the Arizona Department of Health Services (ADHS) (2018), various Arizona communities had passed their smoke-free workplace policies before the statewide law, which significantly pushed the introduction of the Smoke-Free Arizona Act. Furthermore, Arizona has a long tradition of grassroots non-smokers’ rights activity and numerous organizations committed to tobacco control and smoke-free environments, which have steered the full implementation of the act. An alliance referred to as “Smoke-Free Arizona” has been leading the advocacy effort to support the Smoke-Free Arizona Act.

Level in the Policy-Making Process

The Smoke-Free Arizona Act was passed in November 2006 and became effective on May 1, 2007. It is currently in the implementation stage of the policy-making process. The ADHS, through the Office of Environmental Health, is mandated with education, compliance, and law enforcement (ADHS, 2018). ADHS contracts with the state’s fifteen counties to help with enforcement.

 Part 2: Application of a Policy Analysis Framework

Social

The main objective of the Smoke-Free Arizona Act is to protect customers, employees, and the general public from the adverse effects of secondhand smoke in enclosed public places and workplaces. Banning smoking in public places may reduce smoking habits among individuals reducing behavioral health issues related to nicotine addiction (Catalano & Gilleskie, 2021). Besides, reducing exposure to secondary smoke might lower the health effects associated with passive smoking and thus promote a healthier community.

Ethical

            The policy will ensure that residents in Arizona enjoy the right to breathe clean air by reducing exposure to secondhand smoke. It also protects the health of all Arizona residents, particularly the most vulnerable populations, like children, seniors, and people with existing health conditions. The policy upholds the ethical principles of beneficence by promoting better health outcomes for the general population through smoke-free air (Catalano & Gilleskie, 2021). The act also promotes nonmaleficence by protecting Arizonians from passive smoking-related illnesses that often affect their health and wellbeing.

Legal

The Smoke-Free Arizona Act will likely increase legal lawsuits against people who violate the law. For example, in the eleventh year after the act went into effect, from May 1, 2017, to April 30, 2018, a total of 1,148 complaints alleging violations of the act were filed statewide (ADHS 2018). A majority of the complaints were about individuals smoking, keeping, or having ashtrays located outside within twenty feet of an entrance. The ADHS Smoke-Free Arizona Program is receiving remarkable support from the Education and Health Section attorneys from the Office of the Arizona Attorney General and the Office of Administrative Counsel and Rules.

Historical

            The policy implementation is likely to be successful considering that similar smoke-free workplace policies had been enacted in various communities in Arizona before the statewide law. These communities represent roughly 13.6% of Arizona’s population (ADHS, 2018). Therefore, implementing these workplace policies increases the likelihood that statewide compliance will also be successful.

Financial/economic

            The Smoke-Free Arizona Act will have a major economic impact on healthcare costs by reducing the incidence of diseases caused by secondhand smoke. Passive smoking causes health conditions that cost the US healthcare system more than $300 billion annually, and about $5.6 billion is lost productivity due to secondhand smoke exposure (Bird et al., 2020). Some individuals may argue that the ban on public places may affect some businesses like restaurants and businesses. However, if the smoking ban could have an adverse economic effect on these establishments, the effect does not seem to be so severe as to cause business failure.

Theoretical underpinnings of the policy

The policy was based on the theory that smoking bans and restrictions are effective approaches to decreasing exposure to secondhand smoke. Theories propose that smoking restrictions, which ban smoking indoors, reduce exposure to secondhand smoke, lower the number of cigarettes a person smokes each day and increases the number of smokers who quit (Bird et al., 2020). Smoking bans are more effective than smoking restrictions in reducing exposure to secondhand smoke by about 72% in the workplace and decreasing the number of workers who smoke.

                           Stakeholders of Interest and Nursing Position Statement      

The stakeholders of interest in this policy include Arizona residents, healthcare providers, and ADHS. Arizona residents are stakeholders since the policy affects air quality and lowers their exposure to secondhand smoke, which puts their health at risk. Health providers have advocated for policies that ban smoking in public owing to the health effects passive smoking has on non-smokers. The American Nurses Association (ANA) acknowledges that smoking directly contributes to the common causes of preventable disease, disability, and mortality in the US. Thus, it is the position of the ANA that there should be no exposure to secondhand smoke; hence, it is expanding nursing efforts to lower exposure to secondhand smoke (ANA, 2020).

Part 3: Policy options/solutions

The policy issue on secondhand smoke can further be addressed by prohibiting the sale of tobacco in pharmacies and drugstore retailers. Studies show that when the sale of tobacco products in pharmacies is banned, tobacco use reduces in surrounding areas. With the increase of RNs and APRNs employed in pharmacies, it is important to ensure that all healthcare facilities where patients access healthcare are tobacco-free, including pharmacies and drugstores (Sonnenberg et al., 2020). An advocacy aspect of this option is for providers working in pharmacies and drugstore retailers to undergo tobacco cessation training to support their customers. The solution offers an opportunity for inter-professional collaboration since various health professionals working in pharmacies and drug retail stores will collaborate in educating their customers on the importance of smoking cessation on their health (Sonnenberg et al., 2020). The advantage of this option is that it will significantly lower tobacco use and related health conditions. However, it might reduce profits for pharmacies and drugstores.

Bans on tobacco advertising, promotion, and sponsorship can address secondhand smoking, particularly in areas accessible to adolescents, while increasing media campaigns promoting tobacco use prevention. Tobacco advertising bans lead to drastic declines in the awareness of promotional activities by tobacco industries. Based on a study of tobacco use before and after the introduction of advertising bans in various countries, it is approximated that comprehensive advertising bans lower smoking initiation by about 6% and smoking prevalence by 4% (Selph et al., 2020).

The health advocacy aspect of this option will be to educate legislators on how enacting a policy that bans tobacco advertising can lower tobacco use. The solution can promote interprofessional collaboration when providers from different professionals collaborate to formulate a policy on banning advertisements that they present to the legislators for enactment. Regulating advertisements and the promotion of tobacco products can reduce the prevalence and initiation of smoking among adolescents and youths (Selph et al., 2020). However, the disadvantage is that the option does not guarantee that youths will stop buying tobacco products.

Another solution to the policy issue is advocating for increased prices and taxation on tobacco products. Taxation is considered the single most effective public health intervention to decrease tobacco use and related diseases. Raising taxes on tobacco products reduce affordability and thus decreases smoking rates and intensity. On average, a 10% cost increase reduces tobacco use by at least 5% (Whitehead et al., 2018). An advocacy strategy will be for healthcare providers and organizations to push state legislators to enact laws that will increase the taxation of tobacco products to lower their affordability. The positive impact will be greater for lower-income populations who have a higher risk of smoking-related diseases and more effective for youths and adolescents. Increased prices have a greater effect on lower socio-economic groups and thus decrease health inequalities (Whitehead et al., 2018). Nevertheless, it might encourage tax evasion and illegal importation from nearby states for personal use.

Part 4: Building Consensus

The recommended option is to have a policy that increases prices and taxation on tobacco products to reduce affordability and tobacco use. The plan is to meet an elected lawmaker who will help push the agenda in the state legislature. Consensus building will include an initial face-to-face meeting for the initial relationship-building. Besides, discussions that will require key agreements will be through in-person meetings. The lawmaker will be engaged in identifying major interventions that will help to attain the goals of the recommended policy option. This will involve mutual fact-finding, brainstorming ideas, clarifying interests, and developing multiple proposals for every likely option. The collaborative problem-solving approach will help achieve exceptional outcomes in the policy process.

Conclusion

The identified healthcare policy is the Smoke-Free Arizona Act, which prohibits smoking in most enclosed public places and workplaces in Arizona. The ADHS is mandated to enforce the law and ensure that Arizona residents are free from secondhand smoke exposure and its harmful health effects. The policy can potentially improve the general population’s health and lower healthcare costs. Options for the policy issue on secondhand smoke include banning the sale of tobacco in pharmacies and drugstore retailers, banning tobacco advertising, and increasing prices and taxation on tobacco products. This will lower the prevalence of smoking-related health conditions and the associated healthcare costs.

 References

Arizona Department of Health Services. (2018). Smoke-Free Arizona Act It’s A Benefit, Not a Ban. Arizona Department of Health Services. https://www.azdhs.gov/documents/preparedness/epidemiology-disease-control/smoke-free-arizona/reports/

ANA. (2020, March). Position Statement: Prevention and Cessation of Tobacco and Other Nicotine Products. https://www.nursingworld.org/

Bird, Y., Kashaniamin, L., Nwankwo, C., & Moraros, J. (2020). Impact and Effectiveness of Legislative Smoking Bans and Anti-Tobacco Media Campaigns in Reducing Smoking among Women in the US: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland), 8(1), 20. https://doi.org/10.3390/healthcare8010020

Catalano, M. A., & Gilleskie, D. B. (2021). Impacts of local public smoking bans on smoking behaviors and tobacco smoke exposure. Health Economics, 30(8), 1719-1744. https://doi.org/10.1002/hec.4280

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [CDC]. (2018). Smoking and Tobacco Use, Secondhand Smoke (SHS). https://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/secondhand_smoke/general_facts/index.htm.

Flor, L. S., Reitsma, M. B., Gupta, V., Ng, M., & Gakidou, E. (2021). The effects of tobacco control policies on global smoking prevalence. Nature medicine, 27(2), 239-243. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41591-020-01210-8

Selph, S., Patnode, C., Bailey, S. R., Pappas, M., Stoner, R., & Chou, R. (2020). Primary care–relevant interventions for tobacco and nicotine use prevention and cessation in children and adolescents: updated evidence report and systematic review for the US preventive services task force. Jama, 323(16), 1599-1608.doi:10.1001/jama.2020.3332

Sonnenberg, J., Bostic, C., & Halpern-Felsher, B. (2020). Support for Aggressive Tobacco Control Interventions Among California Adolescents and Young Adults. The Journal of adolescent health: official publication of the Society for Adolescent Medicine, 66(4), 506–509. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jadohealth.2019.11.302

Whitehead, R., Brown, L., Riches, E., Rennick, L., Armour, G., McAteer, J., … & Reid, G. (2018). Rapid evidence review: Strengths and limitations of tobacco taxation and pricing strategies. Edinburgh: NHS Health Scotland.

[elementor-template id="165244"]