Consider The US National Federal Health Policies

Consider The Us Nationalfederal Health Policies That Have Been Adap

Consider the U.S. national/federal health policies that have been adapted for the global health issue you selected from the WHO global health agenda. Compare these policies to the additional country you selected for study. Reflect on the global health policy comparison and analysis you conducted in Part 1 of the Assignment and the impact that global health issues may have on the world, the U.S., your community, as well as your practice as a nurse leader.

Paper For Above instruction

Introduction

Global health issues pose significant challenges that transcend national borders, requiring coordinated efforts through policies that are adaptable and effective across different contexts. The World Health Organization (WHO) global health agenda highlights numerous pressing issues, including infectious diseases, non-communicable diseases, health system strengthening, and health equity. This paper examines the adaptation of U.S. federal health policies to address a selected global health issue, comparing them with policies implemented by another country. The analysis explores the similarities and differences in policy approaches, and reflects on the implications for global health, the United States, local communities, and the nursing profession as a leadership force in health promotion and disease prevention.

Selection of Global Health Issue and Countries

The selected global health issue for this analysis is infectious disease control, with a particular focus on pandemic preparedness and response. The United States, as a high-income nation with advanced health infrastructure, has developed various policies for infectious disease mitigation, including the Public Health Emergency Preparedness policies, the Infectious Disease Rapid Response Framework, and vaccination programs. For the comparative country, I have chosen South Korea, which has demonstrated exemplary responses to infectious diseases like MERS and COVID-19 through its robust health system and effective policy implementation.

US Federal Health Policies on Infectious Disease Control

The U.S. has established federal policies aimed at preparing for and responding to infectious diseases. The Pandemic and All-Hazards Preparedness Act (PAHPA) of 2006 is a cornerstone policy aimed at improving the nation's capacity to respond to health emergencies (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2020). PAHPA provides a framework for inter-agency coordination, resource allocation, and rapid deployment of medical countermeasures. Additionally, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) implements the Strategic National Stockpile, which holds critical medical supplies, and the National Vaccine Program Office coordinates immunization efforts nationwide (CDC, 2021).

These policies focus on early detection, rapid response, vaccination, and public communication strategies. During the COVID-19 pandemic, these frameworks were activated and highlighted areas needing improvement, including supply chain management, testing capacity, and public trust in health advisories. The U.S. policy emphasizes individual rights alongside public health imperatives, often leading to political debates about mandates and civil liberties.

South Korea’s Infectious Disease Policies

South Korea’s response to infectious diseases like MERS and COVID-19 illustrates an effective model supported by rigorous policies and a technologically advanced health infrastructure. The Korean Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (KCDC) plays a central role, with an integrated disease surveillance system, rapid testing capabilities, and transparent communication strategies (KCDC, 2020). South Korea's Infectious Disease Control and Prevention Act mandates prompt reporting of cases, quarantine measures, and data sharing among government agencies and the public.

The Korean policy emphasizes preemptive testing, contact tracing, and digital technology use, including mobile phone alerts and electronic tracking for quarantine enforcement. During the COVID-19 pandemic, South Korea's quick, coordinated response resulted in lower transmission rates and higher public compliance with health advisories than many other countries. A key component of their approach is their investment in health infrastructure and technology, coupled with high public trust and compliance.

Comparison of Policies

Both the U.S. and South Korea recognize the importance of preparedness, surveillance, and rapid response in controlling infectious diseases. However, differences emerge in implementation and public engagement. The U.S. policy framework emphasizes decentralization, with various federal agencies working in coordination but often influenced by political considerations about individual freedoms. The U.S. approach is reactive, often challenged by logistical challenges during crises such as testing shortages and resource distribution.

In contrast, South Korea's policies are highly centralized and proactive, with an emphasis on technology and data integration. Their legal framework facilitates immediate action, including mandatory quarantine and widespread testing. Public trust in government and health agencies facilitates compliance, which is crucial in controlling outbreaks.

Another key difference lies in the culture and health infrastructure. South Korea's prior experience with MERS fostered a culture of compliance and rapid governmental response, while the U.S. response was hampered initially by fragmented health policies and political debates over mandates and privacy concerns.

Implications for Global Health and the U.S.

The comparison underscores the importance of adaptable, technologically integrated, and transparent health policies for effective infectious disease control. Globally, nations can learn from South Korea's proactive strategies and the U.S.'s emphasis on resource allocation and research. Strengthening international cooperation, data sharing, and health infrastructure are vital for managing future threats.

In the U.S., the pandemic revealed vulnerabilities in health policy coordination, supply chain resilience, and public trust. Moving forward, policies should incorporate greater emphasis on health equity, community engagement, and technological innovation to enhance global and domestic preparedness. The interconnected nature of global health crises requires leadership grounded in evidence-based, culturally sensitive policies that promote collaboration across borders.

Impact on Communities and Nursing Practice

As a nurse leader, understanding these policy frameworks is essential for effective community health promotion and emergency preparedness. Nurses serve as frontline responders and trusted sources of health information; thus, they can advocate for policies that prioritize health equity and culturally competent care.

The insights from this comparison emphasize the need for nurse leaders to engage in policy advocacy, foster community resilience, and use technology to disseminate accurate health information. In practice, this involves fostering trust, promoting vaccination, and supporting vulnerable populations during outbreaks. Nurse leaders can also contribute to policy development by participating in interdisciplinary collaborations, thereby ensuring that health policies are practical, ethical, and community-centered.

Conclusion

Analyzing global health policies for infectious disease control reveals significant insights into the strengths and weaknesses of national responses. The U.S. and South Korea illustrate contrasting strategies—decentralized versus centralized, reactive versus proactive—that impact the effectiveness of outbreak management. Lessons learned underscore the importance of adaptable, transparent, and technologically integrated policies. For nurse leaders, these insights translate into a vital role in community advocacy, health education, and policy engagement, ultimately supporting global health security and resilience.

References

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). (2021). Strategic National Stockpile. https://www.cdc.gov/phpr/ns.htm

Korea Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (KCDC). (2020). Response to COVID-19. https://www.kdca.go.kr/eng/

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (2020). Pandemic and All-Hazards Preparedness Act (PAHPA). https://www.phe.gov/about/ORHP/Pages/PAHPA.aspx

World Health Organization. (2020). Global health agenda on infectious diseases. https://www.who.int/global-health-issues

Kim, J., & Lee, S. (2021). South Korea's responses to MERS and COVID-19: Effectiveness and lessons. International Journal of Infectious Diseases, 106, 35–41.

Ghaffar, A., et al. (2021). Strengthening health systems for pandemic preparedness in low- and middle-income countries. Health Policy and Planning, 36(1), 8–13.

Boys, C. J., et al. (2022). The role of public trust in pandemic response: A comparative analysis. Global Public Health, 17(4), 621–635.

Berger, Z., et al. (2021). Technology and pandemic preparedness: Lessons from South Korea. Journal of Global Health, 11, 03036.

Nandi, A., et al. (2020). Health policy response to COVID-19: Comparison of U.S. and South Korea. Journal of Public Health Policy, 41(4), 443–460.

World Health Organization. (2019). Best practices in infectious disease outbreak response. https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9789241516449