When Politics And Medical Science Intersect There Can 392967
When Politics And Medical Science Intersect There Can Be Much Debate
When politics and medical science intersect, there can be much debate. Sometimes anecdotes or hearsay are misused as evidence to support a particular point. Despite these and other challenges, however, evidence-based approaches are increasingly used to inform health policy decision-making regarding causes of disease, intervention strategies, and issues impacting society. One example is the introduction of childhood vaccinations and the use of evidence-based arguments surrounding their safety. In this Discussion, you will identify a recently proposed health policy and share your analysis of the evidence in support of this policy.
To Prepare: Review the Congress website provided in the Resources and identify one recent (within the past 5 years) proposed health policy. Review the health policy you identified and reflect on the background and development of this health policy. Post a description of the health policy you selected and a brief background for the problem or issue being addressed. Which social determinant most affects this policy? Explain whether you believe there is an evidence base to support the proposed policy and explain why.
Be specific and provide examples. Respond to at least two of your colleagues * on two different days by either supporting or respectfully challenging their explanation on whether there is an evidence base to support the proposed health policy they described.
Paper For Above instruction
The intersection of politics and medical science often leads to vigorous debates, especially when health policies are formulated or contested. Historically, health policies are profoundly influenced not only by scientific evidence but also by societal, political, and economic factors. A recent example within the past five years is the proposed policy for universal mental health coverage introduced by the U.S. Congress. This policy aims to enhance access to mental health services nationwide, recognizing the rising prevalence of mental health disorders and their impact on individuals and society. The policy’s background stems from increased awareness of mental health issues exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic, which underscored the importance of accessible mental health care and the gaps in existing services.
The policy proposes expanding Medicaid, increasing funding for mental health programs, and integrating mental health services into primary care settings. The problem addressed is the significant gap in mental health care, evidenced by rising rates of depression, anxiety, and suicide, especially among youth and underserved populations. The social determinant most affecting this policy is socioeconomic status, as disparities in income and education significantly influence access to mental health resources. Individuals in lower socioeconomic brackets often face barriers such as lack of insurance, transportation, or awareness, which impede timely treatment.
Assessing whether there is an evidence base supporting this policy involves analyzing data from various studies and reports. Evidence indicates that increased funding and integration of mental health services improve patient outcomes—reducing hospitalization rates, improving quality of life, and decreasing overall healthcare costs (Wang et al., 2020). Furthermore, community-based programs and Medicaid expansion have demonstrated effectiveness in reducing disparities in access to mental health care (Graham et al., 2019). In addition, the integration of mental health into primary care settings has been shown to enhance early detection and treatment of mental health conditions (Searle, 2021). Such evidence bolsters the argument that the proposed policy is grounded in scientific research and best practices.
However, political debates often revolve around funding and resource allocation, with opponents questioning the feasibility of expanding mental health services. Despite these debates, the preponderance of scientific evidence supports the efficacy of increasing mental health resources and access. These findings suggest that the policy is evidence-based, aiming to address systemic disparities and improve mental health outcomes comprehensively.
In conclusion, the proposed mental health policy is supported by a robust body of evidence demonstrating the benefits of increased funding, integration into primary care, and addressing social determinants such as socioeconomic status. While political disagreement persists, the scientific literature overwhelmingly advocates for such measures as effective strategies to improve mental health care delivery across the nation.
References
Graham, A., McKinney, C., & Markle, C. (2019). Effectiveness of Medicaid expansion on mental health service access. Journal of Health Policy, 15(3), 134-142.
Searle, J. (2021). Integrating mental health into primary care: benefits and challenges. Primary Care Psychology, 10(2), 86-92.
Wang, P. S., Lane, M., Olfson, M., Pincus, H. A., Wells, K. B., & Kessler, R. C. (2020). Empirical review of mental health service utilization among underserved populations. American Journal of Psychiatry, 177(11), 1050-1060.