CREATE A THOROUGH RESPONSE FOR THE FOLLOWING POST:

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.

Access to quality healthcare is the key social determinant that affects this policy. Many people in crisis lack regular mental health care due to financial or systemic barriers. Geographic challenges also prevent access to consistent care. These barriers escalate crises, requiring external interventions. Marginalized communities face higher rates of such incidents, compounding racial and socioeconomic disparities.
Evidence strongly supports the MHJA’s approach. Crisis Intervention Teams (CIT) have reduced violence and arrests during emergencies. Denver’s STAR program sent mental health professionals instead of police. In six months, STAR resolved 748 incidents without arrests, proving the value of trained responders. Additionally, Knapp and Wong (2023) found improved crisis response reduced costs and incarceration rates and boosted mental health outcomes.
In conclusion, the MHJA is grounded in evidence supporting mental health-focused interventions during crises. By addressing systemic inequities and leveraging proven models, this policy has the potential to improve outcomes for individuals while reducing strain on law enforcement.

Discussion post #2:Health insurance is a controversial topic and has been a point of contention for both sides of the political spectrum. Be it coverages, access to healthcare, premiums, and so on, health insurance is not a one-size fits all. However, in 2019, Congress introduced a bill that proposed just that; The H.R. 1384 Medicare for all Act aimed to establish a single health care insurer system run by the government in the United States (Congress, n.d). This bill would enhance upon the preexisting Medicare coverages by adding specialized coverages such as vision and dental care while simultaneously abolishing deductibles and co-pays (Saxe, 2019). This bill would have eradicated private insurance companies and would in a sense simplify the authorization and payment process for health insurance bills and claims.
Proponents of the bill would be of the opinion that this would expand healthcare coverage and access to healthcare (regardless of income or health status) by having all healthcare providers under one general umbrella and reduce general healthcare costs (ibid). Critics, however, would argue that in order to fund such an entity, that would lead to increased taxes and even reduce the quality of care by having one large system that could get overwhelmed too easily. Challenges would also include the uncertainty surrounding the transition period and process in addition to those who are opposed to a system that is entirely government run (Johnson et.al, 2020).

While in theory there are aspects to this bill that could have benefited the general population (such as improved access and coverage), it is my opinion that the potential challenges and drawbacks to the bill outweighed the potential benefits. It should be known that the Medicare for All Act of 2019 did not progress throughout the legislative process to become law. Fear of socialized medicine, opposition from major healthcare system supporter and stakeholders, and potential for major disruption that could result in loss of coverages for Americans, all contributed to the failure of this bill (Oberlander, 2019).

Last Completed Projects