Politics, Policy and Health: An Analysis of the National Drug Strategy Policy - Coursework Example

POLITICS, POLICY AND HEALTH: AN ANALYSIS OF THE NATIONAL DRUG STRATEGY Name of Student Name of Institution Name of Professor Date of Submission Politics, Policy and Health: An Analysis of the National Drug Strategy Policy (Tobacco Strategy 2012–2018) Introduction Citizens the world over are faced with a myriad of challenges that requires adaptive and sometimes corrective measures in order to change and/or improve their living standards. The general public is always plunged with various challenges of social, economic and political nature. As the chief custodians of the welfare of the citizens, the government through the public policymakers must continually formulate, amend, implement and fast track implementation of public policies aimed at addressing these problems. It is the most important and almost sacred function of the government. Indeed, the ability of the government to offer effective solutions to the problems that the citizens face is the true measure of a properly functioning government and the political class and various institutions in general (Considine, 2005; Garston, 2010). The various definitions of public policy are reflective of the various issues that these policies aim to solve. These definitions converge on one key thing; they are planned actions instituted by the government and/or its representatives aimed at tackling an identified problem which affects the citizens. That is, these courses of action are legally designed through the various processes including political process and consistently implemented for a specific purpose (Simon, 1965). A public health care policy is aimed at addressing the health care needs of the citizens with the view of improving living standards and bridging the various social gaps that are rampant in many societies (Ife & Tesoriero, 2006). However, health care problems are evolving therefore; these courses of actions are continually revised to meet the demands of the specific problem at the specific time. They have no clear cut beginning or end. The key attributes of a public health care policy, just like all other public policies, are their “public” outlook. That is, they are formulated with the aim of providing specific heath care solutions to the health care problems afflicting the public. They are designed by the government under the influence of both internal and external forces and implemented and enforced by government or public agencies to serve the common good of the general public (Lindbloom, 1980; Soss, 2010). Therefore, a public health care policy must be responsive and purposive. The purpose and nature of public health policies call for their thorough analysis. Such analysis must be objective yet subjective; which reveals its formulation process, purposes, stakeholders and all aspects of its implementation including successes, challenges and costs. And most importantly, public health policies address matters of life and death; issues that are dear to all and are bound to be subjected to scrutiny by the various stakeholders and even the international community. It is on this backdrop of the responsiveness and purposefulness of public health policies that this analysis with critically assess the Australian National Tobacco Strategy 2012–2018. This landmark policy identifies nine priority areas as follows: 1) Protection of public health from interference by tobacco and tobacco related health problems 2) Strengthening mass media campaigns with the aim of discouraging smoking and encouraging permanent quitting of smoking 3) Encouraging continued unaffordability of tobacco and tobacco products 4) Formulating and supporting programs and partnerships geared towards a reduction of number of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders smokers 5) Bolstering initiatives aimed at reducing smoking amongst communities with high rates of smoking 6) Curtailing all tobacco products promotion efforts 7) Offering of guidelines for future regulations on the tobacco products contents and alternative ways of consuming of nicotine and supply of tobacco 8) Putting stringent measures to govern smoke-free zones and areas 9) Expanding the accessibility of help and support services to facilitate quitting of smoking based on evidence. These priority areas are addressed by the policy with the view of 1) mitigating the side effects of smoking within the social, health and economic contexts 2) reducing the number of smokers in Australia and 3) addressing the inequalities associated with smoking. Criteria The criteria section of this analysis will give an outline of how the analysis will be done. To achieve this, it postulates questions whose answers, answered within laid down criterion, will offer an objective and thoughtful insight into the Australian National Tobacco Strategy 2012–2018. It will also provide the foundation for understanding the applicability of the policy and its further discussion. Criterion 1: Policy Background The background of this policy will be analyzed based on the guidelines for health policy analysis by Cheung, Mirzaei & Leeder (2010). Background analysis gives credibility to the goals and objectives of the policy as well as its proposed measures of addressing the problem(s). This is because a background gives the rationale behind the policy based on factual evidence. It is the foundation upon which the policymakers build the policy and the backdrop on which it is assessed. Therefore, the following questions will used to analyze the background of the policy: Is the policy’s goals, objectives and approaches evidence-based? Has it used empirical data drawn from credible and adequate research-based sources as its foundation? Does the policy tackle the health problem objectively or subjectively? Does it objectively discuss or suggest other plausible approaches to the problem? Criterion 2: Ideology Lindbloom (1980) and Soss (2010) opine that public policies are designed, implemented and enforced by government or public agencies to serve the common good of the general public. They are primarily based on consequentialism; their justification is based on the benefits derived by the greater populace. A public health policy, more than anything, must therefore server and address the health care problems of the greater Australian society and the world by extension. Analyzing this health care policy based founding ideology will therefore deduce the justifiability of the policy while also helping in the identification of key values that are imperative in making policy adjustments. The ideology criteria will therefore be addressed based on the following questions: On what ideological perspectives is the policy based on? Does the policy include the various special interests of the stakeholders it may or will affect? Criterion 3: Goals Cheung, Mirzaei & Leeder (2010) note without conciseness and explicit and constant definition of policy goals, its efforts to achieve the desired outcome will be futile. Goals are the beacons that guide the implementation and the assessment of a policy. A policy document must therefore set clear cut goals that are assessable. The goals must not conflict with each other or even the ideologies and the background of the problem. The following questions will guide this criterion of goal analysis: Are the policy goals clear and consistent throughout the policy document? Are the goals assessable using qualitative, quantitative or a combination of two methods? Are the goals achievable or workable within the context of the environment in which the policy is to be implemented? Criterion 4: Resources One of the contentious issues that have faced some landmark health care policies such as the Obamacare which was implemented beginning 2011 is the disagreements over the availability of resources to implement the policies. The implementation of policies including health care policies always comes with huge financial and human resource implications. Therefore, to effectively formulate and implement a health care policy, an assessment of the government and relevant organization’s capacity in terms of human and nonhuman resources must be considered and assessed. The following questions will help in assessing the availability of resources to implement the Australian National Tobacco Strategy 2012–2018: Does the policy explicitly highlight the financial and human resources implications of its implementation on the government and the relevant agencies? Does the policy highlight the level of capacity preparedness of the government and its agencies in implementing the policy? Criterion 5: Monitoring and Evaluation Health policy implementation usually has huge social, political and economic implications. Therefore, it is imperative that it is properly and timely assessed in order to determine its successful achievement of its goals while also identifying areas that require improvements. Monitoring and evaluation are the yardsticks for qualifying the objectively and relevancy of the policy. This criterion will be assessed based on the following questions: Are the monitoring and evaluation procedures objective, inclusive and considerate of the internal and external factors affecting the policy implementation? Are the procedures relevant to the policy and the environment in which it is being implemented? Are the procedures for policy monitoring and evaluation precise and to the point? Analysis Australian National Tobacco Strategy 2012–2018 is not a new government policy. It is based on the foundation of the several other tobacco laws and other health care policies implemented in the country since 1999. The Intergovernmental Committee on Drugs which drafted the policy notes that the new “strategy recognises the importance of the previous national tobacco strategies that have been in place since 1999, and the substantial progress that has been made under the most recent strategy in 2004–09”. It based primarily on local and international tobacco laws and the sociocultural, economic and political policies (Commonwealth of Australia, 2012). Its predecessor targeted seven priority areas which included use of research or evidence based programs to tackle the problems associated with tobacco use, offering support and encouraging smokers to quit and endorsing and advocating for policies aimed at identifying and tackling the risk factors of smoking among others. Therefore, the new policy builds from the foundation formed by the previous policies and efforts. It is also “a sub-strategy of the National Drug Strategy 2010–2015” which is the umbrella policy aimed at minimizing the effects of drugs in the society (Commonwealth of Australia, 2012). Like its predecessors and the umbrella policy, the National Tobacco Strategy 2012–2018 is based on the needs of the various stakeholders including the general public, the governments, industry organizations and health groups among others. While it was drafted by the Intergovernmental Committee on Drugs (IGCD) Standing Committee on Tobacco, the views of these stakeholders were incorporated into the policy. Citing peer-reviewed, authentic and credible scholarly resources, the policy notes success the country has achieved in its fight to reducing smoking while also recognizes the key areas that need to be addressed. This includes the high number of young smokers especially school going children and teenagers, the extremely high number of smokers amongst Aboriginal people and the Torres Strait Islanders and the high number of smokers amongst “the socioeconomically disadvantaged groups in our community”. The policy notes that such disparities exacerbate the already widening gap of social and economic inequalities in health care provision and accessibility in the country (Commonwealth of Australia, 2012). It is on the backdrop of such challenges and problems in the society and within the healthcare sector that informed the formulation of this policy which identified nine priority areas to address. However, the policy does not claim that it is the cure for all the tobacco related problems in the country. It admits that their target of reducing, to 10 percent, the national smoking rate by 2018 “and halve the Indigenous smoking rate, over the 2009 baseline” is rather ambitious (Commonwealth of Australia, 2012). But it notes this policy can register significant success towards the same with full implementation. Such admission and use of credible scholarly is an indication of a well-researched policy based on scientific evidence and facts. Though it does offer other alternatives, the policy approaches the health care problem from a social, political, economic and cultural perspective (Catford, 2004; Wilkinson & Marmot, 2003). Such a holistic ideological perspective aims at maximizing good for the great many. It is also an appreciation of the various special factors such as culture and social and economic status which put individuals at risk of smoking. While appreciating the achievements and challenges of the previous policies, this new policy identifies areas to be addressed and projects future challenges. It is based on these areas that identify concise, achievable and practical goals, objectives and nine priority areas with a baseline on its predecessor policy. The policy clearly defines the action plan for achieving its two main targets of reducing national smoking rate to 10 percent and halving that of the indigenous tribes by 2018 (Commonwealth of Australia, 2012). The actions are well defined and are specified for each priority area. This also makes them very clear and easier to implement. The actions, the priority areas, overall objectives of the policy and those of the health care sector are clearly interlinked. The policy has a clear cut evaluation and monitoring procedures. The outcome indicators are well-defined and measurable qualitatively, quantitatively or both. It recommends a midterm review in 2015 which can help the government in making the necessary adjustments while also giving a picture of what to expect in 2018. Finally, promotes health capacity by empowering the youths and the indigenous people plus the rest of the stakeholders to join hands in fighting the problems associated with smoking. It calls for collaboration throughout the country in fighting smoking thereby empowering the whole society. Conclusion While it does provide other alternatives in tackling the problem, the Australian National Tobacco Strategy 2012–2018 is a strong policy with meets most of the criteria for analyzing and qualify and great policy. It clearly identifies the problem and offers actionable plans to address them a clear cut approach to measure its overall success. The policy is based on scientific evidence and sets relatively achievable goals. Bibliography Cheung, K., Mirzaei, M., Leeder, S., 2010, “Health Policy analysis: a tool to evaluate in policy documents the alignment between policy statements and intended outcomes”, Australian Health Review, 34, 405-413. Considine, M., 2005, Making public policy: institutions, actors, strategies, United Kingdom: Polity Catford, J., 2004, ‘Health promotion: Origins, obstacles and opportunities’. In H. Kelleher, & B. Murphy (Eds.), Understanding health: A determinants approach (ch. 10), South Melbourne: Oxford University Press. Commonwealth of Australia, 2012, National Tobacco Strategy 2012–2018: A strategy to improve the health of all Australians by reducing the prevalence of smoking and its associated health, social and economic costs, and the inequalities it causes, Commonwealth of Australia. http://www.nationaldrugstrategy.gov.au/internet/drugstrategy/publishing.nsf/Content/D4E3727950BDBAE4CA257AE70003730C/$File/National%20Tobacco%20Strategy%202012-2018.pdf Garston, L., 2010, Public policy making: process and principles, New York: M.E. Sharpe. Ife, J., & Tesoriero, F., 2006, Foundations of community development: A social justice and human rights perspective. In Community Development: Community-Based Alternatives in an Age of Globalisation (3rd ed.) (pp. 53–84), Frenchs Forest, NSW: Pearson Education Australia. Lindbloom, C., 1980, The Policy-Making Process, Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Soss, J., 2010, Remaking America: democracy and public policy in an age of inequality, New York: Russell Sage Foundation. Simon, H. A., 1965, Administrative Behavior: A Study of Decision Processes in Administrative Organization (2nd ed.), New York: Free Press. Wilkinson, R., & Marmot, M., 2003, Social determinants of health: The solid facts (2nd ed.), Copenhagen: WHO Regional Office for Europe. Read More