HEALTHCARE POLICY- HEALTHCARE FINANCING - Essay Example

Running Head: CURRENT HEALTHCARE POLICIES AND IMPACT CURRENT HEALTHCARE POLICIES AND IMPACT IntroductionA number of healthcare bills have been introduced in the modern times across nations. In the United States, some of these new legislative bills have sought to implement reforms in the healthcare industry as they seek to protect public welfare in the modern times. One of these bills is the Healthcare Bill 1003 that was created by the Mississippi state in 2012 (Wolf, 2001). In analyzing this legislative bill and its impact to the economy of the country, this essay seeks to evaluate the equity of resources allocation as it explains why the bill should be passed in the modern times.

Analysis of the Healthcare Bill 2012 As earlier mentioned, the Healthcare Bill 2012 is one of the newly introduced healthcare legislative bills in the United States. It creates the Mississippi Smoke free Air act of 2012 by restricting the smoking in public areas such as workplaces, restaurants, bar, and gaming sites. This is in the sense that the bill prohibits people to smoke in any enclosed public areas and places of employment. In addition, it also restricts smoking within twenty feet of building entrances and windows, public commuting areas, in arenas, stadiums, amphitheatres, amusement parks, zoos, playgrounds, and recreational parks (Abood, 2007).

However, the bill acknowledges that smokers are citizens and deserve to be treated as such. Therefore, it allows for the set of designated areas in these above-mentioned public places where smokers are allowed to do whatever they wish. According to Wolf (2001), although there are designated smoking areas for smokers in public places, these regions must be designed in a way that they follow the rule of the law. This is in the sense that they are at least 20 feet away from people seating sites and areas for playing and sports.

In further exploring the impact of healthcare bill 2012, Wolf (2001) observes that despite the fact that under this act smoking is prohibited in public areas. The bill is less concerned about smoking in private residences, private clubs, and private religious ceremonies. Nevertheless, the law could be enforced if at these private places, the place is turned to a childcare or adult care centre, healthcare facility, and private club open to the public and private religious centre open to the public religion ceremonies.

According to Abood (2007), if the healthcare legislative bill is enacted, the bill might be costly to the manufacturers of cigarettes countrywide. This is in the sense that the businesses might lose customers a good number of smokers that used to carry out their acts in public places without caution. However, these businesses might gain new more smokers who never used to smoke; as they have been designated private sites where they could freely smoke without restrictions. In support of these views, Wolf (2001) notes that the ban for smokers could reduce the profit of smoking manufacturers and dealers in the modern society.

Additionally, people employed by business owners in bars and restaurants might lose employment. Further, small business owners might run out of business for the reduction of profit, lose of business and high cost of living in the modern times. The smoking ban lowers the market value of the hospitality and tourism industry. This is according to Abood (2007) who also notes that the smoking ban might lead to a transfer or complete loss of business for Mississippi. This is because not all states in the United States have enacted this law.

In any case, smoking cessation aids results in the decrease in cigarette sells. Further, people who might engage in smoking might experience adverse health consequences for some patrons and employees. This is because cigarette smokers constitute about 18 percent of the U.S. population and the number is inclusive of infants and children. However, the former smokers who quit because of the law constitute of about 19 percent of the population. Nonetheless, in the US about sixty percent of the entire the population has never smoked a day in their lives and these people pay about 55 billion dollars annually toward the health-care costs of smoking.

In further exploring the cost of the healthcare bill 2013, Wolf (2001) states that the smoking results in disease and deaths of millions of people annually. Consequently, this results in the loss of American productivity. This is because most of the victims of cigarette smoking are young people aged about 65 years and below (Wolf, 2001). However, does the ban on smoking in public places really have an impact on the economic situation of bars and restaurants? Empirical studies carried out in regions in which the law has already been in place for a couple of years reveal that smoking ban does not have adverse negative effect on these regions.

In any case, it results in the increment of profit for the hospitality industry. Further, the number of people suffering from heart attacks and acute coronary problems fall by a large margin. Other benefits also include healthcare budget, increased smoking cessation rates, decreased risks of chronic diseases such as heart disease and COPD or other obstructive lung diseases (Abood, 2007). Conclusion I would advocate for the enforcement of this law, as following its enforcement, the country, healthcare sector and individuals would benefit by a large margin.

This is in the sense that due to smoking ban, environmental pollution in public areas is reduced and the number of people suffering from lung cancer or cigarette related diseases would decrease. Furthermore, the overall productivity of the state as well as the country will increase. References Abood, S. (2007). Influencing Health Care in the Legislative Arena . The Online Journal of Issues in Nursing , 1-6. Wolf, E. J. (2001). Legislative issues in healthcare: Preparing for the long road ahead.

Healthcare Executive , 18-22.