Health Policy Assessment PowerPoint and Transcript

Health Policy Issue Option 3: Adult Immunization

Introduction

Adult citizens within the United States have the right to choose whether to be vaccinated against contagious diseases or not. However, people working in certain positions in the government have to be vaccinated not only for their protection but also to safeguard the people they interact with from the risk of spreading the disease. Many vaccines are mandatory when one is a government employee, that may nt apply to non-government employees. One example would be the Anthrax vaccine. Vaccination among adults working for the government needs attention since the government’s effort to curb the spread of infectious diseases implies that all government officials who interact with many people, and in crucial positions should be vaccinated (Hughes, 2021). Vaccination of government officials working in administrative and elective positions should be mandatory to prevent the spread of infections in government premises and avoid risking the lives of citizens by unvaccinated government officials. The three main stakeholders that will be affected by the mandatory immunization policy include government officials working in elective and administrative positions, members of the public, underserved populations, and human rights groups.

Government workers will be affected positively in that vaccination will protect them from contagious diseases except for those against vaccination since they will view the policy as a violation of their freedom of choice. This applies especially to those who travek internationally on a frequent basis or come into contact with those from foreign nations. Families of the government officials will benefit from the policy since vaccination of their family members means safeguarding them from diseases and death thereby promoting their emotional and social well-being. However, human rights groups and/or religious foundations are likely to be affected negatively due to the mandatory nature of the policy, and the contrast that exists between religious beliefs and scientific principles on vaccination. Underserved populations are also likely to feel left out while the government makes vaccination mandatory for some state officials. Some state officials from underserved populations will benefit from the policy since it is aimed at protecting state officials, their families, and the public from contagious infections.

Influence on Decision-Making

Stakeholder Needs

The key stakeholders affected by the state officials’ mandatory immunization policy include the state officials, their families and members of the public, human rights groups, and underserved populations. Nonfinancial needs of the affected stakeholders include healthcare, justice, spiritual, and sociocultural welfare. State officials are highly vulnerable to infectious agents because they frequently come into close contact with people with unknown contagious diseases statuses (Dooling, 2021). In that regard, state officials need to be vaccinated to protect them from contracting contagious diseases in case of body contact with infected people and surfaces. Additionally, state employees have sociocultural needs, which include conservation of cultural heritage including cultural beliefs. There sometimes arise conflicts in public health when cultural beliefs contrast with the scientific concepts including vaccination (Dooling, 2021). The conflict increases vaccine resistance thereby presenting a case of breach of the right to freedom of choice to either be vaccinated or not.

Human rights activists also have healthcare needs including protection from infectious diseases in different ways such as vaccination, justice, and sociocultural needs. However, the policy on mandatory vaccination will likely provoke them to go to court seeking its nullification. Although it is fair to fight for the right to freedom of choice, it is crucial to ensure that people forgo their pride and ego for greater health and social benefits (Porat et al., 2021). Therefore, human rights activists are expected to view the policy positively rather than as an infringement of human rights. The underserved populations would feel ignored because the policy pushes for mandatory vaccination of some state officials and yet they have not been considered for vaccination. In this regard, it is crucial to eliminate preexisting healthcare and socio-cultural disparities because the policy is not intended to reduce healthcare disparities among social populations since the targeted state officials include people from diverse backgrounds.

Health Policy Influence

The three key stakeholders that have a great influence on mandatory vaccination include government leaders, state officials, and human rights groups. The government has powers to control state operations. It has a great influence on the acceptance of the policy since failure to comply with the policy can result in ethical and professional implications in which the government can sack unwilling workers (Porat et al., 2021). The state officials whom the policy applies also have a significant influence since they can decide to quit their jobs depending on their levels of vaccine resistance. In that regard, high resistance will have serious negative implications whereas low resistance levels will be insignificant. Further afield, human rights activists have a great influence on the policy since they can take the matter to court arguing that the policy contravenes the freedom of choice (Albarracin et al., 2021). Meanwhile, stakeholders that have a subtle influence on the policy include state officials’ family members, religious groups, and marginalized populations. Family members of the state officials can only convince their relatives to either take the vaccine or leave it but the final decision lies with the officials.

Benefits and Disadvantages

The state officials who are the target of the mandatory vaccination policy will benefit from the policy through protection from contagious diseases. Secondly, the family and friends of the officials will experience psychological and social well-being when the state officials are vaccinated since vaccine resistance is associated with uncertainties regarding the likelihood of being infected by contagious diseases and death from the infections (Porat et al., 2021). Consequently, the ambiguity causes emotional and social tension among family and friends of people who are the most vulnerable to contagious diseases. However, the marginalized populations will feel left out since no policy has been implemented to increase their access to quality healthcare services (Hughes, 2021). On the other hand, state officials from such communities will in turn gain because they will access vaccines that would otherwise not have been accessed if they would not be in the positions requiring mandatory vaccination. Additionally, religious and cultural groups will be disadvantaged since the policy contradicts their spiritual and cultural beliefs that perpetuate vaccine resistance.

Value Conflict Analysis

The value conflict will arise concerning the perceived benefits and harms of the mandatory vaccination policy among the stakeholders. While the state is proposing the policy to safeguard state officials against contagious diseases, some of the officials can be unwilling to be vaccinated based on cultural and religious beliefs that encourage vaccine resistance (Porat et al., 2021). Distrust also exists due to controversial conspiracy theories regarding the negative effects of vaccines (Albarracin et al., 2021). Additionally, human rights activists pushing for the freedom of choice can lobby for the nullification of the policy based on infringement of fundamental rights. However, doing so would not only derail the government’s effort to curb the spread of infectious diseases but also jeopardize the safety of the intended beneficiaries. Furthermore, the policy will significantly compromise religious and cultural values that encourage vaccine resistance while increasing the healthcare outcomes of the beneficiaries.

References

Dooling, K. (2021). The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices’ updated interim recommendation for allocation of COVID-19 vaccine—United States, December 2020. Retrieved from MMWR. Morbidity and mortality weekly report, 69.