It is the endeavor of the school-based health care policy program to ensure that all school children access primary health care without discrimination whatsoever. In effect, the number of school absenteeism and school dropout will be reduced significantly and increase the number of students graduating from high school. As such, the following form the objectives of the policy: 1. Diversify funding for school-based health care clinics thus ensuring that the program remains stable.
With enough resources, ensure that school children receive quality health care as a result of enhancement of the program; with the overall community being target beneficiaries. 3. Reinforce the current efforts of providing quality school-based health care by ensuring that best practices are endorsed on a national level. 4. Encourage the local communities to take more part in the establishment and delivery of school-based health care and also encourage financing by the local communities.
With school-based health care provision specifically targeting a population that is need of health care, lobby for support from State and Federal levels of governance. 6. Establish and enhance regular and reliable support by the state and federal government thus ensuring continuity of the program. Policy options To address the unstable financing of the school-based health care policy program the following policy alternatives can be used: 1. “Do nothing” option: under this option, the current unreliable funding using partly resources from the local community, state and private resources should continue.
Continuing with the current strategy of financing will lead to insufficient coverage of school-based health care. Resources to implement and enhance the school-based health care provision will remain limited and intermittent and will not achieve the above policy objectives. 2. Incorporating the school-based health centers in the State Children Health Insurance Program (SCHIP). Legislation has already been passed to ensure that SCHIP covers school-based health care. Although this is a great move towards financing and covering health care, it is still restricted in that it can only operate at a state level.
For it to address the situation nationally, it would require that all States pass such legislation. To avoid this challenge, it would still be wise to have school-based health care program endorsed by the federal government whose funding would ensure a wider coverage. Nevertheless, it is an improvement from the traditional funding by states. 3. Federal funding in addition to local and state option: if the school-base health care policy program was to get federal funding, then there would be an assured provision of health care to all school children.
The Children Health Insurance Program (CHIP) for instance would be guaranteed to be sustainable with federal grants and at the same time continue with the existing state grants. The importance of retaining the existing funding mechanism is to make the direct beneficiaries (local communities in every state) to own up the program which would ensure its sustainability. Endorsement of the school-based health care policy program at all levels of governance would eventually see the program being incorporated in the national health care system.
This would be an achievement in terms of attaining the policy objectives since more resources would be available. It is important to note that the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (P. L. 111-148) has authorized the federal government to establish a school-based health care grant program (NASBHC, 2010). Pursuing this option would therefore be in tandem with this provision. Emergency appropriations are also provided for in order to run the school-based health care program. Evaluation criteria
The federal funding, option (3), presents as the most viable policy option in addressing the objectives of the school-based health care policy program. This is based on its potential to ensure sustainable and regular funding, its ability to offer a bigger share of resources, its potential to address the current needs in school-based health care and future prospects in health care delivery and the fact that there is almost a guarantee of political will and consideration. In terms of sustainable and regular funding, in implementing the federal funding, it should be noted that this will be possible since this will be a mandated funding.
With such certain resources, it is possible to deliver health care to all schools. In addition to ensuring fairness in accessibility of health care to all children, the consistent federal funding would ensure that health care is of quality. It should be noted however that the costs of health care using this option would increase tremendously. In addition, it is possible to predict administrative burdens due to high costs involved in running the program. This has been noted in the past according to a 1999 Report of the National Assembly on School-Based Health Care (NASBHC, 1999).
Changes in political will may occur with changing political administrations thus creating unnecessary inconsistencies. The federal grant option is also a good opportunity to provide enough resources for establishing and running the program. This would include enough human resources (health professions) thus ensuring quality health care. This is however at an extra cost of administration among other expenditures as noted above. A federal financial contribution to the school-based health care program has a chance to not only serve the current problems but also future health care delivery challenges.
This is in consideration that there is a wider political support whose aim would be mainly to establish sustainable quality health care and implement changes as per changing health care needs (Mason, Leavitt & Chaffee, 2002).
Reference
Brindis, C. D. and Sanghvi, R. V. (1997). School-Based Health Clinics: Remaining viable in a changing health care delivery system. Annual Review of Public Health, 18: 567-587. doi:10. 1146/annurev. publhealth. 18. 1. 567 Dailard, C. (2000). School-based health centers and the birth control debate. The Guttmacher Report on Public Policy, 3(5). Guttmacher Institute.