Health Policy and Law

This article discusses the interests of key stakeholders in a health policy and law case scenario, the application of current laws, policies, and financing, causes of conflict and impact, and evaluation of legal risks and malpractice issues.

Running head: HEALTH POLICY AND LAW 1
Health Policy and Law
Student’s Name
Institution’s Affiliations
Date

HEALTH POLICY AND LAW 2
Interests of Key Stakeholders in the Case Scenario
The case study about Evergreen and the issue of immunisation contains five different
groups of people that showed their diverse interests. Each stakeholder had different
perceptions about the vaccination of people in the three counties. In the case scenario, the
first group of stakeholders is Evergreen legislators. The interest of the legislators is to
terminate the exemption of other people from immunisation due to their strong religious
beliefs. The second group of the participant, in this case, is the professional nurses working in
public schools. The interests of the nurses are to undertake the vaccination process in public
schools as required by the States’ legislation (Sinha & Kumar, 2018). Primary care officers
and paediatricians form the third group of key stakeholders in this case. Another party
involved in the case is the administrators of the public schools found within the jurisdictions
of the state. The interest of the school management is to safeguard the rights of all children
in school; for example, the management mentioned that unimmunised children should not be
forced out of school provided they are not sick. The fifth group of participants is
professionals from the public health department. The last stakeholder is the association of
parents whom their children are studying in the public schools.
Apply Current Laws, Policies, and Financing
The laws that apply to this case depends on the stipulations made by the State
authority. The rules are State-based and should reflect the requirements of the Advisory
Committee appointed to lead all immunisation programs in the Evergreen State. All infants,
children and adolescent must be immunised to prevent the widespread of infectious diseases
in the State (National Conference of State Legislature). Public school and day care
requirements on immunisation are essential in improving the immune system and health of
children and teenagers who had not received any form of vaccination during their infanthood
period (Chervenak, McCullough & Brent, 2016). The law should enable the public health

HEALTH POLICY AND LAW 3
department to change the public school requirements to be attained for effective
immunisation process.
The laws that guarantee freedom of worship also apply to this case. Different people
have distinct perceptions of immunisation because some religions and denominations are
against scientific concepts and procedures (Hughto, Reisner & Pachankis, 2015). The
changes to be made on the existing laws will enable the school administrations to allocate
funds and other essential resources for the immunisation process. Form evidenced-based
practices done by Territorial Health Officers in America show that spending $ 1.00 to
immunise in the immunisation program will save $ 10.20. The State authority have also
pinpointed that the cost of vaccinating one child has increased from $ 275.50 to $ 1882.25.
The increase in the cost of the immunisation program is contributed to development and
inflation cost of the vaccines.
Causes of Conflict and Impact
There is a lot of conflicts observed in this case study; for example, the first conflict
arises from the disagreement between legislators and the stakeholders holding strong
religious beliefs against immunisation. Healthcare providers also have different views
regarding the compulsory immunisation policy to be implemented in all public schools. The
conflict intensifies when the Primary care mentions that the resources and facilities to
accommodate the vaccine and immunisation processes were scarce, therefore, forcing for
amendment of the legislation to enable the school administrators to finance the programs. The
change will lead to financial burdens to the public schools and community at large. Another
type of conflict in this scenario is identified between the public health departments and school
administrations when the public health departments fail to provide commercial insurance that
will bill and finance all vaccination programs in Evergreen State. The conflict between the
school management, primary care and public health department may affect the entire

HEALTH POLICY AND LAW 4
immunisation programs, therefore, increasing the prevalence of infectious diseases in the
State.
Evaluation of the Legal Risks and Malpractice Issues
Lack of the ability to consider the rights of other people is one of the factors that
resulted in the legal risks in the case. The health care officers are not conversant with their
roles in ensuring consistent provision of quality healthcare services to the people. All health
professionals are obligated to provide person-centred practices to all patients (Di Pietro et al,
2015). The primary care should prioritise the needs of the community rather than
complaining about the scarcity of resources and space to hold the vaccine in their offices. The
amendment of the legislation to allow the school administrators to oversee a vaccination
program is another risk that may lead to legal issues because some children may be
disqualified from the school for failing to be immunised. The administration is against it
because all children are guaranteed to receive an education regardless of their religious
beliefs. It a legal risk to force people with strong religious beliefs to accept immunisation
programs in the State (Gostin, 2015). The malpractice is witnessed when the primary care
organisation sent patients to the incompetent public health departments. The public health
department was not aware of the immunisation timeframe, therefore, breaching legal
immunisation schedule in Evergreen State. This malpractice is linked to the spread of the
infectious disease in children and affected the safety of patients in the society.

HEALTH POLICY AND LAW 5
References
Chervenak, F. A., McCullough, L. B., & Brent, R. L. (2016). Professional responsibility and
early childhood vaccination. The Journal of Pediatrics, 169, 305-309.
Di Pietro, M. L., Cutrera, R., Teleman, A. A., & Barbaccia, M. L. (2015). Placebo-controlled
trials in pediatrics and the child’s best interest. Italian Journal of Pediatrics, 41(1),
11.
Gostin, L. O. (2015). Law, ethics, and public health in the vaccination debates: politics of the
measles outbreak. JAMA, 313(11), 1099-1100.
Hughto, J. M. W., Reisner, S. L., & Pachankis, J. E. (2015). Transgender stigma and health:
A critical review of stigma determinants, mechanisms, and interventions. Social
science & medicine, 147, 222-231.
National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL). (2015). Immunisations policy issues
overview. Retrieved from http://www.ncsl.org/research/health/immunizations-policy-
issues-overview.aspx
Sinha, S. K., & Kumar, H. (2018). Assessment of different parameters for discharge against
medical advice at neonatal intensive care unit. Assessment, 4(12).