NR552 Week 5 Discussion, Funding for Global Health

Funding for Global Health NAME Chamberlain College of Nursing NR552: Economics of Healthcare Policy DATE In a time when the United States struggles with balancing the budget, would you advocate for spending United States dollars for global health assistance to support developing countries? Describe the social, political, or economic implications associated with your answer. Week 5: Funding for Global Health Since the great depression, the United States has been facing the toughest economic and budgetary challenges (Garrett, 2009). The challenges pose the greatest problem of balancing the budget. Despite this, it cannot afford to reduce or eliminate its global financial assistance especially on health (Garrett, 2009). This is because the assistance has potential impacts on political influence, global stability, humanitarian concern, and national security (Garrett, 2009). The U.S has been one of the most influential financial donors. The U.S should continue providing global health assistance to poor countries. This comes with several social, political and economic implications as discussed in the next paragraphs. Poor countries face serious health concerns such as HIV/AIDS and other chronic diseases. Due to low income, foreign assistance becomes an integral part in combating these diseases (Addison et al., 2015). Continued assistance would improve the situation leading to reduced mortality rates and human suffering thus, improving social conditions (Addison et al., 2015). It has been the value of the American citizens to assists the suffering and to protect human dignity. Also, global health is significant to the U.S security and the global security at large. Therefore, the U.S can improve its national security and public health by strengthening global health’s disease control strategies, prevention, response, and even detection (ODPHP, 2018). Global health assistance to poor countries has important health benefits to the U.S itself. A number of issues related to global health can directly affect health in the U.S. Infectious diseases outbreak, contaminated pharmaceuticals, and foodborne diseases can be spread from one country to the other through travel and trade (ODPHP, 2018). For instance, the outbreak of Ebola virus in 2014, H1N1 influenza in 2009, and the SARS epidemic in 2003 threatened the U.S public health (ODPHP, 2018). Strengthening health systems in the poor countries can help them combat and prevent the spread of these diseases. This can help prevent their spread to other countries including the U.S. combating the spread of infectious diseases is a global problem that requires a collaborative effort. Improved health also fosters social development in the poor countries. Global health assistance is deep-rooted in the U.S domestic politics and international politics. Foreign policy recognizes it as a legitimate issue. Continued global health assistance places the U.S at the helm of world leadership (Garrett, 2009). It persuades other countries to join the course and wins the confidence of poor countries, thus advancing U.S global political interest (Garrett, 2009). Nationally, it boosts the capacity to solve local problems and promotes the values of the U.S. This improves the people’s confidence in government thus promoting the political agenda of the political party in power. On economic implications, eliminating disease burden in poor countries creates a healthy workforce that provides the much-needed labor for economic development (Garrett, 2009). Reducing the potential of cross-border spreading of infectious diseases keeps the American workforce healthy and ensures continued supply of the much-needed labor for economic development (Garrett, 2009). It also saves people money that could otherwise be used to treat the diseases. The U.S economy also depends on the economies of poor countries who provide important products through imports and market for U.S products. Promoting their economic development through health assistance also boosts the U.S economy (Garrett, 2009). To conclude, the government should continue spending more dollars on global health assistance to support poor countries because it represents the moral values and beliefs of the United States. The government should reduce spending on areas of little public interest to address the problem of the budget deficit. When properly implemented, global health assistance has shown to have political, economic, and social significance. References Addison, T., Niño‐Zarazúa, M., & Tarp, F. (2015). Aid, social policy and development. Journal of International Development, 27(8), . Garrett, L. A. (2009). The Future of Foreign Assistance Amid Global Economic and Financial Crisis. Council on Foreign Relations: January, 21. Office of Disease Prevention and Health Promotion. Retrieved from Schwank, O. (2012). Global Health Initiatives and Aid Effectiveness in the Health Sector. Background Paper–World Economic and Social Survey 2012 DRAFT. RESPONSE TO PEER POST: Rosalinda, I read your post and can understand your viewpoint. However, there are a lot of misconceptions about the value of foreign aid. It is strategic investment in building a stronger America abroad. Extreme poverty in regions across the world may not seem relevant, given the challenges we face domestically, but those areas of vulnerability give terrorists potential ways to disrupt our national security and way of life. Therefore, by addressing global health, America advances its own national strategic interests. There is research validating that supporting public health worldwide will enhance U.S. national security, increase prosperity at home and abroad, and promote democracy in developing countries and those in transition. In a 2015 white paper, countries that received the highest levels of per capita health aid enjoyed near-immediate results in terms of improved state stability metrics, including a higher quality of governance, lower degrees of corruption, enhanced social cohesion, and a more vibrant civil society (Daschle & Frist, 2015). Investments in the well-being of others pay not just humanitarian dividends but potentially strategic dividends as well. Reference Daschle, T. & Frist, B. (2015, November). The case for strategic health diplomacy: A study of PEPFAR. Retrieved on August 9, 2018, from SUMMARY POST FUNDING FOR GLOBAL HEALTH: By stabilizing vulnerable communities, foreign aid strengthens our national security. Lack of attention to the burden of disease in developing countries may depress demand for goods and services and thus threaten the jobs of Americans. Strategic aid promotes economic prosperity while bolstering self-reliance and opening markets and trading opportunities to the United States. By focusing on global health interventions U.S. policymakers have a means to improve the lives of people around the globe, and thereby build stronger, more stable, more prosperous, and more capable partners. The impacted population is better able to contribute as members of local and global society, generating jobs, fueling market economies, holding governments accountable and serving as first responders to their own needs. America has benefited from its leadership in the world, and in an increasingly interconnected society, we should continue to make investments in our shared future. Carole B.