A Critique of the National Preventative Health Taskforce Analysis - Term Paper Example

Name: Tutor: Title: A critique the National Preventative Health Taskforce Report Course: Institution: Date: A critique the National Preventative Health Taskforce Report Introduction The National Preventative Health Taskforce Report came up with various policy recommendations as regards obesity, tobacco control, alcohol consumption. These recommendations include regulation of alcohol prices, extensive utilization of tax system to demoralize sedentary behavior, increase in the price of tobacco and regulation of manufacturing and packaging of tobacco. This paper set out to analyze whether this report is evidence-based by assessing chapter 1 and 3 of the report (National Preventative Health Taskforce, 2009). Chapter 1: Building a Preventative Health in Australian Communities Strengths The Taskforce should acknowledge that the government represents a bigger promotion personnel that can be mobilized to attain acknowledged targets in obesity prevention, quitting smoking and decrease in drinking (Kickbusch, 2010). The Taskforce Report can be applauded for its courageous utilization of performance indicators to follow-up progress towards health and welfare objectives. Preventive health has satisfactorily developed to permit the utilization of performance indicators and targets as center business tool in the manner we carry out our job (Talbot, and Verrinder, 2010). The Taskforce Report acknowledges the considerably poorer health outcomes among aboriginal and those in low socioeconomic status communities. Tackling the complex health issues that Australia faces requires a multi-faceted approach to promotion of health such as the one the Taskforce Report employs. There is currently little coordination between the public and private sector and hence, the Taskforce Report proposes for a stronger co-ordination between these two to attain the common objective of decreasing the health and economic burdens of obesity, alcohol and tobacco (McMichael, & Butler, 2007) The Taskforce has clear objectives and have a powerful mandate to guarantee implementation. It also works with key leaders to draw vast knowledge and experience. It brings together expertise from different relevant areas and develops standards that can be used across the country (Labonte, 1992). Weaknesses The Taskforce report adopts a public health approach to health promotion. It measures only the benefits of the policy. For instance, the Taskforce declares its dedications to Australian “becoming the healthiest country”. Anyway, everybody prefers good health outcomes to poor health outcomes. On the other hand, resources are limited and people have additional goals to achieve in society apart from health. The Taskforce Report does not evaluate the compliance expenses of its proposals (Baum, 2008). The Taskforce Report underestimates the opportunities of place-centered approaches and the role of government in supporting preventive health measures at the community level. Place-centered approaches tend to enhance social, educational, financial and physical environment within a distinct border so as to enhance health and welfare among individuals residing in that community. There is a disconnection between research and policy-making agenda of the Taskforce Report. Access to information is important as it helps in assessing current problems and possible solutions, in reporting to the community on health and welfare matters and in evaluating measures to make sure reasonable and useful results for the communities (Keleher, 2007). This report has failed significantly to develop a whole government approach to health promotion capable of tackling the upstream social determinants of health and health inequalities in Australia (Ritsatakis, 2009). This report is limited by a main focus on personal health behavior as risk factors for chronic disease whereas it gives little focus on the broader socioeconomic and environmental factors that constrain behaviors and consequently disease outcomes in communities (Blas E, 2010). Chapter 3: Tobacco: Towards world’s best practice in tobacco control Strengths The Taskforce Report recommends for higher taxation so as to curb cigarette smoking. Higher taxation may improve the community’s health for two causes. One, taxation influences the price that all customers pay, even if they do or don’t understand those expenses. Higher taxation may stimulate ‘uninformed’ customers to come up with a good decision by indicating to them the exact future health expenses. Higher taxation also may stimulate ‘informed’ customers to take less than their personally maximum quantity. This is particularly so for products such as cigarettes, which do not have safe level of intake. Second, there is reliable evidence that, as a common rule, smokers tend to overrate the unfavorable health impacts of smoking (Collins and Lapsley 2008). It has been categorically demonstrated that higher tobacco taxation results in reduction in tobacco use whereas the government revenue from the tobacco is increased. Moreover, studies have demonstrated that the reduction in use of tobacco due to increase in prices takes place mostly in socioeconomic disadvantaged groups (Olsen, Dixon, Barnwell, & Baker, 2009). The Taskforce Report recommends for use of advertisement and sponsorship ban to curb smoking. A total prohibition on all types of direct and indirect promotions, campaigns and sponsorships will lead to decrease in tobacco intake. Advertisement of tobacco products lead to its increased use by individuals, especially among the youth (Ritsatakis, 2009). The Taskforce report has recommended for smoke-free environments. This is critical as research studies have shown that those exposed to tobacco smoke are susceptible to suffer from those diseases common in smokers. Second-hand smoke is the major source of death and disability. Studies have demonstrated that segregating places for non-smokers, for examples in hotels and airplane, does not offer adequate protection to those who do not smoke from second-hand smoke. Hence, smoke-free environments, for example smoke-free public places, public transport and places of work, and have been shown to offer protection to non-smokers. The implementation of such policies can result in decreased tobacco use in smokers working in smoke-free places of work and more importantly, a possibility of quitting smoking. Moreover, such policies also decrease the social tolerability and normalization of smoking, hence decreasing the rates of starting to smoke (Laverack, 2009). The Taskforce Report has recommended for health promotion and education. There is an association between the general level of education and tobacco use. Higher level of education leads to lower use of tobacco and vice versa. Tobacco control can only be effective if measures such as higher taxation and promotion bans are used in combination with education. It is important to educate the public on the risk of tobacco smoking (Labonte, 1992). The Taskforce report proposes labeling of the package of tobacco with particular health warnings. Such warnings have been shown to decrease tobacco intake and encourage quitting. Moreover, if the warnings are appropriately positioned and proportioned, they remove the attractiveness of the package (Keleher, 2007). Weakness The Taskforce Report states that “the overall cost of smoking to the economy is more than $ 30 billion each year” (Collins and Lapsley 2008), it gives the impression that smokers are imposing these expenses on those not smoking. Incorrect information or misperceptions of future health expenses may actually contribute to reduction in smoking as opposed to when the risks are correctly perceived. Higher taxation may therefore increase instead of reducing the expenses of misperceptions. Moreover, if individuals overestimate the risks of future health, subsequently promotions warning them to these dangers may not have greater impact (Collins and Lapsley 2008). The validation for the rationality assumption is that individuals are more definite to look for their own interests than are others. Unobserved personality characteristics may also influence smoking. Smokers are probable to vary from those who do not take on this behavior. For instance, smokers are more likely to engage in high risk activities, work in risky work environment or even accept low payment to stomach such risks. Smokers are also unlikely to engage in preventive health activities like putting on seatbelts, flossing their teeth and examining their blood pressure. Smokers are at high risk of being injured while at work or even at home. In addition, they are prone to be heavy drinkers. The high risk taking behavior of smokers reveals a wider pattern of behavior and is not restricted to smoking decisions. Hence, public policies that reduce smoking rate may not attain great increases in life expectancy. Smokers who stops or reduce their smoking rate would definitely experience lower risk of tobacco-associated illness like lung cancer. However, they would not experience a significant increase in their life expectancy (Talbot, and Verrinder, 2010). The healthiest norm adopted by the Taskforce Report does not allow for counterbalancing increases in health expenses emanating from their policies. For instance, when one quits smoking he/she gains weight increasing the risks for developing obesity complications and other related health expenses. Despite the fact that such policies may save lives, they may increase medical expenses for taking care of other conditions. Those who do not smoke incur some health-care expenses that smokers do not (Filozof, et al. 2004). The Taskforce as well as its consultant do not account for the health expenses of discouraging smoking or promoting drugs substitution. The Taskforce does not have a conceptual framework to comprehend why individuals smoke, eat and drink excessively and hence it is hard to analyze and evaluate the impact of policies to decrease these behaviors. A failure to comprehend and understand the causes behind personal behavior implies that future choices cannot be boldly forecasted. This also implies that the probable behavioral reaction of people to policy changes, for example taxes, price regulation and quantity regulation, will be hard to predict, leave alone assess in any significant manner. For instance, if all customers’ preferences are presumed to be ‘irrational’, subsequently the probable implications of policy decisions for the society’s health cannot be established (Australian Government 2007). The rational-addiction Theory The rational-addictive model best explains this. Several types of eating are habit-forming and a few are addictive counting smoking, exercising, going to church, taking heroin and eating weetabix. This does not mean that the behavior of addicts cannot be forecasted. In fact, the Taskforce Report assumes that smokers react in conventional manners to rises in prices and information concerning the health expenses of smoking. The rational addition theory holds that people have simple goals and they tend to select the most appropriate method to attain them. The rationality theory is that individuals select the right method. This does not mean that individuals apply formal rational evaluation (Becker, and Murphy, 1988). Rational behavior is the conventional component in people behavior. To presume irrationality is to discard efforts to clarify or forecast behavior and makes it hard to find out the impacts of policies to change behavior. The principle of rational-addiction theory is to forecast behavior and the impacts of several changes in a better way and not to claim that all addicts are rational. This theory is positive it generates sharper and better-off forecasts that are experimentally accurate and insights into addictive behavior (Becker, and Murphy, 1988). Rational customers make the most of usefulness from constant choices as they attempt to predict the future cost of their preferences according to the rational-addiction theory. A rise in present intake raises future intake of products and so present utility relies on past intake incase of addictive products. For instance, the rational addiction theory forecasts that addicts will react to price changes, and addicts might pay greater consideration to price than light addicts. In fact, rational addicts should react to predicted future prices raises before they even happen. Several research studies have found out that cigarette intake decreases when a price raise is anticipated, however before it really increases (Becker, and Murphy, 1988). The rational addiction theory clarifies several famous characteristics of addictions and why powerful addictions ought to be ended immediately. However, the taskforce report does not refer to this theory. This theory can also be used to predict the traits of individuals prone to become addicted. A product can be addictive to a number of individuals but not to others (Becker, and Murphy, 1988). Since smokers are current-centered, health promotions that stress on the future health expenses of smoking are probable to be ineffective. However, increasing taxes is probable to have greater effects to such people, as the money price of cigarettes is a greater element of the full price for current-centered individuals and vice versa. Lower income and youthful individuals react more to price changes. Higher taxation of tobacco results to unplanned consequences. For example, it encourages substitution into illicit drugs and higher smuggling and other violent crimes (Kickbusch, 2010). Bibliography Alvaro C, Jackson LA, Kirk S, McHugh TL, Hughes J, Chirop A, Lyons RF (2011) Moving governmental policies beyond a focus on individual lifestyle: some insights from complexity and critical theories. Health Promotion International 26, 91–99. Australian Government 2007, Best Practice Regulation Handbook, Canberra. Baum, F. (2008) The New Public Health, 3rd Edition. Melbourne: Oxford University Press Blas E, Kurup AS (Eds) (2010) ‘Equity, social determinants and public health programmes.’ ( World Health Organization: Geneva) Becker, G. and Murphy, K. 1988, ‘A Theory of Rational Addiction’, Journal of Political Economy 96(4): 675–700. Collins, D. and Lapsley, H. 2008, ‘The Costs of Tobacco, Alcohol and Illicit Drug Abuse to Australian Society in 2004/05’, Report for the Department of Health and Ageing. Filozof, C. et al. 2004, ‘Smoking Cessation and Weight Gain’, Obesity Reviews 5(2): 95–103. Keleher, H. (2007). ―Reframing health promotion‖ in H. Keleher, C. MacDougall and B. Murphy (eds) Understanding Health, Oxford University Press, Melbourne. Chapter 3. Kickbusch, I. (2010) ‗Health in all policies: where to from here?� Health Promotion International, vol 25, no 3 Labonte, R (1992) Heart health inequalities in Canada: models, theory and planning, Health Promotion International, 7(2) pp 119-128. Laverack, G. 2009, “Public Health: Power, empowerment and professional practice”, 2nd edn, Palgrave Macmillan, New York. McMichael, A. & Butler, C. 2007) ‗Emerging health issues: the widening challenge for population health promotion�, Health Promotion International, vol 21, no S1. National Preventative Health Taskforce, 2009, Australia: the Healthiest Country by 2020: National Preventative Health Strategy- The roadmap to action. Olsen, A., Dixon, J., Banwell, C. & Baker, P (2009) ‗Weighing it up: the missing social inequalitie dimension in Australian obesity policy discourse� Health Promotion Journal of Australia, vol 20 no.3. Ritsatakis, A (2009) ‗Equity and social determinants of health at a city level�, Health Promotion International, vol 24, no S1 Talbot, L. and Verrinder, G. (2010) Promoting Health: The Primary Health Care Approach, 4th Edition. Elsevier: Australia. Tones, K. and Green, J. 2004 Health Promotion Planning and Strategies, Sage, London Read More