Assessing a Healthcare Program/Policy Evaluation

Assessing a Healthcare Program/Policy Evaluation

Healthcare Program/Policy Evaluation	H.R. 2646 (114th): Helping Families in Mental Health Crisis Act of 2016
Description	The Helping Families in Mental Health Crisis Act of 2016 is a piece of legislation that was introduced to the House by Rep. Tim Murphy, R-Pa. And Rep. Eddie Bernice Johnson, D-Texas, in July 2016 and passed into law. The Act provided reforms in federal mental health policies and programs in a way that improved access to evidence-based care for individuals and families dealing with serious mental illness (SMI). Overall, H.R. 2646 aimed to promote early intervention and crisis response and provide better resources for entire families and individuals, including children struggling with mental health issues.
How was the success of the program or policy measured?	The success of H.R. 2646 (114th) was measured based on a number of intended outcomes after the legislation was enacted. These included assessing changes in the availability and accessibility of mental health services, evaluating the quality of care provided, monitoring the reduction of crisis situations related to mental health, and the effectiveness of preventative interventions for mental health. Other metrics include rates of suicide and attempts, emergency psychiatric hospitalizations, arrests, incarcerations, victimization, and homelessness, as well as the percentage increase in grants for mental health.
How many people were reached by the program or policy selected? How much of an impact was realized with the program or policy selected?	The Helping Families in Mental Health Crisis Act of 2016 targeted the over 44 million Americans who experienced mental health issues annually. Notably, 18% of the U.S. population aged above 18 years has a type of mental health issue, 10 million aged above 18 years have a serious mental illness (SMI), and 2 million of the mentally ill never received treatment, while 200,000 homeless people and 300,000 jailed people have untreated mental issues (mentalillnesspolicy.org, n.d.). The Act has increased allocations for assisted outpatient treatment by $20 million annually and has supported the development of extensive evidence to support efforts made to reduce homelessness, arrest, violence, jailing, hospitalizations, and suicide among people with serious mental illness.
At what point in program implementation was the program or policy evaluation conducted?	The Act requires the Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) to make reports within six months of the implementation of the Act (Congressional Research Service, n.d.).
What data was used to conduct the program or policy evaluation?	Evaluation data for the policy is diverse and focuses on the various provisions of the Act. These may include but are not limited to mental health information at the federal level, rates of reduction of homelessness, incarcerations, people with SMIs, statistics on mental health service utilization, crisis incidents, mental health patient outcomes, surveys, and the total number of mental health patients enrolled in the various programs provided for the Helping Families in Mental Health Crisis Act of 2016.
What specific information on unintended consequences was identified?	The H.R. 2646 (114th) eliminates the previous financial incentive to adopt assisted outpatient treatment (AOT) laws; however, it is not clear on information sharing and prohibits the use of federal funds in the lobby for mental health. It may also lead to discrimination against mental health practitioners with diplomas and degrees, as preference is given to doctors or psychologists with doctorate degrees.
What stakeholders were identified in the evaluation of the program or policy? Who would benefit most from the results and reporting of the program or policy evaluation? Be specific and provide examples.	Stakeholders include mental health practitioners and service providers, mental health patients and their families, schools and other education institutions, mental health facilities, government agencies such as the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA), insurance companies, and advocacy groups. The major beneficiaries from the results and reporting would be individuals with mental health conditions and their families, as well as healthcare professionals.
Did the program or policy meet the original intent and objectives? Why or why not?	As a continuous effort, the policy is achieving its original intent and objectives based on the funding trends for mental health, promoting evidence-based practice in mental care, and accessibility of mental health care at all levels.
Would you recommend implementing this program or policy in your place of work? Why or why not?	I would recommend implementing this policy in my place of work as it addresses parity in mental health care and provides equitable access to quality evidence-based mental care and crisis response.
Identify at least two ways that you, as a nurse advocate, could become involved in evaluating a program or policy after one year of implementation.	The two ways to become involved in evaluating a policy after one year of implementation as a nurse advocate are through collecting patient feedback and utilizing such feedback to recommend adjustments to the policy. Utilizing patient feedback contributes to public and patient involvement in policy development decisions and ensures that the outcomes of the policy are transferable to practice and understandable to the public (Baumann & Brütt, 2021).
General Notes/Comments	The H.R. 2646 is one of the major policy steps taken by the U.S. federal government toward addressing the mental health crisis experienced in the country from a family level. With sufficient implementation, it can eliminate cases of serious mental issues and suicide cases and support more people accessing mental healthcare. However, with the changing mental health landscape, the policy will need to be continuously evaluated and adjusted to ensure it meets the changing mental health needs of the U.S. population.

 References

Baumann, L. A., & Brütt, A. L. (2021). Public and patient involvement (PPI) in health policy decisionmaking on the health system-level: protocol for a systematic scoping review. BMJ Open, 11(5), e043650. https://doi.org/10.1136/BMJOPEN-2020-043650

Congressional Research Service. (n.d.). The Helping Families in Mental Health Crisis Reform Act of 2016 (Division B of P.L. 114-255). https://crsreports.congress.gov

mentalillnesspolicy.org. (n.d.). Mental illness policy. https://mentalillnesspolicy.org/

ORDER A PLAGIARISM-FREE PAPER HERE

We’ll write everything from scratch

---

Program/policy evaluation is a valuable tool that can help strengthen the quality of programs/policies and improve outcomes for the populations they serve. Program/policy evaluation answers basic questions about program/policy effectiveness. It involves collecting and analyzing information about program/policy activities, characteristics, and outcomes. This information can be used to ultimately improve program services or policy initiatives.

Nurses can play a very important role in assessing program/policy evaluation for the same reasons that they can be so important to program/policy design. Nurses bring expertise and patient advocacy that can add significant insight and impact. In this Assignment, you will practice applying this expertise and insight by selecting an existing healthcare program or policy evaluation and reflecting on the criteria used to measure the effectiveness of the program/policy.

To Prepare:

• Review the Healthcare Program/Policy Evaluation Analysis Template provided in the Resources.
• Select an existing healthcare program or policy evaluation, or choose one of interest to you.
• Review community, state, or federal policy evaluation and reflect on the criteria used to measure the effectiveness of the program or policy described.

The Assignment: (2–3 pages)

Based on the program or policy evaluation you selected, complete the Healthcare Program/Policy Evaluation Analysis Template. Be sure to address the following:

• Describe the healthcare program or policy outcomes.
• How was the success of the program or policy measured?
• How many people were reached by the program or policy selected?
• How much of an impact was realized with the program or policy selected?
• At what point in program implementation was the program or policy evaluation conducted?
• What data was used to conduct the program or policy evaluation?
• What specific information on unintended consequences was identified?
• What stakeholders were identified in the evaluation of the program or policy? Who would benefit most from the results and reporting of the program or policy evaluation? Be specific and provide examples.
• Did the program or policy meet the original intent and objectives? Why or why not?
• Would you recommend implementing this program or policy in your place of work? Why or why not?
• Identify at least two ways that you, as a nurse advocate, could become involved in evaluating a program or policy after 1 year of implementation.