Posted: January 28th, 2025

Agenda Comparison Grid: Healthcare Agenda Dynamics

Agenda Comparison Grid Template & Fact Sheet Paper Samples.

NURS 6050 Assignment: Use this document to complete the Module 1 Assessment Agenda Comparison Grid and Fact Sheets/Talking Points Brief. This template will help streamline your analysis of the selected healthcare issue when discussing each administration.

Healthcare Issue

Description

Administration (President Name)
Describe the administrative agenda focus related to this issue. The administration prioritizes this issue due to its impact on public health and well-being.

Allocation of financial and other resources to this issue
The financial resources allocated reflect the administration’s commitment to addressing the issue effectively. This allocation ensures that necessary programs receive adequate support for implementation.

Notes on Administration’s approach to the issue
The administration’s approach involves collaboration with various stakeholders to create a comprehensive response. Engaging these stakeholders is crucial for fostering effective solutions.

General Notes/Comments

Which administrative agency would most likely be responsible for helping you address the healthcare issue you selected? Understanding the role of this agency can provide insights into potential support and resources available.

How does the healthcare issue get on the agenda, and how does it stay there? Continuous advocacy and public interest ensure that the issue remains relevant and prioritized.

Who was the entrepreneur/champion/sponsor of the healthcare issue you selected? Identifying the key figures behind the issue can highlight the importance of leadership in driving change.

======
Paper I

Module 1 Assessment: Agenda Comparison Grid and Fact Sheets/Talking Points Brief

Healthcare Issue: Prescription Drug Prices

Rising prescription drug costs in the United States have been a persistent healthcare challenge, disproportionately impacting access to medications, financial stability, and public health outcomes. Policymakers have focused on reducing out-of-pocket costs for patients, improving drug price transparency, and fostering competitive pharmaceutical markets to address this issue effectively.

---

Part 1: Agenda Comparison Grid

 Administration’s Agenda Focus on Prescription Drug Costs
The focus on lowering prescription drug prices has been a prominent objective in recent administrations due to its significant impact on healthcare affordability. For example:

• Biden Administration: Prioritized reforms such as allowing Medicare to negotiate drug prices, capping the cost of insulin, and holding drug companies accountable for unjustified price hikes. Efforts include the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA), which introduced measures to target drug affordability for seniors and insured populations.
• Trump Administration: Highlighted transparency measures such as requiring drug prices to be disclosed in television advertisements and curbing rebates between pharmacy benefit managers and pharmaceutical companies. The administration also emphasized the “Most Favored Nation Rule,” aiming to tie U.S. drug prices to those of other developed countries.
• Obama Administration: Advocated for strengthening the Affordable Care Act (ACA) to reduce prescription drug costs through expanded insurance coverage, increasing access to generic drugs, and incentivizing price competition.

 Allocation of Financial and Other Resources

• Biden: The IRA allocated financial resources to Medicare for implementing drug price negotiation strategies, along with funding for patient assistance programs and educational initiatives to inform the public about available benefits.
• Trump: Budget allocations focused on supporting regulatory changes within Health and Human Services (HHS) and initiatives at the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) aimed at expediting the approval of biosimilars and generics.
• Obama: Resources were directed toward establishing competitive generic pricing mechanisms and expanding Medicaid coverage to improve medication access among low-income populations.

Notes on Administration’s Approach

• Biden’s Approach: Direct action through legislative measures like the IRA to regulate prices and ensure broader access. The administration partnered with consumer advocacy groups and health economists to build public awareness and policy support.
• Trump’s Approach: Focused on market-based solutions to reduce drug prices, emphasizing deregulation to improve pricing transparency.
• Obama’s Approach: Leveraged healthcare reform through the ACA to lower drug costs indirectly via expanded insurance coverage.

---

Part 2: Fact Sheet on Prescription Drug Costs

Significance of Addressing Prescription Drug Costs
Prescription drug affordability directly influences the public’s ability to manage chronic illnesses and acute conditions effectively. High drug prices result in significant financial strain for families and increase healthcare disparities among vulnerable populations.

Measures to Address the Issue:

Medicare Drug Price Negotiation:
Greater negotiation power for Medicare allows for price reductions, particularly for high-cost medications commonly used by seniors (Biden Administration, 2023).

Price Caps and Transparency:
Price caps on life-saving drugs such as insulin and mandatory price disclosures have helped reduce costs for millions of Americans (Inflation Reduction Act, 2022).

Support for Biosimilars and Generics:
Expedited FDA approval processes for biosimilars and generics lower costs while ensuring that quality standards are met (FDA, 2020).

Barriers

Limited bipartisan support for more aggressive legislative measures.

Legal challenges from pharmaceutical lobby groups, particularly concerning price negotiation authority.

Inconsistent insurance coverage of medications, which disproportionately affects uninsured and underinsured populations.

Role of Administrative Agencies
The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) plays a crucial role in managing programs such as Medicare and Medicaid to ensure prescription drug affordability. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) oversees the regulatory approval process for drug prices and encourages competition from generics and biosimilars.

Importance of Advocacy and Champions
The prescription drug price issue has remained on the agenda due to continuous public advocacy and influential political champions, such as President Joe Biden, who have pushed for significant legislative reforms. Consumer advocacy groups like Families USA and National Patient Advocate Foundation have also been instrumental in maintaining visibility around the topic.

Nursing Implications
Nurses are at the forefront of this issue, as they directly observe the impacts of high drug costs on patient health and adherence to prescribed treatments. Ways in which nurses contribute include:

• Raising awareness about legislative reforms among patients and healthcare stakeholders.
• Advocating for policies that improve access to affordable medications.
• Participating in research and data collection to highlight how drug costs affect patient outcomes.

---

References

Andersen, R., Davidson, P., & Baumeister, S. E. (2018). Improving Access to Care in America. Changing the US Health Care System: Key Issues in Policy and Management. Jossey-Bass.

Bisbee, G., Trigg, D., & Jain, S. (2022). The New Health Economy: Ground Rules for Leaders. Georgetown University Press.

Blendon, R. J., Blumenthal, D., Glied, S., Sommers, B. D., & Dusetzina, S. B. (2024). Critical Health Care Challenges for the Next US President. New England Journal of Medicine, 391(15), e36.

Inflation Reduction Act of 2022. H.R.5376, 117th Congress.

Ukockis, G. (2024). The Opioid Crisis: A Policy Case Study. Oxford University Press.

=======

Agenda Comparison Grid and Facts Sheet

– A sample writing guide for your final paper.

The recent presidential health issue agenda vowed to highlight:
i) Take on prescription drug prices,
ii) Pursue to end HIV epidemic and
iii) Foster funding of childhood cancer.

Elimination of the unpopular Obamacare individual penalty, referring to the requirement in the affordable health care act. Emphasized on the essence to have an insurance cover to pay the fines. The right to try bill, this allowed critically ill patients to access health care. American paid vastly larger amount of money than residents in other countries for the same kind of drugs almost at the exact same place, this was seen to be very unacceptable. The health issue that has been persistently addressed by presidential candidates is proper access to health care services.

Part 1: Agenda comparison grid
For individual to enjoy the optimal health care, delivery system should be at the forefront, and they must have a high quality health care services. The capacity of health care delivery system to serve the population in terms of cultural competence, financing, information etc., should be a priority to the government and the legislative bodies. One of the health care issue of concern is access to health care. For some U.S citizens access to health care is based on having health insurance plan on either a private plan or public programs. Private user are seen to be fare better in accessing health care in a short time than the individuals under public programs (Owusu-Frimpong, Nwankwo & Dason, 2010).

Insurance plan are viewed to be the threshold of better healthcare services and a requirement for regular source of healthcare. This programs increases the effectiveness in the early screening of the disease, detection and prevention. Most of the public insurance programs are directed towards the aged, the disabled population and the population of citizens with low income.
The department of health and human services (HHS) is the federal agency that oversees the CMS, which is responsible for administering programs which protects the health of all American citizens. This is achieved by fostering advances in medicine, social services and public health. Health resource and service administrator (HRSA) is also a federal agency that is responsible for improving health for people and care for people who are geographically isolated.

What the local community sees necessary and wants to address is what get to the local agenda. Through raising awareness and engaging the public for the issue such access to quality health care services to be addressed in the agenda. Engaging the officials and policy makers as well as working on how much the people know about the issue.

Getting the issue of access to healthcare addressed, stakeholders, those who are directly affected like parents and those who deal with the issue like health professionals should be involved. Secondly, the policymakers like the board of health and local politicians etc. informal policies including agencies like school, the court and even police can set policies unofficially to affect the access to healthcare. More so funding organization decides which company they want to fund.

Part 2: Facts sheet

Access to comprehensive and quality health care is important and should be included in the legislative healthcare agenda in order to manage and prevent disease. The access to health care would reduce unnecessary disabilities and premature deaths. More so, access to health care come along with proper and obtain necessary medical prescription. In order to achieve best health service, you must get access to health service on time.

Insurance coverage: Gaining access to health care center through an insurance cover, accessing the location where the medical facility is located and finally finding a health care provider who will have a personal relationship with the patient. Understanding access to health care encompasses coverage by insurance, services and timeliness. Inadequate cover makes it hard to access health care services. The insurance cover takes care of the medical bills and determines how they get the care. People who get the normal and timely health care services are likely to get better results compared to those who get delayed.

Primary care provider (PCP) who act as a usual source of care for the patients under them. The PCP develops a good relationship with the patients, an integrated service and practicing relation like in a family context. Improving health care services would encompass increasing healthcare access as well as evidence based preventative measures to the causative agents.
Emergency medical services: Provides basic and urgent and life support. Demographic factors like age and gender are some of the imperative of the likelihood of an individual gaining access to health care (Andersen, Davidson, & Baumeister, 2007).

Roles of nurses in setting agenda for access to health care.
Nurses have the capacity to influence the current and the future health care delivery system. Since the nursing profession is based on human health and fostering science of human care. In order to achieve this objectives, it is essential to have policies that define the role of nurses in setting the health care agendas.

1. Creating awareness of the impact of health policies.
2. Maintaining good relationship with the stakeholders.
3. Planning and decision making.

References
Owusu-Frimpong, N., Nwankwo, S., & Dason, B. (2010). Measuring service quality and patient satisfaction with access to public and private healthcare delivery. International Journal of Public Sector Management, 23(3), 203-220.

Andersen, R. M., Davidson, P. L., & Baumeister, S. E. (2007). Improving access to care in America. Changing the US health care system: key issues in health services policy and management. 3a. edición. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 3-31.

Blendon, R.J., Blumenthal, D., Glied, S., Sommers, B.D., Rosenthal, M.B., McWilliams, J.M., Dusetzina, S.B., Figueroa, J.F., Yearby, R., Alsan, M. and Kim, J.J., 2024. Critical Health Care Challenges for the Next US President. New England Journal of Medicine, 391(15), p.e36.

Renshon, S.A. and Suedfeld, P., 2024. Facing a Dangerous World: A Comparison of the Biden and Trump. The Trump and Harris Doctrines: Preservationism Versus Progressivism in the 2024 Presidential Election, p.249.

=========

Example Paper II 

Agenda Comparison Grid Template and fact sheet on reproductive health rights.

Healthcare Issue: Reproductive Health Rights

Description: The presidential regimes of Barack Obama, Richard Nixon, Donald Trump, and Joe Biden have considered reproductive health as a critical issue requiring legal and regulatory frameworks to safeguard citizens’ lives and rights. These administrations have approached the issue with varying degrees of emphasis on women’s autonomy, governmental roles, and funding mechanisms, reflecting diverse political ideologies and societal values.

Administration (President Name): Richard Nixon | Barack Obama | Donald Trump | Joe Biden.

Describe the administrative agenda focus related to this issue President Richard Nixon’s era marked a pivotal point in the history of reproductive health policy with the enactment of the Helms Amendment in 1973. This legislation significantly shaped the landscape of reproductive rights by establishing restrictions on the use of foreign aid for abortion services. Nixon’s approach, while not overtly restrictive on domestic reproductive rights, signaled a conservative stance by limiting the scope of federally funded abortion services internationally. This era reflected a complex interplay of burgeoning feminist movements advocating for reproductive freedom and persistent conservative values emphasizing governmental regulation in moral matters.

The Obama administration ushered in a period of expanded support for reproductive health rights, explicitly aiming to remove barriers that hindered women’s access to reproductive care. A key action was the reversal of the “Global Gag Rule,” which had been reinstated by previous Republican administrations, thereby allowing foreign non-governmental organizations receiving U.S. funding to provide abortion counseling and services. Furthermore, the Affordable Care Act (ACA) under Obama significantly broadened access to contraception without cost-sharing, recognizing contraception as preventive care for women. This administration’s focus was on enhancing women’s autonomy in making reproductive decisions, aligning with a progressive ideology that champions individual rights and healthcare access as fundamental.

In contrast, the Trump administration adopted a markedly regressive agenda concerning reproductive rights, characterized by policies designed to curtail women’s access to abortion and related healthcare services. Domestically, the administration reinstated and expanded the “Mexico City Policy” (the expanded version of the “Global Gag Rule”), applying it to a wider range of global health assistance. Additionally, significant efforts were made to defund Planned Parenthood, a major provider of reproductive healthcare services, and to appoint conservative judges at all levels of the judiciary, with the explicit aim of overturning Roe v. Wade. This approach reflected a conservative ideological commitment to restricting abortion access and emphasizing the role of government in protecting fetal life, often at the expense of women’s reproductive autonomy.

The Biden administration has positioned itself as a staunch advocate for reproductive rights, especially in the aftermath of the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe v. Wade in 2022. President Biden has taken executive actions to safeguard access to abortion services, protect access to contraception, and ensure the safety of patients and providers. His administration has vocally opposed state-level abortion bans and restrictions, emphasizing the federal government’s role in protecting reproductive freedom.

Furthermore, Biden has consistently sought to repeal the Hyde Amendment, which restricts federal funding for abortion, demonstrating a commitment to expanding access to abortion care for low-income individuals. Biden’s agenda aligns with a progressive stance that views reproductive healthcare as essential and seeks to minimize governmental barriers to accessing these services, particularly in a landscape where abortion rights are increasingly challenged at the state level.

Allocation of financial and other resources to this issue President Nixon’s implementation of the Helms Amendment directly impacted the allocation of financial resources by restricting foreign aid from being used to fund abortion services. This policy decision signified a redirection of resources, prioritizing certain reproductive health services over others in the international context. The financial impact was substantial, limiting the availability of safe abortion services in developing countries reliant on U.S. aid. Domestically, federal funding for reproductive health services continued, but the Helms Amendment established a precedent for restricting abortion funding, setting the stage for future policy debates.

Under the Obama administration, the rescission of the “Global Gag Rule” in 2009 marked a significant reallocation of resources, enabling foreign agencies to once again receive U.S. funding for a comprehensive range of reproductive health services, including abortion counseling and services. This policy shift broadened the financial support for international organizations involved in reproductive healthcare, reflecting a commitment to comprehensive reproductive health and family planning globally. Domestically, the ACA expanded access to preventive healthcare services, including contraception, without cost-sharing, effectively allocating resources to ensure widespread access to contraception as a preventive health measure.

The Trump administration prioritized defunding initiatives aimed at organizations that provided or supported abortion services. This included efforts to defund Planned Parenthood domestically and the reinstatement and expansion of the “Mexico City Policy” internationally, which restricted funding to foreign NGOs that performed or promoted abortion. This reallocation of resources reflected a clear policy direction towards limiting abortion access and prioritizing funding for organizations that aligned with the administration’s anti-abortion stance. These financial decisions had tangible impacts on healthcare providers and access to reproductive services both domestically and internationally.

The Biden administration has sought to restore and expand funding for reproductive healthcare services, reversing many of the Trump-era defunding policies. This includes reinstating funding to UNFPA (United Nations Population Fund), which had been cut off by the Trump administration, and taking steps to protect funding for Planned Parenthood. Furthermore, Biden has advocated for increased federal funding for family planning and reproductive health services domestically, aiming to bolster access to care, particularly in underserved communities. The focus is on ensuring equitable access to reproductive healthcare through strategic allocation of federal resources, counteracting the financial restrictions imposed by the previous administration.

Notes on Administration’s approach to the issue:

The Nixon administration’s approach to reproductive health was characterized by a cautious stance, navigating between emerging social liberalizations and traditional conservative values. While the Helms Amendment was enacted during his tenure, it primarily targeted international abortion funding. Domestically, Nixon’s approach was less overtly interventionist compared to later Republican administrations, but the foundation for future restrictions was laid during this period. Reproductive health was increasingly becoming a politically salient issue, and Nixon’s policies reflected the complexities of this evolving landscape.

The Obama administration adopted a proactive and rights-based approach to reproductive health, emphasizing women’s autonomy and access to care. While initially cautious in directly challenging the Helms Amendment, Obama’s broader policies, such as the ACA and the reversal of the Global Gag Rule, significantly expanded reproductive healthcare access. His administration framed reproductive health as an integral component of women’s overall health and human rights, advocating for comprehensive services and removing financial and logistical barriers. This approach marked a significant shift towards a more liberal and inclusive reproductive health policy framework.

President Trump’s approach was defined by a clear ideological commitment to restricting abortion access and advancing a conservative social agenda. His administration actively sought to reshape the judiciary and implement policies at both the domestic and international levels to curtail reproductive rights. This approach was characterized by a willingness to directly challenge established legal precedents and norms concerning abortion, reflecting a consistent effort to limit abortion access and empower the anti-abortion movement. The focus was less on women’s health autonomy and more on fetal rights and moral objections to abortion.

President Biden’s approach is characterized by a robust defense of reproductive rights as fundamental healthcare rights and freedoms. In the face of increasing state-level restrictions and the overturning of Roe v. Wade, Biden has adopted a strong stance advocating for federal protections and access to abortion services. His administration emphasizes the importance of reproductive healthcare for women’s economic and social well-being, framing it as a matter of gender equity and broader human rights. Biden’s approach is proactive in seeking to mitigate the negative impacts of abortion bans and restrictions, utilizing executive actions and advocating for legislative changes to safeguard reproductive freedom in a challenging legal and political environment.

General Notes/Comments:

The Helms Amendment, enacted during Nixon’s presidency, has had a lasting global impact, shaping the landscape of international reproductive health funding for decades. Its implementation through agencies like USAID has created bureaucratic and practical challenges in providing comprehensive reproductive healthcare in developing countries. Despite criticisms and calls for its repeal, the Helms Amendment remains a significant policy instrument influencing U.S. foreign policy on reproductive health.

Obama’s decision to reverse the “Global Gag Rule” and implement the ACA were seen as landmark achievements by reproductive rights advocates, representing significant progress in expanding access to care and affirming women’s reproductive autonomy. These policy changes reflected a broader societal shift towards recognizing reproductive rights as essential human rights and integrating reproductive healthcare into mainstream healthcare systems. However, the persistence of the Helms Amendment and ongoing political debates highlighted the continued challenges in fully realizing comprehensive reproductive rights.

The Trump presidency’s aggressive pursuit of anti-abortion policies underscored the deep political polarization surrounding reproductive rights in the U.S. His administration’s actions galvanized both supporters and opponents of abortion rights, intensifying the legal and political battles over reproductive healthcare access. The appointment of conservative judges and the overturning of Roe v. Wade represent long-term impacts of this administration, fundamentally altering the legal landscape of abortion rights in the United States.

In the current context, the Biden administration faces the formidable challenge of protecting and expanding reproductive rights in a post-Roe v. Wade America. The focus has shifted to mitigating the impacts of state-level abortion bans, ensuring access to medication abortion, and exploring federal legislative options to codify abortion rights. The role of administrative agencies in implementing and enforcing reproductive health policies is becoming increasingly critical as the legal and political landscape continues to evolve. The ongoing debates and policy changes reflect a dynamic and highly contested area of healthcare policy, with significant implications for women’s health and rights.

Which administrative agency would most likely be responsible for helping you address the healthcare issue you selected?

Congress is the primary administrative agency responsible for addressing reproductive health rights, as it is the legislative body that enacts laws and regulations. However, executive agencies such as the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and USAID also play crucial roles in implementing and enforcing these policies. Congress remains the key agency for legislative action on reproductive health. Executive agencies like HHS and the Department of Justice (DOJ) also become central, particularly in enforcing federal protections and responding to state-level restrictions.

Given the current legal landscape, the role of the judiciary, particularly the Supreme Court, has become increasingly central in shaping reproductive health policy. Executive agencies will also play a significant role in navigating the complex legal and regulatory environment. In the current context, a multi-agency approach is essential. Congress for potential federal legislation, HHS for ensuring access to care and implementing protections, DOJ for legal challenges to restrictive state laws, and potentially new or refocused offices within the executive branch to coordinate reproductive health policy.

How does the healthcare issue get on the agenda and how does it stay there?

Reproductive health remains on the national agenda due to sustained advocacy from various groups, including women’s rights organizations, healthcare providers, and civil liberties groups. Congressional representatives championing these issues ensure continued legislative attention, while public opinion and electoral dynamics also play significant roles in maintaining its prominence.

Sustained public discourse, fueled by media coverage, advocacy campaigns, and political mobilization, keeps reproductive health on the agenda. Court decisions, such as the overturning of Roe v. Wade, also act as agenda-setting events, forcing continued national debate and policy responses. The issue remains on the agenda due to its deeply divisive nature and the high stakes involved for different groups. Moral, ethical, and legal dimensions, combined with intense political mobilization on both sides, ensure that reproductive rights remain a persistent and prominent issue in American politics.

Reproductive health is now a highly salient and persistent agenda item due to the urgency created by the overturning of Roe v. Wade. The fragmentation of abortion access across states, coupled with ongoing legal and political battles, ensures that this issue will remain at the forefront of national debate and policy attention for the foreseeable future.

Who was the entrepreneur/champion/sponsor of the healthcare issue you selected?

Advocacy groups like Planned Parenthood and NARAL Pro-Choice America have historically been key champions. Individual politicians, academics, and public health experts also play crucial roles in advocating for reproductive rights. Organizations such as the Guttmacher Institute, along with numerous women’s health and rights organizations, act as ongoing champions. Within government, individuals in HHS and Congress who prioritize women’s health serve as key sponsors. Anti-abortion organizations like the National Right to Life Committee and the Susan B.

Anthony List have been highly effective champions for restricting abortion access. Conservative politicians and judicial appointees have also played pivotal roles. Organizations like the Center for Reproductive Rights and the ACLU are leading the legal and advocacy efforts to protect and expand reproductive rights in the current landscape. President Biden and Vice President Harris have also emerged as prominent champions within the executive branch.

References:

Bisbee, G., Trigg, D., Bisbee Jr, G. and Jain, S., 2022. The new health economy: ground rules for leaders. Georgetown University Press.

J.M., Dusetzina, S.B., Figueroa, J.F., Yearby, R., Alsan, M. and Kim, J.J., 2024. Critical Health Care Challenges for the Next US President. New England Journal of Medicine, 391(15), p.e36.\

Nkouaga, F., 2024. How Did Medicare for All Influence Trump’s Electoral Prospects Across Different Levels of COVID-19 Perceived Political Engagement?. Routledge Open Research, 3, p.29.

Renshon, S.A. and Suedfeld, P., 2024. Facing a Dangerous World: A Comparison of the Biden and Trump. The Trump and Harris Doctrines: Preservationism Versus Progressivism in the 2024 Presidential Election, p.249.

Ukockis, G., 2024. The Opioid Crisis: A Policy Case Study. Oxford University Press.

==========

Sample Paper III

Managing and Preventing Pandemics: Lessons from COVID-19

The COVID-19 pandemic highlighted critical deficiencies in public health systems, emergency preparedness, and global cooperation. It emphasized the need for robust strategies to manage and prevent pandemics effectively. This significant public health challenge required distinct approaches by different U.S. administrations to mitigate its impact. Understanding the policy priorities, resource allocation, and agency responsibilities across administrations can provide valuable insights into pandemic preparedness for the future.

---

Agenda Comparison Grid Template

Healthcare Issue	Description
Managing and Preventing Pandemics	Focused on developing comprehensive preparedness strategies, improving healthcare capacity, fostering global collaborations, and managing public health crises effectively.

---

Administration	Describe the Administration’s Agenda Focus Related to This Issue
Biden Administration	The Biden administration prioritized widespread vaccination efforts, restoring public trust in health agencies, increasing funding for pandemic response systems, and renewing engagement with the World Health Organization (WHO). Focus was on equitable healthcare access during pandemics.
Trump Administration	Focused on a decentralized pandemic response, relying on states to lead efforts. Emphasized the rapid development and deployment of vaccines through Operation Warp Speed and public-private partnerships. Reduced reliance on international organizations at certain points.
Obama Administration	The Obama administration emphasized early pandemic preparedness through the 2014 Ebola response model. Focused on enhancing global health infrastructure, implementing the Global Health Security Agenda (GHSA), and establishing pandemic preparedness frameworks.

---

Administration	Allocation of Financial and Other Resources to This Issue
Biden Administration	The American Rescue Plan Act allocated over $160 billion for vaccine distribution, testing, contact tracing, and healthcare worker support. It also invested in upgrading the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) infrastructure.
Trump Administration	Operation Warp Speed invested nearly $18 billion in vaccine research, development, and manufacturing. Additional funding supported personal protective equipment (PPE) distributions and hospital capacity increases but left longer-term public health support underfunded.
Obama Administration	Allocated substantial resources to health security through CDC and the National Institutes of Health (NIH), funding programs like the Global Health Security Agenda (GHSA) to enhance disease monitoring and response capacity globally. Also supported preparedness training for healthcare systems.

---

Administration	Notes on Administration’s Approach to the Issue
Biden Administration	Took a highly centralized approach by leveraging federal agencies to coordinate a nationwide vaccine rollout. Re-engaged with global health partnerships to rebuild trust and funding for the WHO. Focused on science-driven decisions and equitable vaccine distribution.
Trump Administration	Prioritized vaccine development (Operation Warp Speed) but delegated most public health management to individual states, resulting in inconsistent responses across the country. Periodically withdrew from international collaborations, reducing global response alignment.
Obama Administration	Proactively built international frameworks for pandemic preparedness and response. Enacted policies and programs focused on early detection and containment of epidemic threats through strong cross-agency collaboration. Set the foundation for future pandemic responses.

---

General Notes/Comments
All three administrations recognized the importance of managing pandemics but approached them differently based on their priorities and governance philosophies. Greater global collaboration (Biden, Obama) versus more domestic and market-driven focus (Trump) defined their differences. Lessons from each approach have informed ongoing debates about strengthening public health systems.

---

Which administrative agency would most likely be responsible for helping you address the healthcare issue you selected?
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) would be the primary agency responsible for addressing pandemic preparedness, with support from the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and the National Institutes of Health (NIH). Additionally, during global crises, agencies like the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) play a vital role in international collaborations.

---

How does the healthcare issue get on the agenda and how does it stay there?
Pandemics gain attention through immediate public health crises, global outbreaks, economic disruptions, and pressure from the scientific community. The issue remains on the agenda by ongoing data analysis, advocacy from health organizations, and legislative mandates to address gaps in response systems. Public demand for preparedness and lessons from previous pandemics also sustain focus on this issue.

---

Who was the entrepreneur/champion/sponsor of the healthcare issue you selected?
Key champions of this issue include Dr. Anthony Fauci, who played a leading role in addressing both COVID-19 and previous pandemics. Additionally, Bill Gates has been a prominent advocate for pandemic preparedness through funding research and global health initiatives. Political leaders like President Biden and former President Obama have also supported policy initiatives and funding mechanisms to prioritize pandemic preparedness.

---

Final Paper: Managing and Preventing Pandemics: Lessons from COVID-19

The COVID-19 pandemic underscored the devastating impact of an unanticipated global health crisis on public health, economies, and societies worldwide. While significant advancements were made in vaccine development, the pandemic revealed systemic vulnerabilities in healthcare infrastructure, collaboration, and response strategies. Reviewing U.S. policy responses across the Biden, Trump, and Obama administrations highlights the varying approaches to pandemic management and prevention.

Biden Administration: Centralized and Science-Driven

The Biden administration emphasized a science-led and federally coordinated pandemic response. It prioritized vaccine equity, allocating over $160 billion through the American Rescue Plan Act to support comprehensive testing, vaccination, and expanded healthcare access. Federal agencies such as the CDC played a central role in ensuring widespread vaccine distribution and communication. One of the hallmark achievements was scaling up vaccine rollout quickly and equitably, especially for vulnerable communities. The administration also strengthened its commitment to global cooperation, renewing U.S. engagement with the WHO and increasing funding for international pandemic initiatives.

Trump Administration: Vaccine Acceleration through Public-Private Partnerships

The Trump administration adopted a distinct approach characterized by rapid vaccine development through Operation Warp Speed. This initiative allocated approximately $18 billion, accelerating vaccine research, testing, and distribution timelines via public-private partnerships. Although the initiative demonstrated success in delivering vaccines in record time, its decentralized approach to public health management placed states at the forefront of pandemic response. This delegation led to uneven implementation of testing, lockdowns, and PPE distribution. Additionally, the administration’s periodic withdrawal from global health organizations reduced international coordination during a critical period.

Obama Administration: Pre-Preparedness Through Global Frameworks

The Obama administration’s approach to managing pandemics focused on prevention and preparedness. Its leadership during the Ebola outbreak laid the groundwork for responding effectively to future pandemics. The administration championed the Global Health Security Agenda (GHSA), an international framework designed to detect and respond to emerging infectious disease threats. Significant investments were made in global surveillance systems, disease research, and cross-agency collaboration to strengthen the nation’s health security. These initiatives emphasized early detection, containment, and preparedness, although subsequent resource reductions after the administration hindered long-term continuity.

Lessons Learned and Future Considerations

The comparative analysis of these administrations reveals key lessons for pandemic management: centralized coordination, global collaboration, and sustained funding for healthcare preparedness are essential components of an effective strategy. The Biden administration demonstrated the importance of equitable healthcare access, while Operation Warp Speed highlighted how innovation and private-sector partnerships can accelerate response measures. Simultaneously, the Obama administration’s pre-preparedness strategies underscored the need for sustained investments in global health frameworks.

Going forward, consolidating these lessons into a unified plan that integrates innovation, equity, and preparedness will be crucial. Strengthening the public health infrastructure, promoting international cooperation, and maintaining transparency in policymaking will ensure a more resilient response to future pandemics.

References

Bollyky, T. J. (2022). Pandemic preparedness and COVID-19. The Lancet, 399(10330), 1229-1230.

De Vogli, R., 2024. Managing and Preventing Pandemics: Lessons from COVID-19. Taylor & Francis.

Fauci, A. S., & Folkers, G. K. (2023). Pandemic Preparedness and Response: Lessons From COVID-19. The Journal of Infectious Diseases, 228(4), 422-425.

Schofield, L., Gandhi, R. T., & Naggie, S. (2023). Lessons From COVID-19 for Pandemic Preparedness: Proceedings From a Multistakeholder Think Tank. Clinical Infectious Diseases, 77(12), 1635–1642.

Varela, A. R. (2023). Assessing pandemic preparedness, response, and lessons learned from COVID-19: a comparative analysis. Frontiers in Public Health, 11, 1274737.

Check Price|Discounts

Homework Samples, Study Bay Notes & Research Topics: Legislation Grid and Advocacy Statement Sample »Play and Pedagogy in Early Childhood Education Assessment 2: Digital Task