Federal, State and Local Healthcare Legislation in Nevada
Expatriates conventions always come to a consensus that rapid action needs to be done on issues that behoove national and international attention. However, any further discussion always leads to profound opposition in opinion. So much has been done to solve healthcare problems from the federal government, local, and the state. The main functions of the state, federal and local arms of government include; policy development, regulation, and actual provision of healthcare. The state plays a role as an agent of federal policy under Medicaid with the responsibilities from licensing, regulating health professions, financing, and administering education programs for the students under medical health care programs. Insurance and health care providers are also regulated by the healthcare policy. “The role of the federal is to act as the check and balance when the state or local or both fail to meet the required targets as outlined and anticipated by the policy framework.”
The health-related roles of the state and the locals are public health, including monitoring, sanitation, and disease control. Financing and delivery of personal health services including; Medicaid, mental health, and direct delivery through public hospitals and health departments: Environmental protection from the manmade, environment, and occupational hazard: Regulation of health care providers of medical care through certificate, and licensing. There has not been any unity in planning that can be adopted in all these strategies, creating the environments over which the state is avoiding focusing all powers on either the state, federal or local, which are the three arms of the governments. A measure of flexibility needs to be developed as this will help in streamlining the overall structure of health care service delivery in line with policy formulation and implementation.
Comparison of the healthcare at the state, federal and local have the following similarities. “On one level, the three branches enable people and groups who are willing to prevent new initiatives to integrate with friendly players to bar the gears for new changes from taking place.” While on a vertical perspective, individuals and groups can intercede with the different actors at both the state and local government to frustrate initiatives for policy changes by reversing or preventing the execution of such moves. The differences are that at the three arms, there has been no unifying strategy for governmental health. Predominantly, the government limits authority and has avoided centralizing all the powers either at the state or the federal level.
These have created patchwork functions at both the state, local, and federal levels, where decisions are made ad hoc as they arise. A vibrant two-level pluralism can be said to be at play in the disorderly planning and comprehensive policy reforms. For instance, the design is grounded on a two-century-old Madisonian design. This system provides multiple access. It is easier to nip everything in the bud than to implement them. The expected response from already outlined facts is that the government should adopt a simple policy framework for the new health system. They also could set up a process that will adjust and refine the policy framework as already legislature and implemented.