Resources in institutions are allocated depending on program factors. While some resources are allocated equitably, others are put in the top governance where the executives can access them. It is caused by the policies they enforce before the availability and presence of particular resources. The different systems in resource allocation are adopted by various states in the USA for performing different functions. For instance, the State of Ohio centralizes its resources, while Kentucky decentralizes its duties to local departments in the country. Understanding the factors governing resource allocation decisions in different parts of the United States is essential in implementation programs.
Risks Present with the Ohio Policy Allowing Local Health Departments to Establish Bookkeeping Systems
A majority of the states in the USA are destined for transparency in their dealings. The State of Ohio enforced the centralization of bookkeeping systems to ensure that challenges facing local departments are minimal (Health Policy Institute of Ohio, 2016). It is caused by the fact that major factors affecting the state are solved at the national level, such as socioeconomic factors, physical conditions and specific outcomes in health care. It remains a problem because transparency in the local dealings affects the state’s records used for future allocation of resources and accountability. Moreover, the local departments may enforce policies that govern transparency, which may not be in line with states’ policies. While local departments tend to put strict accountability measures, the state’s authority may regard the policies as ineffective (Longest, Rakich, & Darr, 2014).Want an expert to write a paper for you Talk to an operator now
Why Regulated Clients Prefer Local Health Department Determination of Policies and Fees for the Entire State?
According to Payne (2011), the state’s regulated clients prefer the local authority because it is aware of the environment, within which the clients operate. In addition, the state is aware of the relatively stable barriers and parameters that make individuals work comfortably in their surroundings. It is considered in the process of establishing policies on inspection fee structures in different localities. Often, if the state is involved, it implements harsh systems that are inconsiderate to its citizens. According to Wiegmann (2012), system performance improvement and capacity enhancement are required for balanced programs established by the state to be useful in the enforcement of policies, such as fees. It is based on the vital information local departments provide for making policies that are friendly to people.
Why the Decentralized Local Health Department Prefers to Negotiate its Own Employees’ Health Insurance Package?
The local department works to provide an efficient incentive plan for its individuals. Reichmann and Rohlfing-Bastian (2013) point out that insurance that is a part of an incentive system needs to be balanced and well-distributed across all classes of people. Moreover, it is the reason it negotiates for equitable access for its employees. Usually, some people lack health insurance that meets the federal coverage standards. For this reason, local health departments negotiate with the employers to certify the health plan requirement. Although they are not required to pay premium costs, even if they are low, an intervention by the local departments enables cost sharing and service delivery innovation (Saltman, Busse, & Figueras, 2006). The increased autonomy in local conditions through the integration of health services to vulnerable groups results in bargain for better health insurance packages.
My Choice of State
Given the three states, I would opt for Kentucky because its policies are close to people. While the state dictates its resources, it entrusts the local health department with its functions. If you are a director in a health department, the state will not fix you to bookkeeping because it has its system of ensuring accountability. One thing that is required is providing effective programs that are considerate to individuals through proper liaison with the state.
In conclusion, states enforce programs depending on the relationship they have with the local health departments. The policies and programs enforced by the states influence local people and make them dependent on the transparency of the local authorities. Moreover, the collateral relationships are strengthened by the accountability systems in place. Comprehensive decision making, involving the local department that bears the responsibility for people within the state, helps enforce proper decisions. The paper has addressed resource allocation decisions while answering the questions in their entirety.