GPP 509 Three policy briefs
Who wrote it? Organization?
Steve Findlay (Health Journalist)
Partnership between Health Affairs and the Robert Johnson Foundation
Name the topic/general theme?
Paid Family and Medical leave in the United States of America
Purpose of the brief?
To raise awareness of the lack of paid family and medical leave in America. The brief expands on the polices in place in certain states in the United States as opposed to other states.
Furthermore, the brief elaborates on the changes in policy that may arise after the newly elected President Donald Trump.
Generic table of contents
The issue: Despite being one of the wealthiest nations today, the United States of America does not have a generic policy regarding paid medical leave instated in all provinces that would guarantee paid medical leave.
The background: In this section the writer compares other countries’ policies with on paid or unpaid family and medical leave with those in the United States. The writer explained the FMLA Act instated by President Bill Clinton in 1993 which would allow workers to have 12 weeks of unpaid job protected leave in a 12 month period.
The law: In this section, Findlay explained that the FMLA Act of 1993 is applicable in certain provinces only and has certain eligibility requirements and limitations to being instated within a company.
The debate: In this section, Findlay provides his readers with a summarized view of studies that have shown a positive effect of employers allowing their employees to take guaranteed medical or family leave.
What’s next: In this section the writer explores the possibility of paid leave laws being instated and spoke of President Donald Trump’s (proposed) paid maternity leave plan.
Are you convinced/intrigued?
This brief was intriguing owing to the structure of the brief. What I found most compelling were the studies that had proved paid leave to be beneficial to families, business, economies and the nation. I certainly do believe that the United States could benefit from a law that compels workers to offer all their employees paid family and medical leave with certain restrictions in place such as the length of time that the employee has been hired for and since, the number of workers in a company, the number of hours the employee works for (full time or part time), etc.
URL: http://www.rwjf.org/content/dam/farm/reports/issue_briefs/2016/rwjf432983
Who wrote it? Organization?
Population change and life course: strategic knowledge cluster
In partnership with Western University
Name the topic/general theme?
Are immigrants in better health than native Canadians?
Purpose of the brief?
Do you understand is immigrants that move to Canada how to better health in comparison to the people in their host country. The brief also addresses the different age categories and vaguely divides them into generic sub categories such as children, adults and older adults or seniors.
Generic table of contents
The brief starts off with a summary of the findings that suggest that adults who immigrated to Canada had better health than native Canadians during the initial years of moving.
The brief then focusses on key findings that suggest that perhaps adults who immigrated to Canada have better health because they need to satisfy an eligibility criteria in order to be accepted to move into Canada. This section also suggests that, according to findings, these adult immigrants do not continue to have better health than other native Canadians as their health eventually converges with those of their host country. Furthermore, this section acknowledged that health policies cannot be overgeneralized over all age categories as it is done difficult to determine which age group is more susceptible to better or worse.
The brief goes on to elaborate on the data and methodologies used to achieve the key findings mentioned prior. Furthermore, the next section of the policy brief expands on different health issues that each age sector may or may not be faced with. These age categories were: perinatal period (maternal health), children and adolescents, older people and refugees.
The policy brief also provides a finding of the mortality rate amongst children whose parents were born in Canada as opposed to the mortality rate amongst children whose parents were born elsewhere.
In the next section, the policy brief acknowledges certain gaps that were present during their data collection.
Are you convinced/intrigued?
I found this policy brief very interesting. At times there is a perception that because Canada is one of the developed nations, people coming into Canada from other nations that are not as developed as Canada would have worst health. However, the policy brief brilliantly points out that Canada only excepts immigrants who fulfil a certain set of needs which include being able to speak English, having certain skill sets, being educated, having good health and several other criteria. These eligibility criteria have a correlation with better health and an ability to earn good income. However, I believe more in-depth research needs to be done to further this notion that immigrants have better health than Canadian natives. Furthermore, I believe that a data sample that would focus on each of the different age groups it would be beneficial to understand which age group is more vulnerable than others in regards to immigration to Canada.
URL: http://sociology.uwo.ca/cluster/en/publications/docs/policy_briefs/PolicyBrief25.pdf
Who wrote it? Organization?
Juliana Fanous and Hannah Reardon, IHSP Outreach Interns in collaboration with McGill University.
Name the topic/general theme?
Don’t bogart that evidence-based policy: legalization of marijuana in Canada with Professor Alana Klein
Purpose of the brief?
To help readers understand Professor Alana Klein’s perspective on and cloth on a heated debate; the legalization and regulation of marijuana marijuana.
Generic table of contents
This policy brief was unique as it was a question and answer segment between two outreach interns and a professor at McGill University. The questions that were asked were very well rounded which led to a well-rounded policy brief. Professor Alana Klein spoke about the difference between criminalization, decriminalization and legislation. Professor Klein also spoke about her own research that formed her biases based on authentic research and keeping in mind the general public health benefits.
Are you convinced/intrigued?
I found this policy brief to be unique and very informative about the current debate. I think Professor Alan Klein based her answers on research findings that were geared towards promoting better health. I enjoyed that the policy brief’s aim was to inform the readers and help them become informed about the policy and research than trying to nudge readers in one direction or the other. I think Professor Klien’s answers were descriptive, informative and holistic.
URL: https://www.mcgill.ca/ihsp/files/ihsp/ak_brief-_legalization_final.pdf