Summary
The GovTrack.us. (2022). H.R. 3150 — 117th Congress bill is an act that requires the Health Resources and Services Administration to create a loan repayment program for mental health professionals who work in designated workforce-shortage areas in the US. It will require an amendment to the Public Health Service Act to authorize a loan repayment program for mental health practitioners to alleviate shortages of workers amongst other important reasons that could result such as mental stress to the overworked personnel.
Background of the Problem
Increased mental problems amongst health workers have been on a rise due to the Covid-19 pandemic. Congress has been considering proposals to address the challenge within the workforce, due to both the pressure from the pandemic and the overall necessity for mental health services among the population. The legislation will be an advantage to the occupational therapy profession by recognizing mental health providers in the sector. Additionally, under deployment of mental health staff has been identified as another challenge facing health departments in the undeserving communities and the bill seeks to create balance through the loan repayment system that will lead to an increased number of those working in such areas of difficulty.
Regulatory and Legislative History
Informed decision-making in the mental health agencies has influenced the awareness of group that consists of policymakers, patients, educators, and medical practitioners. The development of behavioral trends within the mental health area requires valid sources of information that could be used to link their challenges to the solutions to ensure stability. The US health sector appears embedded in the discriminative foundation that has contributed to the challenge that the bill seeks to address (Eden et al., 2022). The need to institute equity and diversity in the health sector is a fair position that would help sort the mental health department as well.
Pros and Cons and Policy Timetable
The summary of the policy would be crucial in making a decision that would influence the trajectory of events in the mental health department. A policy informs decision-making by informing stakeholders of necessary steps and options available towards meeting specific targets (Petkovic et al., 2018). The provisions in the Act will increase the number of employees within the discriminated areas. However, the policy would also contribute to a higher number of loan applications to the disadvantage of the applicants who will remain indebted. Elsewhere, the bill, upon passage is directly instituted into the health sector to amend the lapses that had been created during the old systems to introduce sanity that would see effective service delivery.
Stakeholders Perspectives
The stakeholders in the policy include clients, medical officers, and policy-makers. The clients who seek services would be advantaged because the number of attendants is likely to grow to make service provision in their favor simple. The personnel on the other side would be assisted by the reduced discrimination that made them unable to access loan services due to their remote locations. The policy-makers depend on the findings to make decisions and advance their research. Since summaries present evidence (Purtle et al., 2020), it is easier to understand and use them for regulating the work environment.
Recommendations
It would be crucial to use the policy to influence, change practice, mental health culture, and advocate for efforts toward a non-discriminative functional system. The proposal of loan repayment for the mental health workforce should be implemented to ensure the stability of labor and operations within the targeted areas. Decisionmakers who strive to achieve equitable policy must understand the issues surrounding the employees to provide a just surrounding for effective provision of services.
References
Eden, A. R., Jones, D. D., Bazemore, A. W., & Jabbarpour, Y. (2022). Informing Equity & Diversity in Primary Care Policy and Practice: Introducing a New Series of Policy Briefs, Commentaries, and Voices in JABFM. The Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine, 35(1), 190-196.
Petkovic, J., Welch, V., Jacob, M. H., Yoganathan, M., Ayala, A. P., Cunningham, H., & Tugwell, P. (2018). Do evidence summaries increase health policy-makers’ use of evidence from systematic reviews? A systematic review. Campbell Systematic Reviews, 14(1), 1-52.
Purtle, J., Lê-Scherban, F., Nelson, K. L., Shattuck, P. T., Proctor, E. K., & Brownson, R. C. (2020). State mental health agency officials’ preferences for and sources of behavioral health research. Psychological services, 17(S1), 93.
