U.S. Department of Health and Human Services\'

¶ … U.S. Department of Health and Human Services' Healthy People 2010 a success or a failure? Support your answer by discussing whether or not it accomplished the stated goals and objectives for Americans in the U.S. Identify the critical issues, challenges or problems

Department of Health and Human Services' Healthy People 2010 provides a health promotion and health prevention service for improving the health of all Americans in the 21st century.

Department of Health and Human services actually has 467 specific goals but its two overarching objectives can actually be defined as: increasing the quality and years of healthy life and eliminating health disparities.

The first goal is measured by measuring life expectancy and healthy life expectancy. Up to the present moment, the U.S. Department seems to be meeting this goal -- or making great strides in meeting it -- in that there seems to be increasing improvement in life expectancy. The quality of life and health also seems to have improved. On the other hand, other facts are ambivalent: women have greater life expectancy than men and Whites have greater life expectations than African-Americans. These seem to show that the U.S. Department has a greater effect to gender and race than on another. On the other hand, disparities in health may have nothing to do with endeavors of the Department and may in fact be reducible to external causes. This is part of the difficulty of conducting conclusive research in any area and particularly in an area as complex as this.

Furthermore, it is difficult to assess whether they were a success or a failure since there are various research complications involved in assessing the work of an organization as complex as this and certainly an organization that deals with such a broad swath of people.

The U.S. Department, as stated, has two goals: the first is to improve quality and quantity of life expectancy; the second is to identify reasons for and eliminate the disparities of health between gender, socio-economic background, education, locality and race. The U.S. Department seems to be on the whole meeting the first. In the second, it seems to be in a more confusing situation. Whilst it has reached grater cognizance of the situation and has caused greater publicity to the problem as well as intensified acknowledgment of needing to reduce disparities and ways of doing so, the Department has not made significant progress in eliminating disparities as such. This may be because accomplishments in this area may be beyond the capabilities of any particular organization.

Investigations in this area still record significant health disparities in populations and significant health disparities in many of the areas of objectives of the Department. Whist some differences were found in increase or decrease of disparities for various objectives, on the whole no significant improvements were found in reducing disparities. In fact, amount the 195 objectives for racial and ethnic groups, disparities increased for 24 objectives and decreased for 14. This is a poor record showing that the Department not only failed in meeting their goals in their second category but also actually showed decline in improvement.

A similar pattern was found in trying to decrease disparities between genders although the pattern was reversed with minor, but nonetheless slow progress found although the department still failed in meeting the majority of their goals. The Department had articulated 238 objectives in this area. Disparities decreased for 25 of their goals, and increased in 15.

Apparently, the Department seems to have an easier time in meeting gender-based goals and in reducing disparities in these instances, than in reducing disparities in ethnic-based goals.

When assessing reducing disparities in other groups such as in socioeconomic areas, areas of education, amongst people with and without disability, and amongst population of geographic areas, research found no reduction whatsoever.

To sum up therefore, the Department has seemed to be successful in meeting their first goal namely quality and quantity of life expectancy. They have largely failed, however, in meeting their second goal, reducing disparities (and then only insignificantly) in gender-based realm, whilst increasing in ethnicity and making no difference in other health-disparate realms.

Again, making a difference in this second category may depend on factors that lie far beyond and distinct to the health factor. Dealing with reducing health disparities, therefore, may belong to a field or institution other than that of the Health Department.

Also as stated previously, the research needed to conduct investigations into the success or failure of the Department is complex. Objectives, for instance, must be researched and their span involves all citizens of the U.S.

Other problems involves in conducting the research include the importance of conducting timely availability of research in order to most accurately assess the present medical health of the nation.

Investigations are also usually conducted by employing 10 indicators and 22 measures, but critics say that this is too cumbersome and that a single public health index (similar to that of leading economic indicators) would be better.

Did certain key health factors, health disparities, social justice precepts play a role in the success or failure of Health People 2010?

In certain key health factors, such as Cancer, Diabetes, immunization, infectious diseases, as well as in Occupational Health and Safety, the Department had made great progress of moving towards their targets. In other areas, it could not be satisfactorily assessed whether or not the objectives had been met. These included the areas of Environmental health, Health communication, Public Health, and vision and hearing. Some objectives and sub-objectives were dropped, whilst others lacked tracking ability. Furthermore, whilst some met the target, others moved away from the target, and others showed no change whatsoever.