HEALTH MEETING 5
Themeeting was organized by the Department of Health Rhodes Island inconjunction with Rhodes Island Health Centre Association (RIHCA).Although over the years RIHCA has been ranked as one of the besthealth services available in the U.S. established by the community,the effectiveness of the program has been experiencing a steep falldue to dwindling funds. The health council raised concern over theissue and invited selected members of the public and the localadministrators of the program to discuss how the status of servicesoffered through Rhodes Community Health Sector may be enhanced.During the meeting, a number of issues arose and were discussed byall participants and some voted for implementation by the council ofhealth.
Thefirst issue of debate was the report of the committee of the healthservices council that during the previous meeting was tasked with therole of applying Cardea Healthcare and establishment of a nursinghome care providence agency. The health services staff summarized thereport and invited members to ask questions on any grey areas. Dr.Donahue complemented the initiative of the council and thepresentation made. Mr. Lasky, one of the invited community socialworkers, raised a question on when the home nursing care facilitywill be officially opened as this did not feature in the report. Healso inquired whether the Cardea Healthcare would offer servicesunder the same conditions to people from other states who visitedRhodes Island due to the higher ranking of the services offered inthe area. The health council officials diligently responded to hisquestions reporting what they had deliberated on the issue during themeeting commissioning the facility construction.
Theagenda that followed was a review on whether the report of the healthservices council concerning MDP PK Holdings advocating Changes inEffective Control (CEC) of Option Care Enterprises, LLC in Riverside.The health committee staff summarized the report by a slidepresentation. When public comments were invited, several questionswere raised in addition to recommendations that members of the publicthoughts should be implemented. A member of the public raised concernover the suggestion to change the program services delivery to OptionCare Enterprise which had only a few years before suffering legalactions over staff recklessness that led to death of two people. Adebate ensued which revealed that a relative portion of theparticipants did not support the board suggestion. The chairperson ofthe meeting supported by his committee led a voting exercise todetermine whether the decision should be upheld or withdrawn. Out ofthe forty three participants who were allowed to vote, 31 voted infavor of option care enterprise. Consequently, the report was adoptedas written without any changes.
Finally,the CODAC Behavioral Healthcare services adopted during the previousyear’s meeting was brought to focus. The initiative was aimed atproviding services in East Providence, Wakefield, Newport andProvidence by applying CODAC, Inc. through Initial Licensure (IL) inCranston by an Organized Ambulatory Care Facility (OACF). The staffmade a presentation of the services so far achieved. Members of thepublic lamented that the project had not commenced in their regions.The community health worker representing East Providence argued thatthe region is yet to enjoy the services of CODAC, Inc. despite theregion being in much need of the services due to the high populationof the inhabitant as compared to other regions. The matter was notedwith concern and the officials explained the funding complicationsthat they have gone through limiting the ability to cover all areasas agreed on during the previous meeting. Since the East ProvidenceFacility was to be the largest, they prioritized the less financiallydemanding areas and addressed them awaiting the budget allocation forthe coming year. Due to less than required implementation of thematters deliberated on and approved previously, members suggestedamendments which were voted for and written down subject to approvalof the council of health committee.
Publicmeetings constitute an important platform through which unworthypractices may be discouraged in a community. For instance, theProvidence Journal (2016), reports that in Rhodes Island, A shark fingoes for $485 to $490 per pound. The shark fin soup, which is apopular Chinese cuisine, fetches a substantial sum of money for thetraders encouraging the practice of cutting fins from sharks andliving them to die. Animal rights activists have been forced to raisealarm to save the sharks species whose survival is under threat. Ifthe activist convenes a meeting with the members of the localcommunity, it would be easier to discourage the habit as people willbe well informed of the threat the animals are under. If the decisionto ban the sale of the fins in meat stores is arrived at by involvingmembers of the public, people would be more supportive. This mayreduce resistance and speed up the implementation process than if thepolicy is passed by the senate without listening to the publicopinion.
However,there are a number of limitations to relying on public meetings topassing or abolishing a policy. First, decision making may take toolong as many people may support different sides while others lackpositions. Some people are easily influenced by the opinions ofothers. Additionally, others hold a certain position which they maynot be willing to change even when it proves unjust. This justifiesthe essence of leaders to represent people for the purposes ofdecision making.
ProvidenceJournal, (2016). RhodeIsland Senate votes for shark fin ban.Retrieved 1 August 2016, fromhttp://www.providencejournal.com/article/20160507/NEWS/160509444