Pros: State public health agencies operate independently. Usually dependent on state legislative statutory grants to authorize public health services and functions. According to Associations of State and Territorial Health officials (2017), Depending on the state’s organizational structure, legislatures may also give specific authority directly to local health commissioners, state or local boards of health, or other agencies (p. 25, Para 1). Can function as its own public health depending on state laws. Has multiple services to offer with in different areas of public health in a state. Have funds from state, federal and private resources, also partner with other public health agencies.
Cons: All grants are dependent on state legislative grants. …show more content…
Budget is first set federally and then re-budget by state again. Limited funds may require cut back with services with Medicaid, public assistances, etc. Larger strict limitations of financial requirements in assisting people. Limited resources.
Ideal State Agency
Both agency serve their purpose in serving the people with public health needs. It really depends on where you are in life and limitations are. At the moment, if I was to need assistance with my health my ideal agency to turn to would have to be free standing agency. Because they may offer me free services and more health opportunities then a super agency.
Super agency I may not qualify for any benefits due to my financial statues or age that may limited me from getting assistance from them. However, if they can be good for my public health needs if I was to research the requirements.
Most of all if I was to work for one of the agency I would most likely chose free-standing. I have worked for a free-standing public health agency and currently working for another. The resources we have on head has assisted may people with health care and probably an ideal agency to turn to if you are unsure of what limitations you face with super agency health care requirements.
Why isn't the super agency have more branches to offer more public health
Cons: All grants are dependent on state legislative grants. …show more content…
Budget is first set federally and then re-budget by state again. Limited funds may require cut back with services with Medicaid, public assistances, etc. Larger strict limitations of financial requirements in assisting people. Limited resources.
Ideal State Agency
Both agency serve their purpose in serving the people with public health needs. It really depends on where you are in life and limitations are. At the moment, if I was to need assistance with my health my ideal agency to turn to would have to be free standing agency. Because they may offer me free services and more health opportunities then a super agency.
Super agency I may not qualify for any benefits due to my financial statues or age that may limited me from getting assistance from them. However, if they can be good for my public health needs if I was to research the requirements.
Most of all if I was to work for one of the agency I would most likely chose free-standing. I have worked for a free-standing public health agency and currently working for another. The resources we have on head has assisted may people with health care and probably an ideal agency to turn to if you are unsure of what limitations you face with super agency health care requirements.
Why isn't the super agency have more branches to offer more public health