Families First Coronavirus Response Act
The Families First Coronavirus Response Act (FFCRA) denoted as H.R. 6201 is an enactment by the United States Congress passed on March 14, 2020, and March 18, 2020, by the U.S. House of Representatives and Senate respectively. It is meant to provide a viable response to the ongoing COVID-19 global pandemic. Notably, its economic impacts in the U.S. The Act proposes a financial relief to families affected by the virus such as free testing for the disease, a paid 14-day leave for the American workers from the affected households. The Act also provides for the increased food purchasing assistance programs (food stamps) for the no-income and low-income assistance. This paper aims to critically evaluate and analyze the Families First Coronavirus Response Act and how the context of its enactment relates to the policymaking process.
Area of Concern
Coronavirus pandemic is mostly a health issue that has similarly affected other areas of human survival. Its primary goal was to access funds for public health funding and vaccine development. Therefore, the underlying concerns of the issue include attempts to minimize the country’s morbidity and mortality rates. The setting forth of the Families First Coronavirus Response Act was geared towards flattening the COVID-19 spread curve (Dawson & Long, 2020). The Act was, thus, enacted to sustain families’ wellbeing amidst the adverse effects of the infection. The related concerns of the pandemic include economic implications. The bill seeks to address numerous economic issues such as offering paid emergency leaves and expanding unemployment benefits, which are vital budgetary provisions for the households. The passing into law of the Act made it a mostly legal issue since both the House of Representatives and the Senate participated in passing it into law in the U.S.
Background of the Coronavirus
When the FFCRA was voted enacted, there was the anticipation of the devastating health and economic impacts of the virus in the U.S. The Coronavirus Preparedness and Response Supplemental Appropriations Act preceded the H.R. 6201 with an initial budget of $ 8.3 billion. The money was allocated to the Department of Health and Human Services. 81% of the money was allocated locally, while the remaining 19% was allocated internally (Burton et al., 2020). The writing of the bill was prompted by economic, legal, and regulatory processes.
Economic Factors
The bill was prompted by the enormous financial implication involved in combating the Coronavirus pandemic. The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget had estimated that various measures for containing the disease would require an approximate cost of $192 billion (Hafiz et al., 2020). Such a considerable amount would not be sourced from elsewhere other than budgetary allocation.
Legal Factors
Significant ways in which various stakeholders were supposed to respond to the novel COVID-19 pandemic demanded a disruption in the related law and regulations. For instance, emergency leave and medical coverage are among the aspects of the law that the country would inevitably face changes in the quest to respond to the virus (Dawson & Long, 2020). Introducing Coronavirus response measures would only be appropriate by appealing to the law. Without using the parliamentary system, it would have been a blatant violation of the constitution to spend such vast amounts of money on such an unplanned agenda.
Regulatory Factors
The writing of the bill was also part of the regulatory processes since it involved regulatory bodies such as the Committee for a Responsible Federal Spending (CRFS). CRFS involvement in the process implies that the independent body questions any spending of the federal state (Dawson & Long, 2020). Therefore, the writing of the budget was a way of harmonizing the federal budget with the emergency response.
Stakeholders and Stakeholder Positions
Direct Stakeholders
The direct stakeholders in the FFCRA included the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), the U.S. Department of Labor, and the Legislature. These bodies were involved directly in the enactment of the bill. Their position is in support of the law because each one views the bill’s passing as an advantage. On the other hand, regulatory bodies such as CRFS also participated as a direct stakeholder. However, its position was neutral and more critical rather than entirely supportive of the bill.
Indirect Stakeholders
Indirect stakeholders in enacting the bill include the parties whose input in the bill’s enactment was crucial even though they did not take direct responsibility in the writing of the law. Among them were the private and public employment bodies, including companies, both for-profit and not-for-profit organizations. The federal judiciary also entailed the indirect stakeholders in enacting the bill. Finally, the general public’s view through the mass media also constituted a paramount input to the bill’s writing. All the stakeholders took a supportive position to the writing of the bill because it was to their advantage, although the employers required assurance of their sustained profitability.
SWOT Analysis of H.R. 6201 Bill
The FFCRA is associated with significant strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats as follows:
Strengths
The bill targets to combat the adverse effects of Coronavirus in various dimensions, such as the provision of social, economic, and healthcare support. It is, therefore, a reinforcement of the existing measures on emergency preparedness in the country. It also offers relief to the general population by easing the pressure of adjustment to the pandemic.
Weaknesses
The major weakness of the bill is that it requires a considerable budget. In so doing, the federal treasury is forced to forego other essential plans to prioritize the bill. Secondly, the money allocated to the law is simply an estimation rather than an accurate figure. For instance, CBO assumed that the unemployment rate would rise from 3.5 percent to 12 percent between February 2020 to April 2021 and then fall again (Coibion et al., 2020). Therefore, the basis of writing the bill was significantly unsubstantiated.
Opportunities
The bill provides the stakeholders with a chance to rethink the federal government’s approach to emergencies. Similarly, it is an opportunity for a multi-sectorial collaboration. Rarely do stakeholders from diverse orientations come together at the national level with similar standpoints. COVID-19 is an unprecedented pandemic that has touched on nearly all the stakeholders in the public sphere, bringing all of them on a drawing board for a mutual discussion.
Threats
There is a looming threat of the disease resurgence. Such cases have reportedly occurred in other countries, such as China and Spain (Chen et al., 2020). The budgetary allocation of the bill targeted one-time containment of the associated issues. If the virus re-surfaces later, the current bill will not sustain the containment measures.
Effect of Related Issues on Stakeholders
Institutional Level
Most issues outlined in the bill seek to reduce the households’ economic burden and facilitate return to the normalcy. At the Institutional level, employers and employees are the concerned stakeholders; each of them is positively affected. The bill relieves the employer of the economic uncertainties while assuring employers of sustained organizational profitability.
Local and State Levels
At the local and state levels, increased food stamp benefits, waivers on Medicare and Medicaid, and insurance constitute the most resounding issues. The affected stakeholders at the two levels include the legislature and the general public. The legislature will have to domesticate the federal laws. However, states with more severe threats such as New York, California, and Texas would face more constraints than those with fewer Coronavirus cases.
Federal Level
At the federal level, the affected stakeholders include the national regulatory body (CRFS), which is in charge of determining the value of the set aside money. The organization has to maximally engage resources in ensuring that the expenditure is well accounted for. The federal legislative bodies, including the Congress and Senate, were also affected since they are the law-making bodies. They were charged with an obligation of equitably allocating the set budget to all the states of the U.S. Such a task not only called for expertise but also rendered legislators prone to ideological conflicts.
Roles of a Master’s Prepared Nurse
Change Agent
A master’s prepared nurse leader can act as a change agent by taking an active part in community education programs such as advising community leaders on the measures to partake in reducing the virus spread. One can also take part in the change process by serving as a role model.
Contribution to the Policymaking Process
A master’s prepared nurse is an expert in the field of healthcare. Therefore, he/she is a source of authority. As such, they can serve a crucial role in advising policymakers on the potential consequences of a healthcare-related decision. Similarly, they should avail of the relevant information to be used in the policymaking process. Such information may include evidence from research to validate the need to uphold, withdraw, introduce, or terminate a health-related undertaking.
Advocating for Quality, Cost-effective Care.
The nurse can advocate for quality and cost-effective care by advising patients to enlist for the available medical programs such as Medicare and Medicaid. Additionally, by implementing patient follow-up programs to track home care, the master’s prepared nurse can be contributed immensely to the implementation of quality and cost-effective healthcare. The nurse is considered the most qualified stakeholder to facilitate easy access to quality healthcare services because they regularly interact with patients.
Conclusion
FFCRA is a U.S. federal Act seeking to create various economic relief programs in the wake of Coronavirus pandemic. The Act is driven by financial, legal, and regulatory factors, especially regarding the huge budgetary allocation to the task. In writing the bill, the input of both direct and indirect stakeholders was pivotal, making the enactment multi-faceted. Although H.R. 6201 is generally beneficial, it has significant limitations. The opportunities and threats it presents are worth critical consideration. The bill’s effect on stakeholders at different levels is generally positive since it is a strengths-based initiative. In light of the bill’s enactment, a master’s prepared nurse is responsible for responding to healthcare-related issues by acting as a change agent, contributing to the policymaking process, and advocating for quality, cost-effective care in different ways.
References
Burton, D., Fishpaw, M., Michel, N. J., Sheppard, P., & Winfree, P. (2020). The “Third Inning”: Next Steps for Congress in Addressing the Coronavirus. Heritage Foundation Backgrounder, (3477).
Chen, D., Xu, W., Lei, Z., Huang, Z., Liu, J., Gao, Z., & Peng, L. (2020). Recurrence of positive SARS-CoV-2 RNA in COVID-19: A case report. International Journal of Infectious Diseases.
Coibion, O., Gorodnichenko, Y., & Weber, M. (2020). The cost of the covid-19 crisis: Lockdowns, macroeconomic expectations, and consumer spending (No. w27141). National Bureau of Economic Research.
Dawson, L., & Long, M. (2020). The Families First Coronavirus Response Act: Summary of key provisions. The Henry J Kaiser Family Foundation.
Hafiz, H., Oei, S. Y., Ring, D. M., & Shnitser, N. (2020). Regulating in pandemic: evaluating economic and financial policy responses to the coronavirus crisis. Boston College Law School Legal Studies Research Paper, (527).