2 Case Studies
Read Answer the questions to the 3 Case Studies below –
1st Cast Study :
Case Study: The Heart Truth-v3
Attached Files:
File The Heart Truth Case Study.pdf (1.087 MB)
Think about these key questions while reading The Heart Truth® case study. Answers should be written briefly- bullet points are perfectly fine.
What role did formative research play in The Heart Truth® campaign?
In what ways were the concepts and messages developed for The Heart Truth® a departure from women’s heart health education efforts that existed at the time the campaign was begun? How did the campaign planners know that these were important changes to make?
The Heart Truth® is an example of a social marketing campaign that integrates a branding strategy into its social marketing framework. What is the campaign’s brand and how has it contributed to the success of the campaign?
How did The Heart Truth® use partnerships as distribution channels, helping to reach audiences at the national level and in communities?
Name 2 partnerships The Heart Truth® used that helped the campaign reach its target audience.
Were you aware of the brand/symbol before reading this case study?
If so, where did you hear about it?
if not, what products or social media tactics do you recommend the campaign use to help increase the number of people familiar with the campaign?
How and why did The Heart Truth® integrate social media tactics into the ongoing campaign?
How did The Heart Truth® evaluate the campaign’s success? What sorts of limitations on program evaluation do you think the campaign staff encountered?
Visit the campaign website at www.hearttruth.org to explore the available content.
Case Study 2 : Making Cuts in a College Health Center Budget
Background
A public health agency budget is the locus of allocation decisions. Ethical reflection on allocation decisions enters reality by working out a practical resolution of conflict among public health values in the context of the agency’s budget. On a regular basis, public health agencies set budgets and must deal with fiscal constraints on what they can do. This case explores the ethics of identifying places in a hypothetical state college budget for health services where administrators propose cuts to services that can provide an overall reduction in expenditures of 15%. In the aftermath of September 11, 2001, the subsequent recession, and the early 2010s recession, most states across the country faced severe shortfalls. The 15% budget reduction imagined here is not an unusual scenario.
The Excellent Public University (EPU) and the College Health Center (CHC)
Excellent Public University has about 50,000 students, with undergraduate students comprising about 80% of the student population. EPU is located with a micro-urban community, and EPU is the largest employer in the region by far. Because the EPU student population is so large in an otherwise relatively small community, EPU has its own health services called the College Health Center. The EPU CHC is organized into 4 departments: 1) Primary Care, 2) Health Resource Centers, 3) Mental Health Services, and 4) Preventive Health Services.
The EPU CHC Budget
The EPU CHC’s most recent operating budget was for $10,000,000 for the year. The budget comes mainly from funds from student health service fees (part of student tuition) and university general fund dollars. Some funding also comes in through grants, whose dollars are restricted to special preventive health services. The state government has struggled in recent years due to loss of tax revenue. For this coming year, the state is predicting budget cuts to all state entities, which includes EPU. The governor has asked all state agencies to create a budget showing what they would cut if faced with a 15% reduction in funds. The Chancellor at EPU as asked all university departments, including the CHC, to create a budget showing what they would cut if faced with that 15% budget reduction. The list below shows the $1.5 million in cuts proposed by the EPU CHC along with a narrative showing the anticipated consequences for the health of the population if these cuts are made.
Proposed EPU CHC Budget Cuts and Resulting Consequences
• From the Primary Care Department ($750,000 cut from a budget of $5,000,000)
1. Cancel Saturday Hours- Savings: $600,000. Currently the CHC is open on Saturday from 9am-5pm to serve students with scheduled appointments or walk-in services. Cancelling Saturday service would mean that EPU students would have to visit an off-campus urgent care facility or the local hospital’s emergency department for Saturday services. In the past year, 4,000 students received services at the CHC on a Saturday.
2. Eliminate Seasonal Flu Mass Vaccine Campaigns- Savings: $150,000. Each year the CHC provides a mass vaccination campaign for seasonal flu vaccines. The CHC offers walk-in flu shots at many locations across campus for a 3-4 week period. Students can easily obtain a flu shot by attending any of the conveniently located flu shot clinics. (Faculty and staff on campus are also able to get their flu shots at these drop-in clinics, and their health insurance pays for their flu shots.) Last year 11,000 students received seasonal flu vaccines at a walk-in flu shot clinic. If these are cancelled, students would only be able to receive a flu vaccine through a scheduled primary care appointment.
• From the Health Resource Centers Department ($150,000 cut from a budget of $1,000,000)
3. Eliminate a Health Resource Center Location- Savings: $50,000. The CHC operates four Health Resource Centers at locations spread across campus. The centers are open limited hours and provide easy access to basic services such a Healthy-U Kits and peer health educators for questions on sex and mental health. The centers also house seasonal health activities such as flu shot clinics, HIV testing, and others. The North Health Resource Center is the smallest center, thus it would be targeted for closure. Last year 2,300 students accessed services at this center.
4. Reduce Healthy-U Kits Availability- Savings: $50,000. The CHC offers Healthy-U Kits at the main CHC and the health resource centers. Multiple kits are offered, such as the Cold Care Kit and the Wound Care Kit. EPU students are eligible to get these kits twice a semester. Last year 2,500 Cold Care Kits were dispensed. The proposed cut would be to offer Cold Care Kits only once per semester per student.
5. Reduce Sexy-U Kits Availability- Savings: $50,000. The CHC offers Sexy-U Kits at the main CHC and the health resource centers. The kits vary and can include condoms, latex barriers, lube, and/or spermicide based on the requested kit. Sexy-U Kits are currently available every two weeks. Last year 6,000 Sexy-U Kits were dispensed. The proposed cut would be to offer Sexy-U Kits only once per month per student.
• From the Mental Health Services Department ($300,000 cut from a budget of $2,000,000)
6. Reduce Schedule for Alcohol & Narcotics Abuse Counseling- Savings $25,000. The CHC currently provides alcohol and narcotics abuse counseling to EPU students. This includes students required to undertake counseling due to a university or police sanction and students who voluntarily request assistance. Currently counseling services are offered in one-on-one or group options, and students can participate in counseling during the daytime or on selected evening hours. The proposed budget cut would eliminate evening hours.
7. Alcohol Abuse Prevention Education Becomes Biennial vs. Annual- Savings $250,000. Currently every incoming EPU student takes a course to learn about alcohol abuse and strategies for harm reduction tied to drinking. Costs for the program includes offering two semester-long courses that train students to be peer educators, stipends for the 2-4 graduate students who manage the program, salary for the undergraduate peer presenters, and materials and supplies cost for the programs held in the fall that serve ~12,000 new students each year. This budget cut would change the program so that it is offered only every other year.
8. Eliminate Stress Management Peer Graduate Student Leader- Savings: $25,000. The Stress Management Peers receive education and training on common sources of stress, methods to prevent stress, techniques to help cope with stress, and an understanding of when stress needs serious intervention. The Stress Management Peers group provides outreach and education services to ~10,000 students each year. The budget cut here would eliminate funding for the graduate student who oversees the peer group. This work would have to be assumed by an existing CHC staff member.
• From the Preventive Health Services Department ($300,000 cut from a budget of $2,000,000)
9. Eliminate Sexual Health Peers Graduate Student Leader- Savings: $25,000. The Sexual Health Peers receive education and training on sexual health topics including safe sex, health relationships, STDs, and other related topics. The Stress Management Peers group provides outreach and education services to ~15,000 students each year. The budget cut here would eliminate funding for the graduate student who oversees the peer group. This work would have to be assumed by an existing CHC staff member.
10. Reduce Hours for HIV Testing and Counseling- Savings: $100,000. Anonymous HIV testing and counseling is currently offered at the CHC daily and at specified days/times at the Health Resource Centers. Students are able to get a free, confidential HIV test and within about 30 minutes meet with a trained counselor to discuss the test results and relevant health education. This budget cut would reduce HIV testing and counseling to be offered only on week of each month.
11. Reduce Rape Prevention Education- Savings: $100,000. Currently every incoming EPU student takes a course to learn about acquaintance rape, how to prevent becoming a victim, how to prevent becoming a perpetrator, how to help friends stay safe, and what to do should a rape occur to you or someone you know. Costs for the program includes offering two semester-long courses that train students to be peer educators, stipends for the 4-6 graduate students who manage the program, and materials and supplies cost for the programs held in the fall that serve ~12,000 new students each year. The budget cuts here would reduce the training class to be offered only at one time, with an expected increase in class size. Two of the graduate students who manage the program would be eliminated, meaning CHC staff would have to take on this role.
12. Reduce Nutrition Consultation Services- Savings $75,000. The CHC currently offers students free one-on-one nutrition consultation services with registered dieticians (RDs). The RDs help students who are wanting to lose weight, gain weight, improve their diet, and/or combat diet-related health conditions (ex: type 2 diabetes). These meetings are also a common place that students with eating disorders first engage in health services. EPU students currently have up to 3 RD sessions per year. Last year 800 students utilized 2,000 RD visits. This budget cut would lower the number of nutrition consults available to 2 per student per year.
Please read the case and prepare your written answers to the following 6 questions:
1. The identified possible budget cuts were geared towards a 15% state budget cut. The state budget projections look slightly better now, so the CHC only needs to make a 10% cut to its budget, which is $1 million dollars. Of the proposed budget cuts from the case study, what programs would you cut to reach the $1 million dollar mark?
2. Why did you select the proposed cuts you would make in #1? Please briefly jot down your rationale for each of the programs you would cut.
Imagine that you are the CHC director and actually have to make these budget cuts in health center…
3. What additional information would you want about the programs to inform your decision?
4. Where would you find that information, or how do you think you could collect that information?
5. Who would you include in discussions about determining what programming to cut, and why would you include them?
6. Would you tell the population served by the program that it might be cut? Why, or why not?
