Title

Exploring Policy Options for Increasing Charity/Uncompensated Care Funding while Potentially Reducing Inappropriate Firearm Usage

Document Type

Presentation

Publication Date

12-9-2016

Comments

Advisor:

D Harris, Jefferson College of Population Health, Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, PA

Abstract

The purpose of this study is to explore policy options that could be used to develop a policy that would generate funds for charitable care and potentially limit inappropriate firearm usage. To accomplish this a literature review was performed that primarily focused on gun control efforts and public policy options that have been successfully utilized in the past. The rationale is that components from these different topics can be merged to produce the desired policy. Content experts were contacted to aid in the determination of key policy considerations that were then built into a scoring rubric. These considerations are: Constitutionality, Political Feasibility, Effectiveness, Efficiency, and Economic Sustainability. The jurisdictional level for the policy was determined by examining the positive and negative attributes of implementation at the National, State, or Municipal level. The Municipal level, specifically the City of Philadelphia, was chosen, primarily due to the makeup of the City Council and the lack of a strong grass-roots pro-gun rights groups operating in the area. The scoring rubric was then utilized to score three potential policy options that were assembled based off of the literature review. The funding mechanism for the policy options were designed using a sales tax, fee based punitive structure, and a liability insurance mandate. The review of these policy options resulted in the selection of the fee based punitive structure option. This policy option outscored the other options in most categories and received an overall score of 21 points out of a possible 25 points. The other options scored 17 and 14 points respectively. A policy proposal was then drafted around a fee based punitive structure.

Presentation: 39:21