PUBLIC POLICY ANALYSIS

OVERVIEW

WHAT IS IT?
Public policy analysis is analysis that serves to identify and assess several dimensions of a public policy in a
partner country or region. In INTPA it focuses on policy relevance and credibility in a sector of interest.

WHAT CAN IT BE USED FOR?

Public policy analysis aids in understanding how a government/sector assesses current needs and
opportunities and intends to respond to these. It examines a sector/area of intervention from a public policy
perspective, which entails looking at national/sectoral priorities and current policies, programmes, action
plans, etc. It also serves to identify possible challenges to policy implementation (lack of cost estimates,
insufficient budget allocation, weak coordination across institutions, insufficient evidence, etc.) which might
pose a risk for the intervention and need to be mitigated. Additionally, it helps in recognising external
influences on the policymaking process.
Finally, Public policy analysis can be helpful in engaging in policy dialogue with relevant institutions, based on
evidence gathered and interpreted.

WHEN CAN IT BE USED?

Public policy analysis is a key analysis which underpins the design of an intervention. It is instrumental in
selecting the intervention's strategy, as it is based on an analysis of the challenges and opportunities offered
by the policy framework. PPA is also critical during implementation as a means of tracking changes, detecting
risks and helping ensure that the intervention remains relevant and results oriented.

Why is policy analysis important?

Conducting a policy analysis ensures you have gone through a systematic process to choose the policy
option that may be best for your situation.

Who should you involve in your policy analysis?

People who can provide and/or interpret information about the policy

Who they are:

 Subject matter experts

 Economists
 Community Partners

How they can contribute:

Provide and interpret information you need for your policy analysis

People affected by the policy

Who they are:

People whose jobs or lives might be affected by the policy

 Community members
 Community partners
  Local decision makers

How they can contribute:

Provide contextual knowledge, such as potential social, educational, and cultural perspectives

People who administer resources related to the policy

Who they are:

 Public officials and administrators

How they can contribute:

Include these stakeholders during the policy analysis process to help you understand the potential economic
and/or budgetary impacts of the policy options being considered. They can also help you understand the legal
landscape around the potential policies

How do you conduct a policy analysis?

1. Research and identify possible policy options.

You can do this by reviewing research literature, conducting an environmental scan, and surveying best
practices to understand what other communities are doing.

2. Describe the possible policy options.

As you conduct your policy analysis, pay attention to the health impact, cost of implementation, and feasibility
of each option. To describe these three factors, you can ask yourself and your stakeholders questions such
as:

What population(s) will be affected by each policy option? By how much? And when?
What is the context around the possible policy options, including political history, environment, and policy
debate?
What are the costs and benefits associated with each policy option from a budgetary perspective?
When you are assessing feasibility, it is important to identify any barriers that could prevent a policy from
being developed, enacted, or implemented. A policy might be more feasible in one city or at a certain time,
but not others. You might find that as circumstances change, what is considered affordable or publicly
acceptable may change with them.

3. Rank the possible policy options and pick the one you think is best.

Compare the policy options for health impact, economic and budgetary impact, and feasibility. Next, rank
each one based on those criteria. Stakeholders can provide guidance on how to do this. Your rankings will
always be partially subjective, so it helps to systematically document your rationale. In some cases, your
review may reveal a clear winner—a policy that is a) feasible, b) has a strong, positive impact on public
health, and c) is economically and fiscally viable. In other cases, ranking the options may be more
complicated and involve assessing trade-offs.

For example, when considering policies for reducing smoking, there are trade-offs related to feasibility and
impact between options. (Feasibility and impact depends on your context, like your location.) You may have
to have choose between a more feasible policy (like an indoor smoking ban for restaurants) and one with
more widespread impact (like raising prices on tobacco products in your state).

There are many definitions of "public policy analysis" that intellectuals have sought to clarify smoothly.
However, the most comprehensive report of it belongs to William Jenkins, who defined it as “a set of
interrelated decisions taken by a political actor or group of actors concerning the selection of goals and the
means of achieving them within a specified situation where these decisions should, in principle, be within the
power of those actors to achieve.” We conclude from Jenkins's definition that these decisions aim to meet
some citizens' needs and address their problems or issues.

In short, through a comprehensive public policy analysis, it is possible to develop societies and achieve the
satisfaction of people and public or private organisations, especially as it is a process that contributes to the
success of business change management theory. Accordingly, the public policy analysis and the
implementation are the two necessary processes for the concerned individuals or entities to know the
mechanism of their application.

Therefore, we can summarise the role and usefulness of domestic or global public policy analysis in five main
components. Here's what:

 Providing high-quality services and goods that are necessary for individuals and that depend on the
efforts of the government.
 Resolving problems or conflicts over scarce resources according to sound standards.
 Protect and secure the official rights of individuals and organisations.
 Enhancing cooperation between individuals and society as a whole.
 Achieving a policy of justice and equality among the various groups of society.

What is the methodology used in public policy analysis?

There are several steps and stages of public policy analysis that you should know to achieve the desired
results and goals. We can summarise it as follows:

 Defining the problem

It is one of the essential stages of successful public policy analysis. First, we must know the type of problem
well, its causes, and estimate its seriousness. This will significantly assist you in the research and data
collection process related to the problem you rely on in finding the best solution.

 Evidence collection
For many interested in intellectual theories, evidence collection is one of the essential tools for analysing
public or private policy. This step is necessary to build approaches and ideas to help you generalise the
problem, assess the ability to confront it, and development decisions as alternatives or solutions.

 Create alternatives
To organise and apply agreed policies to solve problems, the part based on developing solutions should be
used for any problem while preparing well and considering the possibility of failure. Since the research on
general issues is not subject to error, however, a set of alternative solutions must be developed through which
the problem-solving aims to avoid inflating the results of these problems.

 Set the rules

This part of the methodology of public policy analysis in the Arab world and around the globe deals with
adopting some rules based on the previous steps of public policy analysis from the perspective of public
administration. It is often in the context of coercion and forced to ensure the commitment of all individuals in
applying the program for solutions to problems designed in the form of rules and laws.

 Decision-making
Excellent attention and high capacities of rigour and commitment are required in this step. It is the last step in
the path of public policy analysis, and the separation between success and failure depends on its application.
It indicates the confidence of the political analyst in his plan and his direction toward solving problems or
securing some needs. If the analyst does not trust what he relied on in the decision-making process or
research-based policies, he will be unable to convince others of it or even impose it on them.

Finally,
Public policy analysis is a powerful tool based on logical criteria and strict rules that can find practical
solutions to any social, economic, or political problem.

Policy Analysis at a Glance

Modern society is complex and growing more so every day. Governments rely on a robust array of policies to
address a web of interconnected challenges related to issues like public safety, education, and infrastructure.
Individuals involved in public administration may find it challenging to identify the best way to tackle those
challenges. What is the most effective way to improve air quality? How can a society optimize access to
education? How should a municipal government pay for an expensive infrastructure project?
These questions often have multiple answers. Policy analysis can help determine the best option that will
produce the most desirable result. What policy analysis does is help lay out the goals of a potential policy,
examine the various strengths and weaknesses of each policy option, and identify the most viable one. For
example, when determining how to pay for a costly infrastructure project, a policy analysis would consider the
various methods to do so. Raising taxes could be one solution. Cutting the budget for a department or
reallocating funds from a different project may be another. Through policy analysis, those in public
administration can identify the best solution.
Public Policy Keeps Changing
Public policy is subject to the surrounding political, social, and economic conditions. This dynamic
underscores the need for ongoing policy analysis. A policy enacted five or even two years ago may no longer
be relevant. Therefore, administrators must regularly evaluate policies that address both present and future
concerns.
Policy Analysis in Corporations
While policy analysis is a feature of public administration, private enterprises employ it. For example,
corporate policies regarding the privacy of consumer and employee data are subject to evolving laws and
regulations. Failing to update these policies can put businesses at risk of legal action.
While the public policy in its development stage is theoretical, its implementation is tangible and has a real-
world impact. As such policy analysts should involve key stakeholders throughout the process. Stakeholders
may include economists who can examine the cost-benefit ratio of a particular policy, community partners
who can provide context and assess a policy’s real or potential impact, and government officials who will
implement policy and can speak to its feasibility. When the policy process involves stakeholders before
implementation, policymakers can avoid misunderstandings and increase the likelihood of success, according
to the World Health Organization (WHO).
The Benefits of Policy Analysis for Public Administrators
Effective policy analysis relies heavily on empirical research, pulling from both qualitative and quantitative
sources. Personal interviews with policymakers and community partners constitute the former and provide
valuable context. These firsthand accounts can explain how the proposed policy would affect members of the
community, its potential economic and budgetary impact, as well as the legal and political landscape that
surrounds the policy.
Qualitative research may also involve a literature review that examines the existing body of research on a
particular policy issue. Analysts can identify current policy options as well as gaps in existing research to
further narrow options and solutions. This type of research empowers policy analysts to learn important
lessons from past policy attempts, both successful and unsuccessful. A proposed policy may seem innovative
and cost-effective, but a literature review of past attempts may illuminate potential pitfalls.
Different from qualitative research, the quantitative study involves statistical data review and cost-benefit
analysis, comparing the potential benefits of a policy with its expected or known costs. While conducted in
monetary terms, many aspects of public policy may not be easily measured in dollars and cents.
A human element is involved in the creation of any policy. Both the officials responsible for implementing
policy and those it impacts can influence a policy’s outcome. Cost-benefit analyses can fail to capture those
nuances, which is why personal interviews (a form of qualitative research) also are an important part of the
process.
Environmental scans are another aspect of forecasting policy options. The Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention (CDC) defines an environmental scan as the collection of information about events, trends,and
expectations that have the potential to influence the policy process.
Health care organizations frequently use environmental scans. For example, Public Health Ontario performed
an environmental scan as part of its policy analysis when examining how to safely reopen schools during the
COVID-19 pandemic. Based on the results, the health care institution was able to identify how other
jurisdictions approached reopening schools, examine variables, and make an informed policy decision about
the safest way to reopen schools.
Complexities of policy analysis
Public policy is dynamic and requires that policy makers adjust policy to changing conditions and needs.
When a change of policy direction or emphasis occurs, it usually requires increased resource expenditures.
For example, if a public school’s administrators determine that students’ reading disabilities are impeding their
general progress in school, it might be necessary to increase resources devoted to reading programs. The
goal would be to increase benefit as a result of increased expenditure on a particular facet of a public policy.
The increased benefit is called a marginal benefit, while the increased cost is known as a marginal cost. In
cost-benefit analysis, important marginal increases in cost are justifiable in terms of increased benefits. If a
benefit does not increase at a rate greater than cost increases, then the marginal policy changes are
economically inefficient.
The dynamic quality of public policy is also considered in a procedure known as discounting. The value of a
particular resource (e.g., money) does not remain the same over time. For example, money that is not spent
may grow in value, simply by gaining interest or investment value. Once money is spent for a particular policy,
that interest or investment value potential is lost. The longer the money remains invested, the greater the
potential value that can be generated. Therefore, current resources frequently have greater potential value
than resources collected or retained in future years; not all money is equal once time is factored into analysis.
The discounting procedure allows policy makers to compare monetary values on an equal basis, thereby
making the cost-benefit analyses more accurate in terms of both present and future costs associated with a
policy.
The ability to conduct accurate and complete cost-benefit analyses is often hampered by a variety of other
factors that play a role in public policy. When one chooses to move or not to move in a particular policy
direction, there is the risk of policy failures. Those risks might mean that resources that were spent with good
intentions never produced an expected benefit. Oftentimes the risks of failure are so great that policy makers
avoid potential political ire by simply not choosing to take on high-risk (yet potentially valuable) policy goals.
Existing public policy often carries with it a lower level of risk than newer public policies. Frequently, there are
unforeseen indirect start-up costs associated with new policies. Additionally, public policies are often vague
and require the establishment of rules and procedures for day-to-day operations. The costs of implementation
cannot always be determined before a public policy is put into place. However, they must be factored into
cursory cost-benefit analysis to determine the feasibility of a particular prospective public policy
Whether government is considering a new direction for public policy or simply implementing existing policy,
the changing nature of society’s needs must be continually monitored. People migrate, economic and social
conditions change, and the nature of public problems continually evolves. Demographic data helps policy
analysts determine if social and economic change is occurring in an equitable manner. Demographic analysis
played an important part in documenting the rise of economic and social inequality that arose in the post-
World War II era. While the analyses were interpreted by political conservatives and liberals in different ways,
the findings themselves played an important role in developing public policies intended to remedy the
inequities, the impacts of which could be studied in future demographic analysis.
Policy analysts use decision theory to plan for contingencies that arise in policy formulation and
implementation. Decision theory is an attempt to explore all possible contingencies extant in a particular
policy. The approach is especially useful after a particular policy has been adopted by government. Following
policy adoption, the details of policy practice must be explored in full. For the most part, policy adoption
means that a particular set of general policy goals has been recognized as being a function of government.
Government agencies in charge of meeting those goals frequently must determine how to deal with a variety
of alternative decisions that will have to be made and what outcomes (and the value of those outcomes) are
likely from each of those decisions. Decision theory involves determining the probability that various events
will occur and factoring that probability into decision analysis.
Policy analysts may use experimentation to cost-effectively “test” public policy alternatives. Experiments are
one the most effective methods of determining a causal connection between the presence of a public policy
and particular outcomes. Policy experiments, however, may face ethical challenges. For example, denying a
policy benefit to those outside of the experiment may be harmful. Conversely, ethical challenges arise when
individuals are subjected to a poor policy.
Outcomes of policy analysis
The outcomes of public policy analysis are highly varied. In one sense, policy analysis provides elected and
nonelected government decision makers the opportunity to develop a greater understanding of a policy
problem and possible solutions. Through policy analysis, it is possible to gain a greater understanding of the
projected costs and possible benefits that will emerge from the adoption of a particular policy alternative.
Decision makers often seek the most economical alternative possible—the alternative that offers the most in
the way of benefit and the least in the way of cost. Government is asked to deal with a number of policy goals
with limited resources; therefore, it is wise to stretch tax dollars. Policy analysis can help decision makers
make rational decisions.
 PUBLIC LAW AND ETHICS

What are the law and ethics?

Ethics is the term used interchangeably with science of morality which represents a body of knowledge that
contains principles or standards for value-based human behavior whereas law refers to a system of rules
which are enforced through social institutions or the state.

What are examples of ethics in law?

Areas covered by ethical standards include: Independence, honesty and integrity. The lawyer and client
relationship, in particular, the duties owed by the lawyer to his or her client. This includes matters such as
client care, conflict of interest, confidentiality, dealing with client money, and fees.

What is the relationship between ethics and legality?

Legality means an act is in accordance with the law. Ethics is about concepts of right and wrong behaviour.
Some actions may be legal but in some people's opinion not ethical. For example, testing medicines on
animals is legal in many countries but some people believe it is not ethical.

What is ethics in public health?

Public Health Ethics. Public health ethics involves a systematic process to clarify, prioritize and justify
possible courses of public health action based on ethical principles, values and beliefs of stakeholders, and
scientific and other information.

The role of public health is to assure the conditions needed to promote and protect people’s health. These
conditions include various economic, social, and environmental factors that are necessary for good health.
The Institute of Medicine (IOM) defines public health as “what we, as a society, do collectively to assure the
conditions for people to be healthy.” With its use of the phrase “we, as a society,” the IOM emphasizes
cooperative and mutually shared obligation. It also reinforces the notion that collective entities (e.g.,
governments and communities) are responsible for healthy populations. This idea is critical because the
political community does not have a clear sense of the concept of public health apart from the discourse
around health care reform. Efforts to assure access to high-quality health care are certainly an important part
of improving the public’s health, but they play a relatively minor role compared to broader efforts to assure
equitable access to healthy living conditions.

Today, public health is more important than ever. Society faces threats from emerging and resurgent
infectious diseases such as Zika virus, declining vaccination rates, antimicrobial resistance, and the threat of
bioterrorism (for example, from anthrax and smallpox). At the same time, public health law and ethics are
evolving to address the mounting burdens of noncommunicable disease such as cancer, cardiovascular
disease, diabetes, and chronic respiratory disease, injuries or deaths (for example, related to drug overdose,
guns, and motor vehicles), and the social determinants of health (for example, the impact of household
income, community resources, and structural racism on population health). Efforts to address these burdens
more broadly prompt political opposition from people who would prefer a narrower scope for public health law.
Others argue that it would be unethical, in the face of preventable morbidity and mortality, to confine the focus
of public health to narrowly-defined collective action problems and market failures.

Ethical Values in Tension

Public health regulation often involves potential trade-offs between public goods and private interests. When
public health officials act, they face troubling conflicts between the collective benefits of population health on
the one hand and personal and economic interests on the other. Public health regulation is designed to
monitor health threats and intervene to reduce risk or ameliorate harm within the population. At the same
time, public health powers may encroach on fundamental civil liberties such as privacy, bodily integrity, and
freedom of movement, association, religion, or expression. Sanitary regulations may also intrude on basic
economic liberties such as freedom of contract, pursuit of professional status, use of property, and
competitive markets.
Although, undoubtedly, there are tensions between individual and collective interests, there are also
synergies. The protection of civil liberties may improve population health. For example, privacy and
antidiscrimination protections for individuals with stigmatized conditions may encourage them to seek testing,
counseling, and treatment. When public health measures are designed to protect civil rights and liberties they
are more likely to benefit from the earned trust and cooperation of the community and, in particular, persons
at risk.
The fields of bioethics and medical ethics have richly informed the development and use of biotechnologies,
the practice of medicine, and the allocation of health care resources. If a single overarching principle could be
extrapolated from these traditions, it is that individuals have a strong claim to make decisions for themselves,
at least to the extent that those decisions are purely self-regarding without imposing consequences on others.
Thus, if a person has the capacity to understand the nature and consequences of the decision at hand, she
has an interest in making her own choice without outside interference. Autonomy is a guiding value that
supports a constellation of individual rights to, for example, confidentiality, informed consent, and liberty.
Bioethics, because of the premium it places on individual rights, has had limited relevance to the ethical
dilemmas of public health, which often involve balancing individual rights against the needs of the community
as a whole. Under the public health tradition, individual interests may have to yield to those of the broader
community when necessary for the public’s health, safety, and well-being. The public health tradition values
prevention and views its successes or failures based on the benefits and burdens that accrue to populations
rather than to individuals.
In recent years, however, several bioethics scholars have begun to give more attention to principles of social
justice in response to problems such as universal access to health care and social disparities in health. At the
same time, public health ethics has emerged as a distinct field in its own right, with attention to the
professional ethics of public health practitioners and the applied ethics of public health policymaking. While
virtually every aspect of public health research, practice, and policy raises issues that call for ethical analysis,
there are three general areas on which the emerging field of public health ethics has been particularly
focused: the role of values in risk assessment, public health paternalism, and social disparities in health.

Risk Assessment
How should policy-makers respond to the public’s lack of scientific understanding of risk? Should public
perceptions be understood to reflect values worthy of balancing alongside the scientific risk assessments of
experts? Or should they be treated as irrationalities to be corrected (through education programs) or
circumvented (through reliance on expertise-driven administrative agencies insulated from democratic
accountability)?
Public Health Paternalism
The risk of serious harm to other persons or property is the most commonly asserted and well-accepted
justification for public health regulation. Even those who advocate for the minimal use of state powers
endorse infectious disease control measures that limit liberty (e.g., mandatory vaccination, physical
examination, treatment, isolation of the infected and quarantine of the exposed), at least in high-risk
circumstances such as an outbreak of Ebola virus. The “harm principle” in bioethics holds that competent
adults should have freedom of action unless they pose a risk to others. In competent individuals, harm to self
or immoral conduct is insufficient to justify state action. Consequently, “risk to self” is a much more
controversial justification for public health regulation.
Paternalism is the intentional interference with a person’s freedom of action exclusively—or primarily—to
protect his or her own health, safety, welfare, or happiness. Longstanding regulation of behavior that poses a
risk to one’s self includes mandatory motorcycle helmet and seat belt laws, gambling prohibitions, and
criminalization of recreational drugs. More recently, restrictions on tobacco, fast food, and sugary drink
manufacturers and retailers have riled critics who claim these actions invoke a public health “nanny state.”
Opponents of paternalism value freedom of choice, arguing that individuals should be allowed to decide for
themselves, even if they make what experts might deem the “unhealthy” or “unsafe” choice. Supporters of
paternalism point out that there are both internal and external constraints on people’s capacity to pursue their
own interests. Personal behavior is not simply a matter of free will. So, state regulation is sometimes
necessary to protect an individual’s health or safety. For example, everyone does not know that children are
at risk of severe injury from front-seat air bags or that radon is prevalent and dangerous in homes. Even when
information is available, consumers may misapprehend the risks. And advertising can persuade consumers to
make unhealthy decisions about tobacco, alcoholic beverages, sugary drinks, or high-calorie food.
Perhaps it is more accurate to think of public health paternalism as directed towards overall societal welfare
rather than the individual. Public health policy is aimed at the community and measures its success by
improved population health and longevity. Even if conduct is primarily self-regarding, the aggregate effects of
persons choosing not to wear seatbelts or helmets can be thousands of preventable injuries and deaths.
Thus, while risk-to-self is often the least politically acceptable reason for regulation, it is nonetheless clear that
paternalistic policies can be effective in preventing injuries and deaths in the population.
Health Disparities and Social Justice
Social justice is so central to the mission of public health that it is often described as the field’s core value.
One the most basic and commonly understood principles of justice is that individuals and groups should
receive fair, equitable, and appropriate treatment in light of what is due or owed to them. Justice, for example,
can offer guidance on how to allocate scarce therapeutic resources in a public health crisis, such as
pandemic influenza.
Social justice, however, demands more than merely a fair distribution of resources. While health hazards
threaten the entire population, the poor and disabled are at heightened risk. For example, in response to
devastating hurricanes on the Gulf Coast in 2005 and the East Coast in 2011 and 2012, city, state, and
federal agencies failed to act expeditiously and with equal concern for all citizens, particularly the poor and
disabled. Neglect of the needs of the vulnerable predictably harms the whole community by eroding public
trust and undermining social cohesion. Social justice thus encompasses not only a core commitment to a fair
distribution of resources, but it also calls for policies of action that are consistent with the preservation of
human dignity and the showing of equal respect for the interests of all members of the community.
Law and Public Health Ethics
Public health practice and ethics are intimately intertwined with public health law, which shapes the authority
of the state to protect the public’s health and limits that power in the form of individual rights and structural
constraints. As Daniel Callahan and Bruce Jennings have noted, “[p]ublic health is one of the few professions
that has, in many matters, legal power–in particular, the police power of the state–behind it. . . . It thus has an
obligation both toward government, which controls it, and toward the public that it serves.” (See Resources.)
Many of the most important social and ethical debates about public health take place in legal forums–
legislatures, courts, and administrative agencies–and in the law’s language of rights, duties, and justice. Law
defines the jurisdiction of public health officials and specifies the manner in which they may exercise their
authority. State public health statutes create public health agencies, designate their mission and core
functions, appropriate their funds, grant their power, and limit their actions to protect certain liberties.
The law can be an effective tool for safeguarding the public’s health. Of the 10 greatest public health
achievements of the twentieth century, all were realized, at least in part, through legal reform or litigation:
vaccinations, safer workplaces, safer and healthier foods, motor vehicle safety, control of infectious diseases,
the decline in deaths from coronary heart disease and stroke, family planning, tobacco control, healthier
mothers and babies, and fluoridation of drinking water. Public health law experts are playing a vital role in
addressing the leading public health challenges of the twenty-first century. Their efforts include creating a
more rational, accessible health care system; eliminating health disparities among racial and ethnic groups;
integrating physical activity and healthy eating into everyday life; protecting the natural environment; and,
responding to emerging and reemerging infectious diseases. Public health law consists of the basic statutes
that empower public health agencies and a number of legal tools, including:
Taxation and spending. Taxes can provide incentives for healthy behaviors (such as deductions for health
insurance) and disincentives for risk behaviors (for example, excise taxes on tobacco products and sugary
drinks). Spending can directly support public health infrastructure and healthy living conditions, or it can be
conditioned on compliance with health-promoting regulations (such as safety standards for the receipt of
highway funds and nutrition standards for food served in public schools).
The information environment. Government can educate the public, require labeling of food, drugs, tobacco,
and other hazardous products, and regulate advertising (for example, restricting ads that target children).
The built environment. Government can use zoning and planning authority to help individuals to make healthy
choices (for example, reducing the concentration of fast food, firearm, liquor, or gambling outlets and
investing in public transportation, parks, bicycle paths, and recreational facilities).
The socioeconomic environment. Government can allocate resources and create policies to reduce the vast
inequalities in health related to socioeconomic status, race, ethnicity, or geography by supporting access to
housing, education, and income.
Direct regulation. Government can directly regulate individuals (such as by imposing travel restrictions or
mandating vaccination to control infectious disease), businesses (such as by requiring calorie counts on
restaurant menus), and professionals (such as by imposing health and safety regulation on health care
professionals and others via licensing authority).
Indirect regulation through the tort system. Attorneys and private citizens can use civil litigation to redress
many different kinds of public health harms relating to the environment (such as air or water pollution), toxic
substances (such as pesticides or radiation), hazardous products (such as tobacco or firearms), and defective
consumer products.
Deregulation. Sometimes laws need to be reformed because they pose an obstacle to the public’s health –for
example, prohibitions against distribution of sterile injection equipment to illicit drug users as part of HIV/AIDS
prevention programs.