| Course | MPH 560 Public Health Systems and Services Administration (MPH/560) |
|---|---|
| Week | 4 |
| Paper type | Public health policy paper |
| Length | about 1,192 words, 4 double-spaced pages plus title page and references |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | University of Phoenix |
| Program | MPH |
| Updated | September 2026 |
Free sample paper for MPH 560 Week 4
What the Board of Health Can Require, Tax or License: Analyzing Legal Authority and Policy Options for Vaccination and Sugary Drinks in a Colorado County
[Student Name]
University of Phoenix
MPH/560: Public Health Systems and Services Administration
Week 4 Assignment
[Instructor Name]
[Date]
The county, its board of health, school coverage figures, proposals and decisions are composites written for a model paper; legal history and research findings come from the sources cited.
At the September board of health meeting, the school nurse supervisor reported that kindergarten vaccination coverage for measles, mumps and rubella in the county's schools had fallen to 89%, with three elementary schools below 80%. A board member asked a direct question: can we simply require children to be vaccinated? Another member raised a separate idea from a neighboring state: a tax on sugary drinks. This paper analyzes what the board can require, tax or license, and what it should do.
The Source of Public Health Authority
Public health authority in the United States comes mainly from the states' police power, the inherent power of a state to safeguard its people's health and safety. States exercise it through statutes and delegate portions to local boards and health departments.
The Foundational Case
The Supreme Court addressed this power in 1905. In Jacobson v. Massachusetts, the Court upheld a Cambridge requirement that adults be vaccinated against smallpox or pay a fine, holding that a community may protect itself against an epidemic threatening its members, while indicating that such power may not be exercised in an arbitrary or unreasonable manner (Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 1905). The case that made vaccination mandates lawful also set limits on them.
The Regulatory Toolkit
Public health law uses several tools: mandates, such as school vaccination requirements; licensing and inspection, such as restaurant permits; taxation to change prices; information requirements, such as labels and warnings; zoning and land use; and incentives. Each requires a specific grant of authority.
Vaccination: Who Holds the Power
In Colorado, school immunization requirements and exemption rules are set by state law and state board of health rules, not by county boards. The county board cannot add requirements or remove exemptions. Colorado tightened its exemption process in 2020, standardizing the form parents submit, but nonmedical exemptions remain available.
What Exemption Policy Does
Exemption rules matter. A study of state policies found that from 2001 through 2004, states permitting personal belief exemptions had higher nonmedical exemption rates than states offering only religious exemptions, rates rose faster where exemptions were easy to obtain and, after adjusting for demographics, easily granted exemptions were associated with pertussis incidence 1.53 times higher and personal belief exemptions with incidence 1.48 times higher (Omer et al., 2006).
Why Coverage Fell
Before choosing tools, the department examined why coverage fell. School records showed that most under-vaccinated kindergartners were not formally exempt; they were simply behind, with missing doses or missing paperwork. Families cited clinic waits, lost records and moves between districts. At the three lowest schools, exemptions were higher, but even there, catch-up gaps outnumbered exemptions. That finding shifted attention from mandates to access.
What the County Can Do on Vaccination
Although the board cannot change exemption law, it holds other powers. Under state law, health officials can exclude unvaccinated children from school during an outbreak. The department can publish school-level coverage, offer vaccination at schools and clinics, work with pediatricians on reminder systems and meet with parents who have questions.
The Rights Question
Exclusion during an outbreak restricts individual choice and a child's schooling. The principle of the least restrictive effective means suggests using education, access and outreach first, reserving exclusion for outbreaks when unvaccinated children face real risk and pose risk to others.
Sugary Drinks: The Evidence
The second idea draws on Berkeley, California, the first US city to levy a sizable excise on sugary drinks. Its one-cent-per-ounce charge passed through fully to prices in large chain supermarkets. In the first year, sugary drink sales in Berkeley stores fell 9.6% compared with expected levels, water sales rose 15.6% and consumers' spending per transaction did not rise; self-reported intake fell but not significantly, from a low baseline, and the study could not measure health outcomes (Silver et al., 2017).
Sugary Drinks: Who Holds the Power
Authority is the obstacle. Colorado's constitution requires voter approval for new taxes, so the board cannot impose a tax. County commissioners or a citizen initiative would have to place it on the ballot, and voters would decide.
Equity of a Sugary Drink Tax
Excise taxes take a larger share of income from lower-income households, a common objection. Supporters respond that health benefits may be largest in those same households and that revenue can be dedicated to community programs. Any proposal should state how revenue would be used.
Licensing as an Alternative Tool
Licensing offers another route for some problems. Many Colorado localities license tobacco retailers, allowing inspections and penalties for sales to minors. The board could study a similar approach for tobacco while leaving sugary drinks to education and voluntary efforts, such as healthier options in county facilities.
Information as a Regulatory Tool
Publishing data is itself a form of regulation. When school-level coverage is public, parents can make informed choices, schools face pressure to follow up on missing records and the department can target clinics. Information requirements restrict no one's choices, which makes them the least restrictive tool available, though their effects depend on whether people see and trust the data.
Comparing Options
The analysis compared options on effectiveness, legal authority, cost, political feasibility and equity. School-based vaccination and outreach scored high on authority and feasibility, moderate on effectiveness. Outbreak exclusion scored high on authority but low on acceptability outside outbreaks. A sugary drink tax scored moderate on effectiveness but low on authority and feasibility for the board. Healthy beverage policies in county facilities scored high on authority and low on cost, with modest effects.
Political Feasibility
Board members noted that vaccination and taxes are politically charged. Framing matters: coverage data by school and outreach through trusted pediatricians are less divisive than mandates, and a tax discussion begins better with community conversations than with a ballot measure.
Recommendations
The board should direct the department to publish school coverage data, run vaccination clinics at the three lowest-coverage schools, train school nurses to talk with hesitant parents and prepare outbreak exclusion procedures. It should adopt healthy beverage standards for county facilities and events, study tobacco retail licensing and hold community forums before deciding whether to ask commissioners to consider a sugary drink tax.
What the Board Decided
The board adopted the vaccination and beverage recommendations unanimously and asked staff to report in six months. On the tax, members split, and they agreed to hold two community forums before taking any position. Several members said the analysis of authority saved them from debating a measure they could not enact.
Evaluation
Indicators include kindergarten coverage by school, the number of exemptions filed, beverage offerings in county facilities and, if a tax is proposed, a baseline of prices and sales for later comparison.
Conclusion
The board member's question, can we simply require it, had a clear answer: not under Colorado law. The Supreme Court's 1905 decision confirms the power to protect health, but that power sits mainly with the state. Evidence on exemptions and Berkeley's tax shows what policy can achieve. Within its authority, the board can publish data, expand access, prepare for outbreaks and lead by example.
References
Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11 (1905). https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/197/11/
Omer, S. B., Pan, W. K. Y., Halsey, N. A., Stokley, S., Moulton, L. H., Navar, A. M., Pierce, M., & Salmon, D. A. (2006). Nonmedical exemptions to school immunization requirements: Secular trends and association of state policies with pertussis incidence. JAMA, 296(14), 1757-1763. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.296.14.1757
Silver, L. D., Ng, S. W., Ryan-Ibarra, S., Taillie, L. S., Induni, M., Miles, D. R., Poti, J. M., & Popkin, B. M. (2017). Changes in prices, sales, consumer spending, and beverage consumption one year after a tax on sugar-sweetened beverages in Berkeley, California, US: A before-and-after study. PLOS Medicine, 14(4), Article e1002283. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1002283
What the MPH 560 Week 4 instructions ask
The fourth MPH 560 assignment commonly addresses regulation and policy. Prompts may ask students to explain the legal foundations of public health authority, describe regulatory tools such as mandates, licensing, inspection, taxation and information requirements, analyze a specific law or proposed policy, weigh individual rights against community protection and evaluate policies for effectiveness, feasibility, cost and equity. Some versions ask students to write a policy brief. Keep the brief focused on one decision if so. Strong papers identify which level of government holds authority, use evidence on how similar policies performed, consider legal and political limits, address equity and recommend a course of action a real board could adopt.
How this MPH 560 Week 4 example is built
A board member asks, after a school nurse's report, whether the board can simply require vaccination; that question opens the paper. The legal foundations of public health authority are explained, including the 1905 smallpox case. The regulatory toolkit is described. For vaccination, the board learns that Colorado sets school requirements at the state level, and research linking easy exemptions to pertussis frames what the board can influence. For sugary drinks, evidence from Berkeley's tax is weighed against Colorado's requirement that new taxes win voter approval. Equity, political feasibility and individual rights are considered. Recommendations within the board's actual authority close the paper, with indicators to track whether coverage improves.
MPH 560 Week 4 grading rubric: where the points go
The regulation and policy week is typically assessed on accurate legal reasoning, use of evidence on policy effects and a realistic analysis of options. Graders look for the sources of public health authority explained, the correct level of government identified, regulatory tools described, evidence on similar policies cited accurately, individual rights and community protection balanced and options compared on effectiveness, feasibility, cost and equity. Landmark cases and policy evaluations strengthen the paper. Recognizing what a local body cannot do, and proposing what it can, earns credit. The final points go to organized structure and accurate citations. Drafts that recommend policies without checking legal authority generally score lower, as do papers that cite a policy's success without its limits.
MPH 560 Week 4 help: mistakes to avoid
MPH 560 Week 4 papers often recommend a policy without asking who has the power to adopt it. Start by locating authority: federal, state or local, and whether your state preempts local action. Then describe the tools available, from mandates and licenses to taxes, labeling and incentives. For each option, find an evaluation of a similar policy elsewhere and report what it achieved, including limits. Weigh individual liberty against community protection with a principle such as the least restrictive effective means. Consider who benefits and who bears costs. Finally, recommend actions the body can actually take, and name the partners needed for the rest. A short table comparing options on the same criteria helps readers follow your choice.
Related MPH 560 sample papers
Other MPH 560 week samples
- MPH 560 Week 1: Public Health System Structure
- MPH 560 Week 2: Public Health Financing
- MPH 560 Week 3: Access to Health Services
- MPH 560 Week 5: Public Health Workforce
- MPH 560 Week 6: Managing a Public Health Agency
More MPH sample papers
- MPH 520 Week 4: Life-Course Perspective
- MPH 530 Week 4: Bias, Confounding and Causation
- MPH 540 Week 4: Occupational Hazard Assessment
- MPH 550 Week 4: Comparing Groups
MPH 560 Week 4 questions, answered
What does MPH/560 Week 4 usually ask for?
The fourth public health systems paper commonly addresses regulation and policy, explaining legal authority, regulatory tools and how to evaluate a policy's effectiveness, feasibility and equity.
Where can I find a free MPH 560 Week 4 sample paper?
The board of health policy paper above is free for anyone to read, with notes on each legal question. Name your policy topic, and you pay nothing for the first paper we write.
What did Jacobson v. Massachusetts decide?
In 1905, the Supreme Court upheld a local smallpox vaccination requirement as a valid use of state police power to protect public health, while indicating that such power must not be arbitrary or unreasonable.
Do vaccine exemption policies affect disease?
A study of US states found that easily granted nonmedical exemptions were associated with pertussis incidence 1.53 times higher, and personal belief exemptions with incidence 1.48 times higher.
Did Berkeley's soda tax work?
In its first year, the penny-per-ounce tax raised prices in many stores, and sugary drink sales in Berkeley stores fell 9.6% compared with expected levels, while water sales rose 15.6%.
Write yours, or have the desk draft it
This paper is an original model document written by our desk, not a submitted student paper and not an official University of Phoenix document. Read it for the moves, then write your own to the instructions in your classroom. If you want one built to your exact prompt and rubric, the first custom sample is free and arrives in 24 to 48 hours.
Request this one custom, free · All MPH 560 week samples · All courses