1 of 17

Writing the Policy Options Section

2 of 17

Learning objectives

At the end of this module, you will be able to:

Summarize effective interventions, accounting for all aspects of feasibility
Visually display the options in a way that clearly makes the case for one option over others
Evaluate policy options sections within briefs

2

3 of 17

Components of the Policy Options Section

3

4 of 17

Review: Policy analysis table

4

Criteria	Public health impact	Feasibility (political)	Feasibility (operational)	Budgetary impact	Economic impact
Policy 1
Policy 2
Policy 3

5 of 17

Objectives of the policy options section

Reframe the public health problem to be addressed
Demonstrate impact of suggested interventions

Public health, economic, budgetary

Discuss their operational and political feasibility
Utilize stakeholder analysis and country context to determine relative importance of the criteria from the policy analysis table

5

6 of 17

Policy options section components

Summarize the overall objective of the policy options:

Describe the public health problem.
Describe the main modifiable driver (root cause) of the problem that policy options will address.

Review the options:

Describe the options.
Indicate why each option is being considered.
Compare the budgetary, economic, and public health IMPACT of each option.
Compare the operational and political FEASIBILITY of each option.

6

7 of 17

Policy options section components—Impact and feasibility comparison

Compare the budgetary, economic, and public health impact of each option, for example:

Number/proportion of target population reached (e.g., people who receive intervention)
Number/proportion of target population affected (e.g., lives saved, cases averted)
Costs (e.g., programmatic implementation costs)
Economic impact (e.g., cost to government per life saved)

Disaggregate by population subgroups, where relevant
Compare the operational and political feasibility of each option.

7

Comparisons of the budgetary, economic, and public health impact of each option might be, for example:
[Click] The number or proportion of the target population reached, (for example, people who receive the intervention)
[Click] The number or proportion of the target population affected, (for example, lives saved, cases averted)
[Click] The costs, (for example, programmatic implementation costs)
[Click] The economic impact, (for example, cost to government per life saved)
[Click] Remember, we may also want to look at the differential impact on different population subgroups for each of these measures. This would be disaggregating your reported impacts by relevant categories, such as sex, age group, income level or geographic area.

[Click] Then we compare the operational and political feasibility of each option.

What questions or comments do have about comparing the impact of your policy options?

8 of 17

Case Study Example

8

9 of 17

Helmet law case study: Policy options

9

10 of 17

Summarize overall objectives

To reduce ongoing deaths and serious head injuries, we must increase:

The use of certified motorcycle helmets
Meeting crash testing standards and labeled with a certificate of authenticity

Policy options include:

Increased enforcement
Government subsidies to offset the cost of certified helmets
Communication campaign

10

11 of 17

Helmet law case study example: Review policy options

Option 1: Increased police enforcement

What: Implement random police checkpoints and levy fines of $10 USD (equivalent of those levied for not wearing a helmet and ~80% of monthly income) on passengers who do not wear certified helmets.

Why: The existing helmet law has relied heavily on police enforcement and high fines for its success in ensuring that more than 90% of riders wear helmets.

Feasibility: Medium. This would be a new type of enforcement and would require additional police training and potentially more officers. However, it builds on the existing infrastructure of random police checkpoints for drink driving.

11

12 of 17

�Review policy options�

Option 2: Government subsidy for certified helmets

What: Ministry of Transport provides a $4 mail-in rebate for the purchase of a certified helmet.

Why: Certified helmets currently cost $10-$15 compared to $2-$3 for uncertified helmets. This would bring the costs closer, reducing the incentive to purchase uncertified helmets.

Feasibility: Low. The Government of Viet Nam has no prior experience running similar types of programs, potentially leading to delayed payments and compromising the success of the policy.

12

13 of 17

Review policy options

Option 3: Communication campaign for certified helmets

What: Create a campaign to show the dangers of wearing non-certified helmets; disseminate campaign materials on TV and radio and in newspapers.

Why: The dangers of non-certified helmets are not currently understood by the public.

Feasibility: High. This builds on the Ministry of Health’s significant experience conducting campaigns for the original passage of the law.

13

14 of 17

Economic evaluation

14

Here is the Economic Evaluation of the policy options presented in the policy brief.
You’ll see the authors summarize the information by presenting, for each option:
The expected number of motorcycle riders who are expected to switch to certified helmets
The estimated lives saved annually
The estimated cost to the Vietnamese government
The cost per life saved. This is the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio, or ICER, but you’ll note that it is labeled in terms that a decision-maker can easily understand.
The table also notes key information about how these estimates were calculated, by extrapolating data from one district to the national level.
Ask: what can you conclude about the options from the information presented in this table? Enter your answer in the chat.

Discuss key points – for example:

The campaign option is more expensive compared to enforcement and also saves fewer lives. Based on this, you would probably want to exclude the campaign option from consideration.
Compared to enforcement, the subsidy would save more lives, but at much higher cost. You’d need to make a recommendation on whether this additional cost is worth it.

Next, let’s look at the feasibility of the options.

Go to next slide

15 of 17

Feasibility evaluation

15

16 of 17

Policy options criteria

16

17 of 17

END

17