Utah and Nevada, which lie side by side in the west, are similar in climate, levels of income, level of health care delivery, and many other aspects. Yet Utah residents are reported to be among the healthiest in the United States and Nevada residents among the least healthy. At least on the surface, this difference appears to result as a function of a lifestyle choice. Utah is inhabited primarily by the Mormons, who, by religious doctrine, avoid alcohol, Cigarette, and illicit drug use and often live in large, stable families. Alcohol and cigarette consumption are higher in Nevada, and family structure there appears less stable.
In regard to health care benefits, should individuals be made responsible for lifestyle choices? For example, would you favor a risk analysis component for health insurance deductibles? A person who is a heavy smoker or drinker or a divorced adult would pay higher premiums or deductibles in the same way that those with poor driving records pay higher auto insurance rates.
What prohibitions would you consider putting in place to curb alcohol, cigarettes, and drug use?
What incentives might be considered to promote stable families, as this seems to have a positive impact on health care costs?
young people who are appropriate for diversion at the law enforcement or DJS intake levels into custody and transport them to the BCJJC. In processing low-level cases in precisely the same manner as more serious cases, BPD exposes young people to the harmful effects of arrest, which may create more harm than good to the young person and the interests of public safety The DJS’s annual Data Resource Guide indicates that “juvenile detention may be authorized by DJS intake officers on a temporary basis at the request of a law enforcement officer . . . .” The resource guide further depicts that only after being taken into custody and screened for diversion at the law enforcement level, DJS performs a screening for secure detention admission using the DRAI detention screen on a young person only after the police officer requests secure detention. However, CCLP was unable to confirm that youth were screened for detention only if detention was requested by law enforcement. Indeed, stakeholder interviews revealed that it is common practice for DJS intake to conduct the DRAI screening for all youth brought to the BCJJC by law enforcement, even youth who will eventually be diverted. This is concerning for a number of reasons. Again, processing low-level cases in the manner that is appropriate for more serious cases can expose a young person to undue harm. In addition to the harms associated with arrest and transport, extensive and unnecessary processing once at the BCJJC exposes the young person to further detriment and keeps the young person separated from home, school, and community. Also, once DJS performs the RAI screen, the information gathered and score that is generated will remain a part of the young person’s juvenile justice history and may influence processing and case disposition should the young person come into contact with the justice system at a later time. Finally, the DJS Data Resource Guide indicates that there is a clear procedural step between arrest and administering the RAI for detention admission, namely the police officer’s request for detention. If this is a step exercised by law enforcement agencies in other parts of Maryland and a clear expectation of DJS intake officers in other DJS regions, Baltimore’s stakeholders should be concerned about how these procedural differences might work to the disadvantage of young people in Baltimore City as compared to their peers in other parts of the>GET ANSWER