ASSESSING A HEALTHCARE PROGRAM POLICY EVALUATION NURS 6050

Sample Answer for ASSESSING A HEALTHCARE PROGRAM POLICY EVALUATION NURS 6050 Included After Question

Program/policy evaluation is a valuable tool that can help strengthen the quality of programs/policies and improve outcomes for the populations they serve. Program/policy evaluation answers basic questions about program/policy effectiveness. It involves collecting and analyzing information about program/policy activities, characteristics, and outcomes. This information can be used to ultimately improve program services or policy initiatives.

Nurses can play a very important role assessing program/policy evaluation for the same reasons that they can be so important to program/policy design. Nurses bring expertise and patient advocacy that can add significant insight and impact. In this Assignment, you will practice applying this expertise and insight by selecting an existing healthcare program or policy evaluation and reflecting on the criteria used to measure the effectiveness of the program/policy.

To Prepare:

  • Review the Healthcare Program/Policy Evaluation Analysis Template provided in the Resources.
  • Select an existing healthcare program or policy evaluation or choose one of interest to you.
  • Review community, state, or federal policy evaluation and reflect on the criteria used to measure the effectiveness of the program or policy described.

The Assignment: (2–3 pages)

Based on the program or policy evaluation you selected, complete the Healthcare Program/Policy Evaluation Analysis Template. Be sure to address the following:

  • Describe the healthcare program or policy outcomes.
  • How was the success of the program or policy measured?
  • How many people were reached by the program or policy selected?
  • How much of an impact was realized with the program or policy selected?
  • At what point in program implementation was the program or policy evaluation conducted?
  • What data was used to conduct the program or policy evaluation?
  • What specific information on unintended consequences was identified?
  • What stakeholders were identified in the evaluation of the program or policy? Who would benefit most from the results and reporting of the program or policy evaluation? Be specific and provide examples.
  • Did the program or policy meet the original intent and objectives? Why or why not?
  • Would you recommend implementing this program or policy in your place of work? Why or why not?
  • Identify at least two ways that you, as a nurse advocate, could become involved in evaluating a program or policy after 1 year of implementation.

By Day 7 of Week 10

Submit your completed healthcare program/policy evaluation analysis.

Submission and Grading Information

To submit your completed Assignment for review and grading, do the following:

  • Please save your Assignment using the naming convention “WK10Assgn+last name+first initial.(extension)” as the name.
  • Click the Week 10 Assignment Rubric to review the Grading Criteria for the Assignment.
  • Click the Week 10 Assignment link. You will also be able to “View Rubric” for grading criteria from this area.
  • Next, from the Attach File area, click on the Browse My Computer button. Find the document you saved as “WK10Assgn+last name+first initial.(extension)” and click Open.
  • If applicable: From the Plagiarism Tools area, click the checkbox for I agree to submit my paper(s) to the Global Reference Database.
  • Click on the Submit button to complete your submission.
  • Due to the nature of this assignment, your instructor may require more than 5 days to provide you with quality feedback.

A Sample Answer For the Assignment: ASSESSING A HEALTHCARE PROGRAM POLICY EVALUATION NURS 6050

Title: ASSESSING A HEALTHCARE PROGRAM POLICY EVALUATION NURS 6050 

The primary goal of a healthcare program is to prevent or control disease, injury, disability, and death. Evaluation of a healthcare program allows stakeholders to analyze its operations, including which activities took place, who conducted the activities, and who was reached as a result (Adams & Neville, 2020). Healthcare programs are evaluated to track progress toward the program’s objectives and establish whether the program’s interventions generate the expected progress on outcomes (Adams & Neville, 2020). Evaluation results are used to validate the need for additional funding and support and to identify opportunities for continuous quality improvement. This paper seeks to describe an evaluated healthcare program, including how success was measured, people reached by the program, data used for evaluation, impacted stakeholders, and my recommendations for the program.

Assessing a Healthcare Program/Policy Evaluation 

Healthcare programs or policies can be state-based, community-based, or at the organizational level. They are formulated to address specific health programs. Evaluation helps to determine healthcare programs’ effectiveness. In most cases, evaluation is progressive if the program or policy is continuous. It can also be done at different intervals depending on the objectives. The purpose of this program evaluation analysis is to examine the Racial and Ethnic Approaches to Community Health (REACH) program, whose main aim is to reduce racial and ethnic health disparities.

Healthcare Program/Policy Evaluation 

 The Racial and Ethnic Approaches to Community Health (REACH) program evaluation  

Description

 

 The REACH program started in 1999 to reduce racial and ethnic health disparities (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2020). It is a national program administered by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Generally, the program’s recipients carry out extensive local and culturally appropriate programs to address a wide range of issues faced by racial and ethnic minorities such as African Americans, Hispanics, and American Indians. The primary objective is to promote health disparities related to chronic illnesses, mental health, preventive health, and overall health coverage (Carratala & Maxwell, 2020). The program also seeks to improve healthy behaviors. 
How was the success of the program or policy measured? 

 

 After a decade, the REACH had significant success as far as its targets are concerned. However, instead of evaluating the program generally, REACH uses data to evaluate the change in the health status of its target communities. For instance, it used data between 2014 and 2018 to assess the number of people it has helped access healthy foods, access to chronic health programs, and opportunities for physical activity. A progressive increase in the population it serves is the primary success indicator. 
How many people were reached by the program or policy selected? How much of an impact was realized with the program or policy selected? 

 

  

The evaluation between 2014 and 2018 showed that millions of people have benefitted in various ways under the REACH program. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (2020), over 2.9 million people had better access to healthy foods and beverages, while over 322,000 people benefitted directly from tobacco-free interventions. CDC further reported that about 1.4 million people got opportunities for physical activity, as over 830,000 people got access to chronic disease programs (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2020). Using these reflection points, there is no denying that the impact of the REACH program cannot be underestimated. 
At what point in program implementation was the program or policy evaluation conducted?  The REACH program is continuous, where evaluation is done at different implementation points. In most cases, evaluation happens after the completion of a project at the community level. As illustrated in the various CDC reports, evaluation can be after a decade or after some years, depending on the element being assessed. 
What data was used to conduct the program or policy evaluation? 

 

 Change in health behaviors was the reference data for the evaluation between 2001 and 2009. For instance, Hispanic taking medication for hypertension increased from less than half to more than two-thirds of the affected population. In the same period, vaccination rates for pneumonia increased from 50.5% to 60.5% in black communities (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2020). The other data is the impact across REACH communities through a 2009-2012 evaluation. The data examined reduction in smoking and obesity rates in REACH communities. 
What specific information on unintended consequences was identified? 

 

  

The program’s impact is huge as far as disparities’ reduction is concerned. However, impact evaluation showed that ethnic gaps continue being affected by societies, culture, and the environment (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2021). As a result, REACH must use many strategies to address health gaps to ensure that health performance in ethnic and racial minorities reaches the desired state. 
What stakeholders were identified in the evaluation of the program or policy? Who would benefit most from the results and reporting of the program or policy evaluation? Be specific and provide examples.   

REACH partners with local health departments, community-based organizations, universities, and tribes. Respective partners were consulted during program evaluation to determine success and areas of improvement. On who would benefit from results and reporting of the program evaluation, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention would be the primary beneficiary. CDC would use the report to examine the health performance in the minority groups as the basis of improving outcomes or using other interventions to supplement outcomes. 

 

 

 

 
Did the program or policy meet the original intent and objectives? Why or why not? 

 

  

To a huge extent, REACH achieved the original intent using the data from the different evaluations. CDC reports reveal significant community successes, including reducing chronic illnesses and unhealthy behaviors such as smoking as access to healthy food and beverages and physical health activities increases. 
Would you recommend implementing this program or policy in your place of work? Why or why not? 

 

  

I would recommend the program in my place of work. Firstly, health care organizations should partners with national and community-based organizations to reduce health disparities. Carratala and Maxwell (2020) reported that ethnic and racial minorities continue to be burdened by chronic illnesses and mental health problems. Since such illness burden at the communities has a domino effect in health care organizations, it is crucial to implement the REACH program to improve health outcomes in underserved populations.  

 
Identify at least two ways that you, as a nurse advocate, could become involved in evaluating a program or policy after one year of implementation. 

 

 One way I could be involved in evaluating a program after one year of implementation is by being part of the evaluation committee. Here, I can share my knowledge on the reference points to consider when determining whether a program was a success or not. The other way is to avail information concerning the program by performing individual research. My information would guide on how to conduct a summative evaluation of the program. 
General Notes/Comments  Evaluation reliably indicates whether a program achieved the desired outcomes. Healthcare programs can be at the state, community, or organizational levels, and their evaluation can be yearly, terminal, or progressive, as considered appropriate. Nurses should advocate for program evaluation to determine their success and provide the basis for continuous improvement. 

 References 

Carratala, S., & Maxwell, C. (2020, May 7). Health disparities by race and ethnicity. Center for American Progress. https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/race/reports/2020/05/07/484742/health-disparities-race-ethnicity/ 

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2020, Mar 10).REACH program impact. https://www.cdc.gov/nccdphp/dnpao/state-local-programs/reach/program_impact/index.htm 

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2021, Jul 15). Racial and ethnic approaches to community health. https://www.cdc.gov/nccdphp/dnpao/state-local-programs/reach/index.htm 

A Sample Answer 2 For the Assignment: ASSESSING A HEALTHCARE PROGRAM POLICY EVALUATION NURS 6050

Title: ASSESSING A HEALTHCARE PROGRAM POLICY EVALUATION NURS 6050 

Click here to ORDER an A++ paper from our Verified MASTERS and DOCTORATE WRITERS: ASSESSING A HEALTHCARE PROGRAM POLICY EVALUATION NURS 6050

Healthcare Program/Policy Evaluation  

Better Choices Better Health Diabetes (BCBH-D) Self-Management Program.
Description  

  • BCBH-D program is an all-online workshop.
  • Participants of the program logged on at their convenience to learn about:
  • Healthy eating and menu planning.
  • Managing blood glucose (Turner et al., 2018).
  • Strategies to address problems such as frustration, fatigue, and isolation.
  • Appropriate exercise for controlling blood glucose and maintaining and improving strength, flexibility, and endurance (Turner et al., 2018).
  • Appropriate use of Diabetes medications.
  • Communicating effectively with family, friends, and health professionals (Turner et al., 2018).
  • Goal-setting.
  • Disease-related problem-solving.
  • The program ran for six weeks, with new lessons being posted every week. The participants logged on 2-3 times per week for a total of 1-2 hours (Turner et al., 2018).

 
How was the success of the program or policy measured?

 

  

  • The success of the BCBH-D program was measured by its impact on comorbid illness attributed to DM, Health care utilization, and Health care costs within 12 months after establishing the program (Turner et al., 2018).
  • The impact was compared with a propensity score-matched control cohort of DM patients who were provided usual care but did not participate in the BCBH-D program.

 
How many people were reached by the program or policy selected? How much of an impact was realized with the program or policy selected?

 

  

  • The BCBH-D program reached 558 persons with Diabetes Mellitus.
  • The health program had a significant impact since the participants had a reduced all-cause health care utilization and medical costs (Turner et al., 2018).
  • The impact realized with the BCBH-D program include:
  • Decreased all-cause utilization.
  • Reduced ED visits and outpatient visits (Turner et al., 2018).
  • Decreased unadjusted total all-cause medical cost by $2207 (Turner et al., 2018).
  • Direct cost savings of the BCBH-D were $815.

 
What data was used to conduct the program or policy evaluation?

 

  

  • Outcome evaluation data included pre-and post-intervention all-cause and diabetes-specific utilization and costs.
  • Diabetes-specific utilization referred to hospitalizations and ED visits with a primary diagnosis of Diabetes (Turner et al., 2018).
  • It also includes outpatient services such as office visits, laboratory tests, imaging, and procedures with any diabetes diagnosis on the claim.
  • All-cause utilization referred to any claims-based health care utilization inclusive of Diabetes and any other diagnosis on the claim (Turner et al., 2018).
  • All-cause and Diabetes specific utilization data for the 12-month pre-and post-intervention periods included ED visits, hospitalizations, and outpatient services, reported as visits per 1000 participants (Turner et al., 2018).

 

 
What specific information on unintended consequences were identified?

 

 Some participants did not attend all the program’s sessions and, as a result, did not complete the program’s entire course (Turner et al., 2018).
What stakeholders were identified in the evaluation of the program or policy? Who would benefit most from the results and reporting of the program or policy evaluation? Be specific and provide examples.

 

  

  • Stakeholders identified in the evaluation of the BCBH-D program include persons diagnosed with Diabetes mellitus (Turner et al., 2018).
  • Patients with Diabetes would benefit the most from the results and reporting of the BCBH-D program (Turner et al., 2018).
  • The program’s impact would influence the development of other Diabetes self-management programs, which would help reduce healthcare utilization and costs for diabetic patients.
  • DM patients would also benefit from improved health outcomes such as controlled glycemic levels, reduced DM comorbidities, and reduced DM-related complications.

 
Did the program or policy meet the original intent and objectives? Why or why not?

 

  

  • The original goal of the BCBH-D self-management program was to reduce healthcare utilization and healthcare costs attributed to the management of Diabetes (Turner et al., 2018).
  • The program adequately met its goal, as evidenced by results showing that participants in the peer-facilitated BCBH-D program experienced decreased all-cause health care utilization and medical costs (Turner et al., 2018).
  • Based on the results, there was a significant decrease in all-cause utilization and costs for the participants for ED, inpatient, and outpatient services.
  • There was also a decrease in total all-cause medical and pharmacy costs (Turner et al., 2018).
  • There was a decreased utilization in the participants for DM comorbid chronic conditions.
  • Notably, there were reduced claims for hyperlipidemia, hypertension, and depression among participants in the BCBH-D program during the follow-up period (Turner et al., 2018).

 
Would you recommend implementing this program or policy in your place of work? Why or why not?

 

  

  • I would highly recommend implementing a health program similar to the BCBH-D Self-Management Program in my current healthcare organization.
  • Implementation of the program would significantly reduce healthcare costs used in the management of DM, which has the highest expenditures (Adam et al., 2018).
  • It would also reduce ED visits and hospitalizations of patients and thus enable the organization to channel the resources to manage other conditions.
  • I recommend the program because it would significantly improve health outcomes for persons with DM, who have one of the worst morbidity and mortality rates in our healthcare setting and other healthcare systems (Adam et al., 2018).

 
Identify at least two ways that you, as a nurse advocate, could become involved in evaluating a program or policy after one year of implementation.

 

  

A nurse advocate can become involved in a program’s evaluation after implementation by:

  • Disseminating a program evaluation, particularly a program that extends over to the public health pyramid, to interdisciplinary health care audiences interested in the health problem or interventions used to address the health problem (Issel, 2016).
  • Nurse advocates can also submit a health program’s evaluation reports to a myriad of health journals. This can inform other health providers and organizations of the program’s impact in improving health outcomes and efficiencies in patient care, influencing them to implement similar programs (Issel, 2016).

 
General Notes/Comments  

  • The BCBH-D Self-Management Program is an ideal healthcare program that should be implemented in all healthcare organizations providing care to diabetes patients.
  • Similar programs can also be established to include patients with other chronic or lifestyle conditions such as hypertension, heart failure, hyperlipidemia, and obesity.
  • The State governments should facilitate health care organizations to establish such programs through funding and mobilization to help improve health outcomes in the population and lower health care costs.

 

 

 Conclusion

Healthcare programs aim to solve complex health problems, in which the solutions must include engaging community members and

ASSESSING A HEALTHCARE PROGRAM POLICY EVALUATION NURS 6050
ASSESSING A HEALTHCARE PROGRAM POLICY EVALUATION NURS 6050

organizations in a coalition. The BCBH-D Self-Management Program was an online program that enrolled 558 diabetic patients. The goal of the program was to reduce healthcare utilization and costs associated with Diabetes. The success of the program was measured using data on diabetes-specific utilization and costs. It led to decreased all-cause utilization, reduced ED and outpatient visits, reduced unadjusted total all-cause medical costs, and increased direct cost savings. I would recommend a similar program in our organization and include interventions for patients with other chronic illnesses to reduce healthcare costs and improve healthcare outcomes.

References

Adam, L., O’Connor, C., & Garcia, A. C. (2018). Evaluating the impact of Diabetes self-management education methods on knowledge, attitudes, and behaviors of adult patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. Canadian Journal of Diabetes, 42(5), 470-477. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcjd.2017.11.003

Adams, J., & Neville, S. (2020). Program Evaluation for Health Professionals: What It Is, What It Isn’t and How to Do It. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 19, 1609406920964345. https://doi.org/10.1177/1609406920964345

Issel, L. M. (2016). Health Program Planning And Evaluation: What Nurse Scholars Need To Know. Practice-Based Clinical Inquiry in Nursing: Looking Beyond Traditional Methods, 3.

Turner, R. M., Ma, Q., Lorig, K., Greenberg, J., & DeVries, A. R. (2018). Evaluation of a Diabetes Self-Management Program: Claims Analysis on Comorbid Illnesses, Health Care Utilization, and Cost. Journal of medical Internet research, 20(6), e207. https://doi.org/10.2196/jmir.9225

 Grading Rubric

Performance Category 100% or highest level of performance

100%

16 points

 Very good or high level of performance

88%

14 points

 Acceptable level of performance

81%

13 points

 Inadequate demonstration of expectations

68%

11 points

 Deficient level of performance

56%

9 points

 

 Failing level

of performance

55% or less

0 points
 Total Points Possible= 50           16 Points    14 Points 13 Points        11 Points           9 Points          0 Points
Scholarliness

Demonstrates achievement of scholarly inquiry for professional and academic topics.

 Presentation of information was exceptional and included all of the following elements:

  • Provides evidence of scholarly inquiry relevant to required TD topic(s).
  • Presents specific information from scholarly sources to develop a comprehensive presentation of facts.
  • Uses at least one outside scholarly reference that is relevant, less than 5 years old (use of older references requires instructor permission) and reliable for the required topic.*
  • Uses in-text citation and full reference at end of posting when presenting another person’s thoughts as quotes or paraphrase of information.
 Presentation of information was good, but was superficial in places and included all of the following elements:

  • Provides evidence of scholarly inquiry relevant to required TD topic(s).
  • Presents specific information from scholarly sources to develop a comprehensive presentation of facts.
  • Uses at least one outside scholarly reference that is relevant, less than 5 years old (use of older references requires instructor permission) and reliable for the required topic.*
  • Uses in-text citation and full reference at end of posting when presenting another person’s thoughts as quotes or paraphrase of information.
 Presentation of information was minimally demonstrated in all of the following elements:

  • Provides evidence of scholarly inquiry relevant to required TD topic(s).
  • Presents specific information from scholarly sources to develop a comprehensive presentation of facts.
  • Uses at least one outside scholarly reference that is relevant, less than 5 years old (use of older references requires instructor permission) and reliable for the required topic.*
  • Uses in-text citation and full reference at end of posting when presenting another person’s thoughts as quotes or paraphrase of information.
  

Presentation of information is unsatisfactory in one of the following elements:

  • Provides evidence of scholarly inquiry relevant to required TD topic(s).
  • Presents specific information from scholarly sources to develop a comprehensive presentation of facts.
  • Uses at least one outside scholarly reference that is relevant, less than 5 years old (use of older references requires instructor permission) and reliable for the required topic.*
  • Uses in-text citation and full reference at end of posting when presenting another person’s thoughts as quotes or paraphrase of information.
  

Presentation of information is unsatisfactory in two of the following elements:

  • Provides evidence of scholarly inquiry relevant to required TD topic(s).
  • Presents specific information from scholarly sources to develop a comprehensive presentation of facts.
  • Uses at least one outside scholarly reference that is relevant, less than 5 years old (use of older references requires instructor permission) and reliable for the required topic.*
  • Uses in-text citation and full reference at end of posting when presenting another person’s thoughts as quotes or paraphrase of information.
 Presentation of information is unsatisfactory in three or more of the following elements

  • Provides evidence of scholarly inquiry relevant to required TD topic(s).
  • Presents specific information from scholarly sources to develop a comprehensive presentation of facts.
  • Uses at least one outside scholarly reference that is relevant, less than 5 years old (use of older references requires instructor permission) and reliable for the required topic.*
  • Uses in-text citation and full reference at end of posting when presenting another person’s thoughts as quotes or paraphrase of information
 16 Points  14 Points  13 Points 11 Points 9 Points  0 Points
Application of Course Knowledge

Demonstrate the ability to analyze and apply principles, knowledge and information learned in the outside readings and relate them to real-life professional situations

 Presentation of information was exceptional and included all of the following elements:

  • Applies principles, knowledge and information from scholarly resources to the required topic.
  • Applies facts, principles or concepts learned from scholarly resources to a professional experience.
  • Application of information is comprehensive and specific to the required topic.
 Presentation of information was good, but was superficial in places and included all of the following elements:

  • Applies principles, knowledge and information from scholarly resources to the required topic.
  • Applies facts, principles or concepts learned from scholarly resources to a professional experience.
  • Application of information is comprehensive and specific to the required topic.
 Presentation of information was minimally demonstrated in the all of the following elements:

  • Applies principles, knowledge and information from scholarly resources to the required topic.
  • Applies facts, principles or concepts learned from scholarly resources to a professional experience.
  • Application of information is comprehensive and specific to the required topic.
 Presentation of information is unsatisfactory in one of the following elements:

  • Applies principles, knowledge and information from scholarly resources to the required topic.
  • Applies facts, principles or concepts learned from and scholarly resources to a professional experience.
  • Application of information is comprehensive and specific to the required topic.
 Presentation of information is unsatisfactory in two of the following elements:

  • Applies principles, knowledge and information from scholarly resources to the required topic.
  • Applies facts, principles or concepts learned from scholarly resources to a professional experience.
  • Application of information is comprehensive and specific to the required topic.
 Presentation of information is unsatisfactory in three of the following elements

  • Applies principles, knowledge and information and scholarly resources to the required topic.
  • Applies facts, principles or concepts learned scholarly resources to a professional experience.
  • Application of information is comprehensive and specific to the required topic.
   10 Points 9 Points  6 Points  0 Points
Interactive Dialogue

Initial post should be a minimum of 300 words (references do not count toward word count)

The peer and instructor responses must be a minimum of 150 words each (references do not count toward word count)

Responses are substantive and relate to the topic.

 Demonstrated all of the following:

  • Initial post must be a minimum of 300 words.
  • The peer and instructor responses must be a minimum of 150 words each.
  • Responses are substantive
  • Responses are related to the topic of discussion.
 Demonstrated 3 of the following:

  • Initial post must be a minimum of 300 words.
  • The peer and instructor responses must be a minimum of 150 words each.
  • Responses are substantive
  • Responses are related to the topic of discussion.
 Demonstrated 2 of the following:

  • Initial post must be a minimum of 300 words.
  • The peer and instructor responses must be a minimum of 150 words each.
  • Responses are substantive
  • Responses are related to the topic of discussion.
 Demonstrated 1 or less of the following:

  • Initial post must be a minimum of 300 words.
  • The peer and instructor responses must be a minimum of 150 words each.
  • Responses are substantive
  • Responses are related to the topic of discussion.
  8 Points 7 Points  6 Points         5 Points          4 Points  0 Points
Grammar, Syntax, APA

Points deducted for improper grammar, syntax and APA style of writing.

The source of information is the APA Manual 6th Edition

Error is defined to be a unique APA error. Same type of error is only counted as one error.

 The following was present:

  • 0-3 errors in APA format

AND

  • Responses have 0-3 grammatical, spelling or punctuation errors

AND

  • Writing style is generally clear, focused on topic,and facilitates communication.
 The following was present:

  • 4-6 errors in APA format.

AND/OR

  • Responses have 4-5 grammatical, spelling or punctuation errors

AND/OR

  • Writing style is somewhat focused on topic.
 The following was present:

  • 7-9 errors in APA format.

AND/OR

  • Responses have 6-7 grammatical, spelling or punctuation errors

AND/OR

  • Writing style is slightly focused on topic making discussion difficult to understand.
  

The following was present:

  • 10- 12 errors in APA format

AND/OR

  • Responses have 8-9 grammatical, spelling and punctuation errors

AND/OR

  • Writing style is not focused on topic, making discussion difficult to understand.
  

The following was present:

  • 13 – 15 errors in APA format

AND/OR

  • Responses have 8-10 grammatical, spelling or punctuation errors

AND/OR

  • Writing style is not focused on topic, making discussion difficult to understand.

AND/OR

  • The student continues to make repeated mistakes in any of the above areas after written correction by the instructor.
 The following was present:

  • 16 to greater errors in APA format.

AND/OR

  • Responses have more than 10 grammatical, spelling or punctuation errors.

AND/OR

  • Writing style does not facilitate communication
  0 Points Deducted 5 Points Lost
Participation

Requirements

Demonstrated the following:

  • Initial, peer, and faculty postings were made on 3 separate days
 Failed to demonstrate the following:

  • Initial, peer, and faculty postings were made on 3 separate days
  0 Points Lost 5 Points Lost
Due Date Requirements Demonstrated all of the following:

  • The initial posting to the graded threaded discussion topic is posted within the course no later than Wednesday, 11:59 pm MT.

A minimum of one peer and one instructor responses are to be posted within the course no later than Sunday, 11:59 pm MT.

Demonstrates one or less of the following.

  • The initial posting to the graded threaded discussion topic is posted within the course no later than Wednesday, 11:59 pm MT.

A minimum of one peer and one instructor responses are to be posted within the course no later than Sunday, 11:59 pm MT.

Your post was very informative about the Affordable Aare Act (ACA) and policy evaluation. Although the media coverage for the ACA focuses on decreasing the number of uninsured citizens, it has many complex and detailed components to the act. Because the ACA affects the consumer and producer of health care services and systems, it is vital to include an evaluation of both the provider and consumer. The evaluation of the ACA act showed the statistical significance of increased usage of preventative healthcare, increased self-reported overall health, improved medication compliance, increased communication with medical providers, and increased access to care among low-income adults (Sommers et al., 2017). From a consumer view, the evaluation of the ACA appears to be successful. The ACA also impacted producers by decreasing hospital episode spending and reducing Medicare spending (Ibrahim et al., 2020). Evidence shows that the ACA evaluation was successful.