NURS 6003 Assignment: Assessing a Healthcare Policy Evaluation
Sample Answer for NURS 6003 Assignment: Assessing a Healthcare Policy Evaluation 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.
NURS 6003 Assignment Assessing a Healthcare Policy Evaluation Grading Criteria
Check Your Assignment Draft for Authenticity
To check your Assignment draft for authenticity:
Submit your Week 10 Assignment draft and review the originality report.
Submit Your Assignment by Day 7 of Week 10
A Sample Answer For the Assignment: NURS 6003 Assignment: Assessing a Healthcare Policy Evaluation
Title: NURS 6003 Assignment: Assessing a Healthcare 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: NURS 6003 Assignment: Assessing a Healthcare Policy Evaluation
Title: NURS 6003 Assignment: Assessing a Healthcare Policy Evaluation
The purpose of this work is to conduct a comprehensive analysis of the New York State Medicaid program’s Children’s Design Evaluation. This involves a detailed examination of the program’s implementation, outcomes, and impact on the health of children and youth under age 21 in New York State. The goal is to identify the program’s strengths and areas for improvement, assess its effectiveness in meeting its original objectives, and provide recommendations for future policy and program development. This analysis will contribute to the ongoing efforts to improve healthcare services and outcomes for children and youth in New York State. As a nurse advocate, the insights gained from this analysis will inform advocacy efforts and guide interventions to enhance the health and well-being of this population.
In conclusion, the program represents a significant effort to improve the health outcomes of the target audience. The program’s focus on early intervention and prevention is commendable, and its potential impact is substantial. However, the program has faced challenges in its implementation, and these challenges highlight the importance of careful planning, resource allocation, and ongoing evaluation in implementing such a program.
The analysis of the program’s evaluation has provided valuable insights into its effectiveness and areas for improvement. As a nurse advocate, these insights can inform your advocacy efforts and guide interventions to enhance the health and well-being of this population. Despite the challenges, the program has the potential to make a significant positive impact on the health outcomes of children and youth in New York State. With ongoing evaluation and adjustment, the program could make significant strides in achieving its objectives.
This work underscores the importance of program evaluation in healthcare policy and program development. It highlights the role of healthcare providers, particularly nurses, in this process. Their experience and patient advocacy can enhance health outcomes for the populations they serve. Moving forward, it is crucial to continue evaluating and refining healthcare programs and policies to ensure they effectively meet the needs of their target populations. This will contribute to the ongoing efforts to improve healthcare services and outcomes for the target population.
New York State Medicaid program’s Children’s Design Evaluation Analysis Template
| Healthcare Program/Policy Evaluation | New York State Medicaid program’s Children’s Design |
| Description | The program is an amendment to the existing 1115 waiver program. It was implemented on August 2, 2019. It simplified care for kids and teens below age 21 who need home- and community-based physical and behavioral health treatments. The state could move services covered by the consolidated Children’s Waiver from fee-for-service to Medicaid managed care (MMC) and target eligibility to medically needy family-of-one children who meet clinical criteria and are enrolled in the waiver but do not qualify for Medicaid due to family income (Harry et al., 2021). |
| How was the success of the program or policy measured?
|
The success of the program was measured through an ongoing evaluation process. It assessed how well special needs children could access primary care practitioners who understood them and the magnitude to which enrollees were accessing home- and community-based services (HCBS) promptly resulting in improved health care outcomes (Harry et al., 2021). |
| 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 program was aimed at providing health insurance for children without insurance who were ineligible for Medicaid. The interim review revealed that parents of children with chronic diseases exhibited considerable satisfaction with their primary care providers. However, they expressed lower levels of satisfaction with their ability to obtain specialized equipment and therapies, as well as coordination efforts across numerous healthcare providers. Initially, the levels of quality indicators for children were relatively stable, except for certain primary care indicators for small children, which showed improvement. Improvements were also shown in various indicators, such as the frequency of preventive visits, rates of immunization, utilization of the medical home for healthcare, adherence to preventative instructions, and the parent-reported health status of the child. |
| At what point in program implementation was the program or policy evaluation conducted? | Evaluation is still ongoing but, the interim evaluation was conducted after the program’s implementation (Rand.org, n.d). |
| What data was used to conduct the program or policy evaluation? | Data on quality indicators for children, satisfaction levels of parents of children with chronic conditions, and perceptions of stakeholders were used to conduct the policy evaluation |
| What specific information on unintended consequences were identified? | Stakeholders found the transition to the Children’s Design to be difficult and expressed specific concerns around the impact on children’s families in terms of accessing care and the potential decrease in service availability. This implies that although the program has achieved certain favorable effects, there might still be room for enhancement to fully achieve its planned results. Subsequent assessments will yield more extensive understanding of the program’s influence (Harry et al., 2021). |
| 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 include providers, advocates, Medicaid Managed Care plan representatives, and government partners. The stakeholders, as well as the families and children who are recipients of the program, would derive the most advantages from the outcomes and documentation of the program evaluation. The evaluation results can inform improvements to the program that directly impact their health outcomes. For example, the evaluation identified specific areas where service accessibility or quality is lacking, the program can be adjusted to address these issues, leading to better health outcomes for the children and youth involved.
In addition, healthcare providers and the New York State government can also benefit significantly from the evaluation results. The providers can use the results to improve their practices and workflows, while the government can use the results to make informed decisions about funding and policy directions. |
| Did the program or policy meet the original intent and objectives? Why or why not? | Based on the interim findings from the independent evaluation, the program met its original intent of streamlining care for kids and teens who are below the age of 21. However, there were challenges in the transition to the Children’s Design, particularly concerning the burden of accessing care on children’s families and reductions in service availability.
These findings suggest that while the program has made some progress towards its objectives, there are areas where it has not fully met its original intent. The challenges in transitioning to the new design and the concerns about access to care and service availability indicate that there is room for improvement in the program’s implementation. However, the improvement in some primary care indicators for young children is a positive sign that the program is having some impact. |
| Would you recommend implementing this program or policy in your place of work? Why or why not? | Yes, I would recommend this program in my place of work. The program’s focus on early intervention and prevention aligns with the goals of many healthcare facilities to provide comprehensive and proactive care. The program has potential benefits in streamlining care for children in need. Yet, it’s important to consider the challenges identified in the evaluation and develop mitigation strategies. |
| 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. | As a nurse advocate, I could contribute to the policy evaluation by:
|
| General Notes/Comments | The initiative aimed to enhance clinical and recovery health outcomes for children and teenagers who require behavioral health and Home and Community Based Services (HCBS). Additionally, its objective is to enhance prompt availability of programs that cater to early childhood requirements, preventing them from escalating into more expensive and intricate issues in maturity. Despite some challenges, the program has the potential to make a positive impact on the health outcomes of these individuals. However, its success depends on careful implementation, ongoing evaluation, and the commitment and involvement of healthcare providers. As a nurse advocate, I would play a key role in this process by providing feedback on the program’s effectiveness based on my observations and experiences, and by advocating for the needs of the children and youth involved in the program. |
References
Rand.org (n.d) Health Care Program Evaluation. Retrieved February 3, 2024, from https://www.rand.org/topics/health-care-program-evaluation.html
Liu, Harry H., Joshua Breslau, Stephanie Rennane, Lisa Wagner, Annie Chen, Gabriela Alvarado, Ingrid Estrada-Darley, and Andrew W. Dick (2021), Independent Evaluation of the New York State 1115 Waiver Amendment: The Children’s Design: Interim Findings, RAND Corporation, RR-A782-1, 2021. As of January 25, 2024: https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RRA782-1.html
Milstead, J. A., & Short, N. M. (2019). Health policy and politics: A nurse’s guide (6th ed.). Jones & Bartlett Learning.
Rubric Detail
Select Grid View or List View to change the rubric’s layout.
Content
Name: NURS_6050_Module05_Week10_Assignment_Rubric
Grid View
List View
Excellent Good Fair Poor
Program/Policy Evaluation
Based on the program or policy evaluation you seelcted, 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 time in program implementation was the program or policy evaluation conducted?
Points Range: 32 (32%) – 35 (35%)
Response clearly and accurately describes in detail the healthcare program or policy outcomes.
Response accurately and thoroughly explains in detail how the success of the program or policy was measured.
Response clearly and accurately describes in detail how many people were reached by the program or policy and fully describes the impact of the program or policy.
Response clearly and accurately indicates the point at which time the program or policy evaluation was conducted.
Points Range: 28 (28%) – 31 (31%)
Response accurately describes the healthcare program or policy outcomes.
Response accurately explains how the success of the program or policy was measured.
Response accurately describes how many people were reached by the program or policy and accurately describes the impact of the program or policy.
Response accurately indicates the point at which time the program or policy evaluation was conducted.
Points Range: 25 (25%) – 27 (27%)
Description of the healthcare program or policy outcomes is inaccurate or incomplete.
Explanation of how the success of the program or policy was measured is inaccurate or incomplete.
Description of how many people were reached by the program or policy and the impact is vague or inaccurate.
Response vaguely describes the point at which the program or policy evaluation was conducted.
Points Range: 0 (0%) – 24 (24%)
Description of the healthcare program or policy outcomes is inaccurate and incomplete, or is missing.
Explanation of how the success of the program or policy was measured is inaccurate and incomplete, or is missing.
Description of how many people were reached by the program or policy and the associated impacts is vague and inaccurate, or is missing.
Response of the point at which time the program or policy was conducted is missing.
Reporting of Program/Policy Evaluations
· 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 the 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.
Points Range: 45 (45%) – 50 (50%)
Response clearly and accurately identifies the data used to conduct the program or policy evaluation.
Response clearly and thoroughly explains in detail specific information on outcomes and unintended consequences identified through the program or policy evaluation.
Response clearly and accurately explains in detail the stakeholders involved in the program or policy evaluation.
Response clearly and accurately explains in detail who would benefit most from the results and reporting of the program or policy evaluation.
Response includes a thorough and accurate explanation of whether the program met the original intent and outcomes, including an accurate and detailed explanation of the reasons supporting why or why not.
Response includes a thorough and accurate explanation of whether the program should be implemented, including an accurate and detailed explanation of the reasons supporting why or why not.
Points Range: 40 (40%) – 44 (44%)
Response accurately identifies the data used to conduct the program or policy evaluation.
Response explains in detail specific information on outcomes and unintended consequences identified through the program or policy evaluation.
Response explains in detail the stakeholders involved in the program or policy evaluation.
Response explains who would benefit most from the results and reporting of the program or policy evaluation.
Response includes an accurate explanation of whether the program met the original intent and outcomes, including an accurate explanation of the reasons supporting why or why not.
Response includes an accurate explanation of whether the program should be implemented, including an accurate explanation of the reasons supporting why or why not.
Points Range: 35 (35%) – 39 (39%)
Response vaguely or inaccurately identifies the data used to conduct the program or policy evaluation.
Explanation of specific information on outcomes and unintended consequences identified through the program or policy evaluation is vague or incomplete.
Explanation of the stakeholders involved in the program or policy evaluation is vague or inaccurate.
Explanation of who would benefit most from the results and reporting of the program or policy evaluation is vague or inaccurate.
Explanation of whether the program/policy met the original intent and outcomes and the reasons why or why not is incomplete or inaccurate.
Explanation of whether the program or policy should be implemented, and the reasons why or why not, is incomplete or inaccurate.
Points Range: 0 (0%) – 34 (34%)
Identification of the data used to conduct the program or policy evaluation is vague and inaccurate, or is missing.
Explanation of specific information on outcomes and unitended consequences identified through the program or policy evaluation is vague and incomplete, or is missing.
Explanation of the stakeholders involved in the program or policy evaluation is vague and inaccurate, or is missing.
Explanation of who would benefit most from the results and reporting of the program or policy evaluation is vague and inaccurate, or is missing.
Explanation of whether the program or policy met the original intent and outcomes and the reasons why or why not is incomplete and inaccurate, or is missing.
Explanation of whether the program or policy should be implemented, and the reasons why or why not, is incomplete and inaccurate, or is missing.
Written Expression and Formatting – Paragraph Development and Organization:
Paragraphs make clear points that support well developed ideas, flow logically, and demonstrate continuity of ideas. Sentences are carefully focused–neither long and rambling nor short and lacking substance. A clear and comprehensive purpose statement and introduction is provided which delineates all required criteria.
Points Range: 5 (5%) – 5 (5%)
Paragraphs and sentences follow writing standards for flow, continuity, and clarity.
A clear and comprehensive purpose statement, introduction, and conclusion is provided which delineates all required criteria.
Points Range: 4 (4%) – 4 (4%)
Paragraphs and sentences follow writing standards for flow, continuity, and clarity 80% of the time.
Purpose, introduction, and conclusion of the assignment is stated, yet is brief and not descriptive.
Points Range: 3.5 (3.5%) – 3.5 (3.5%)
Paragraphs and sentences follow writing standards for flow, continuity, and clarity 60%- 79% of the time.
Purpose, introduction, and conclusion of the assignment is vague or off topic.
Points Range: 0 (0%) – 3 (3%)
Paragraphs and sentences follow writing standards for flow, continuity, and clarity < 60% of the time.
No purpose statement, introduction, or conclusion was provided.
Written Expression and Formatting – English writing standards:
Correct grammar, mechanics, and proper punctuation
Points Range: 5 (5%) – 5 (5%)
Uses correct grammar, spelling, and punctuation with no errors.
Points Range: 4 (4%) – 4 (4%)
Contains a few (1-2) grammar, spelling, and punctuation errors.
Points Range: 3.5 (3.5%) – 3.5 (3.5%)
Contains several (3-4) grammar, spelling, and punctuation errors.
Points Range: 0 (0%) – 3 (3%)
Contains many (≥ 5) grammar, spelling, and punctuation errors that interfere with the reader’s understanding.
Written Expression and Formatting – The paper follows correct APA format for title page, headings, font, spacing, margins, indentations, page numbers, parenthetical/in-text citations, and reference list.
Points Range: 5 (5%) – 5 (5%)
Uses correct APA format with no errors.
Points Range: 4 (4%) – 4 (4%)
Contains a few (1-2) APA format errors.
Points Range: 3.5 (3.5%) – 3.5 (3.5%)
Contains several (3-4) APA format errors.
Points Range: 0 (0%) – 3 (3%)
Contains many (≥ 5) APA format errors.
Total Points: 100
Name: NURS_6050_Module05_Week10_Assignment_Rubric
The healthcare program I decided to look at was the Affordable Care Act (ACA). The ACA was signed into law by President Barack Obama back in 2010 with the goal of lowering the number of uninsured persons in the country. The evaluation I looked at was done in the state of Maryland and presented statistics regarding the number of uninsured, cost to the consumer, and government spending regarding the ACA. According to the Effect of the Affordable Care Act in Maryland, between 2013 and 2016 the number of uninsured persons in Maryland dropped 38.8 percent, with the cost of insurance increasing 24 percent and the tax relief for insurance increasing 152 percent (n.d.). The ACA is estimated to increase spending from the federal government by 1.4 trillion dollars between 2017 and 2026 (n.d.). Overall, this program was very expensive to the federal government and in turn to the taxpayer. Those who were already insured ended up paying more for their insurance while not necessarily benefitting from the tax breaks provided. The ACA did however cut the amount of uninsured people by a significant amount. This program is subject to constant change due to the main two parties differing on opinions of it.
The social determinants affected by this program are lower socioeconomic level citizens and the elderly. The ACA did allow for people who could not necessarily afford health insurance to have greater access. As well as expanding Medicare and Medicaid to greater impact the elderly and those with long term disabilities.
References
Effect of the Affordable Care Act in Maryland. (n.d.). ballotpedia.org/ Retrieved on 10/25/2022 from https://ballotpedia.org/Effect_of_the_Affordable_Care_Act_in_Maryland_(2009-2017)
Gutierrez, C. M. (2019). The Institutional Determinants of Health: Understanding Social Inequalities in Health under the ACA. Conference Papers – American Sociological Association, 1–42.
Milstead, J. A., & Short, N. M. (2019). Health policy and politics: A nurse’s guide (6th ed.). Jones & Bartlett Learning.
NURS 6003 Assignment Assessing a Healthcare Policy Evaluation 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:
|
Presentation of information was good, but was superficial in places and included all of the following elements:
|
Presentation of information was minimally demonstrated in all of the following elements:
|
Presentation of information is unsatisfactory in one of the following elements:
|
Presentation of information is unsatisfactory in two of the following elements:
|
Presentation of information is unsatisfactory in three or more of the following elements
|
| 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:
|
Presentation of information was good, but was superficial in places and included all of the following elements:
|
Presentation of information was minimally demonstrated in the all of the following elements:
|
Presentation of information is unsatisfactory in one of the following elements:
|
Presentation of information is unsatisfactory in two of the following elements:
|
Presentation of information is unsatisfactory in three of the following elements
|
| 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:
|
Demonstrated 3 of the following:
|
Demonstrated 2 of the following:
|
Demonstrated 1 or less of the following:
|
||
| 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:
AND
AND
|
The following was present:
AND/OR
AND/OR
|
The following was present:
AND/OR
AND/OR
|
The following was present:
AND/OR
AND/OR
|
The following was present:
AND/OR
AND/OR
AND/OR
|
The following was present:
AND/OR
AND/OR
|
| 0 Points Deducted | 5 Points Lost | |||||
| Participation
Requirements |
Demonstrated the following:
|
Failed to demonstrate the following:
|
||||
| 0 Points Lost | 5 Points Lost | |||||
| Due Date Requirements | Demonstrated all of the following:
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.
A minimum of one peer and one instructor responses are to be posted within the course no later than Sunday, 11:59 pm MT. |