UNINTENDED CONSENQUENCES OF HEALTH CARE REFORM NURS 8100

Sample Answer for UNINTENDED CONSENQUENCES OF HEALTH CARE REFORM NURS 8100 Included After Question

The PPACA of 2010 fostered new provisions for health care and the structure of health care delivery. The individual mandate to obtain insurance is one provocative provision. While this provision attempts to increase access to health care, it raises questions on how the existing system could sustain the potentially large influx of newly insured individuals.

Another provision calls for new models of health care provider organizations to ensure delivery efficiency and continuity of care. In this week’s media presentation, Dr. Kathleen White discusses the accountable care organization, which comprises a group of providers coordinating care across a variety of institutional settings. Yet becoming an accountable care organization may present a number of challenges.

This week’s Discussion builds on Week 1, continuing the examination of those societal and organizational contexts that influence health care reform. The unintended consequences of reform policy on the health care system are also considered.

UNINTENDED CONSENQUENCES OF HEALTH CARE REFORM NURS 8100

To prepare:

Review this week’s media presentation and the other Learning Resources focusing on how reform may lead to improved quality, greater access, and reduced cost of care. Also think about the unintended consequences that may arise as a result.
Consider the information presented about the individual mandate and accountable care organizations. What are some questions or concerns you might have regarding the individual mandate? What are the pros and cons associated with becoming an accountable care organization?
With posting instructions in mind, select either the individual mandate or accountable care organizations as the focus of your Discussion this week.

By Day 3

Post a cohesive response that addresses the following:

In the first line of your posting, identify the topic you have selected—either the individual mandate or accountable care organizations. With regard to this topic, describe one or more positive results that could be achieved, and one or more unintended consequence(s) that organizations or individuals may experience.
Briefly evaluate issues on the topic that may be a consideration for the organization you work in and the nursing profession.

Read a selection of your colleagues’ postings.

Click here to ORDER an A++ paper from our Verified MASTERS and DOCTORATE WRITERS: UNINTENDED CONSENQUENCES OF HEALTH CARE REFORM NURS 8100

By Day 6

Respond to at least two of your colleagues in one or more of the following ways:

Ask a probing question, substantiated with additional background information, evidence or research.
Share an insight from having read your colleagues’ postings, synthesizing the information to provide new perspectives.
Offer and support an alternative perspective using readings from the classroom or from your own research in the Walden Library.
Validate an idea with your own experience and additional research.
Make a suggestion based on additional evidence drawn from readings or after synthesizing multiple postings.
Expand on your colleagues’ postings by providing additional insights or contrasting perspectives based on readings and evidence.

Note: Please see the Syllabus and Discussion Rubric for formal Discussion question posting and response evaluation criteria.

UNINTENDED CONSENQUENCES OF HEALTH CARE REFORM NURS 8100

Return to this Discussion in a few days to read the responses to your initial posting. Note what you learned and/or any insights you gained as a result of the comments made by your colleagues.

Be sure to support your work with specific citations from this week’s Learning Resources and any additional sources.

Submission and Grading Information

Grading Criteria

To access your rubric:

Week 2 Discussion Rubric

Post by Day 3 and Respond by Day 6

To participate in this Discussion:

Week 2 Discussion

Week in Review

This week, you analyzed key health care reform legislation for positive results and potential unintended consequences and assessed reform-related issues for health care.

Next week, you will investigate the process of creating health care policy beginning with agenda setting and the policy proposal.

A Sample Answer For the Assignment: UNINTENDED CONSENQUENCES OF HEALTH CARE REFORM NURS 8100

Title: UNINTENDED CONSENQUENCES OF HEALTH CARE REFORM NURS 8100

Accountable Care Organizations (ACOs) are groups of doctors, hospitals, and other health care providers, who come together voluntarily to give coordinated high quality care to the Medicare patients they serve. Coordinated care helps ensure that patients, especially the chronically ill, get the right care at the right time, with the goal of avoiding unnecessary duplication of services and preventing medical errors. When an ACO succeeds in both delivering high-quality care and spending health care dollars more wisely, it will share in the savings it achieves for the Medicare program.

The healthcare payment process is undergoing a dramatic transformation as payers and providers shift from volume to value. While stakeholders are currently piloting many different value-based care models, accountable care organizations are among the most popular and successful strategies to date. Accountable care organizations, or ACOs, are groups of hospitals, physicians, and other providers who agree to coordinate care for patients and deliver the right care at the right time, while avoiding unnecessary utilization of services and medical errors. ACO participants also agree to take on responsibility for the total costs of care for their patients. ACOs that reduce the total costs of care for their patient populations can share in the savings with the payer.

In certain models, they may also be liable to pay back losses if their costs exceed their spending benchmarks (Moore et al., 2017). Policymakers and healthcare leaders believe tying financial incentives to care quality, patient outcomes, and care coordination through ACOs is a key solution for fixing the inefficient fee-for-service system. The programs encourage providers to partner with others across the care continuum. Some providers are formally acquiring to gain control over a wide range of services, achieve economies of scale, and access the technology, data, and clinical capabilities of their peers.

In fact, ACOs are and are likely to continue to be a major player in the value-based care and payment transformation. When all the parts work together, providers in an ACO can bring down costs and improve care quality while earning incentive payments. HMOs, on the other hand, seek to cut costs by setting fixed prices for services, which may encourage providers to reduce utilization or skimp on care in an effort to stay under the cap(Colla et al., 2018).

References

Colla, H., & Fisher, E. S. (2018). Moving forward with accountable care organizations: some answers, more questions. JAMA internal medicine, 177(4), 527-528. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamainternmed.2016.9122

Moore, K. D., & Coddington, D. C. (2017). Accountable care the journey begins. Healthcare Financial Management, 64(8), 57-63. Retrieved from https://www.proquest.com/trade-journals/accountable-care-journey-begins/docview/746684537/se-2?accountid=14872

A Sample Answer 2 For the Assignment: UNINTENDED CONSENQUENCES OF HEALTH CARE REFORM NURS 8100

Title: UNINTENDED CONSENQUENCES OF HEALTH CARE REFORM NURS 8100

Since the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) was signed into law, health care delivery has evolved from traditional fee-for-service-based care to value-based care in an effort to deliver high-quality, coordinated care to patients (Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, 2010). One approach to achieve this goal has been the creation of accountable care organizations (ACOs), defined as a group of providers who are jointly held accountable for achieving measured quality improvements and reductions in the rate of spending growth (McClellan, McKethan, Lewis, Roski, & Fisher, 2010). Accountable care organizations emphasize team-based care and shared responsibility for patient outcomes. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) is promoting the formation of accountable care organizations (ACOs). In these population-based models, CMS aligns a Medicare beneficiary population to an ACO with associated expenditure and quality targets, transitioning away from purely volume-based revenue of fee-for-service Medicare. Patients with mental illness are among high-cost Medicare beneficiaries, but this population has received little attention in ACO implementation. Although the ACO goals of providing chronic and preventive care in a coordinated, patient-centered manner are consistent with what some mental health providers have long advocated, the population-based orientation may be unfamiliar.

Accountable care organizations (ACOs), by focusing on coordinating care for Medicare patients across providers and multiple care settings, are a key element of the “better health care, better health, and improved quality” CMS triple aim. However, as has been the case for other quality improvement initiatives across the lifespan (Zima & Mangione-Smith, 2011), attention to patients with mental illness has been virtually absent in ACO implementation. Mental health conditions are among the most expensive as primary disorders and, when comorbid with general medical disorders, are associated with increased costs for the primary general medical disorder (Maust, Oslin & Marcus, 2013). The cohort of older adults with mental illness is expected to increase from under eight million in 2010 to 15 million in 2030 for several reasons, including the aging of baby boomers, their higher rates of depression and anxiety, and the onset of late-life psychiatric disorders in the expanding aged population (Maust, Oslin & Marcus, 2013). Despite this growing burden of mental illness and its cost implications, current ACO disease-specific quality and cost efforts are focused almost entirely on chronic general medical conditions. The one exception—depression screening with a documented follow-up plan—may have minimal impact on actual care (Maust, Oslin & Marcus, 2013).

In addressing the needs of high-cost, high-risk patients to meet quality and expenditure targets, an ACO should examine the quality of mental health care it provides as well as medical quality for patients with mental illness. In addition, federal agencies should invest to ensure understanding of the impact of population-based initiatives on patients with mental illness. Mental health conditions need to be examined for their impact not only as primary disorders but also for their impact on quality of care for comorbid general medical conditions. High-quality diabetes care, for example, is an explicit goal that has quality measures included for ACO beneficiaries; if the overall quality of diabetes care improves in an ACO, the improvements should include those with comorbid mental illness. Although improving mental health care is not an explicit ACO goal, part of the overall evaluation of medical care should focus on vulnerable populations, such as persons with mental illness (Maust, Oslin & Marcus, 2013).

References

Maust DT, Oslin DW & Marcus SC. (2013). Mental Health Care in the Accountable Care Organization. https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.ps.201200330

McClellan M, McKethan AN, Lewis JL, Roski J, & Fisher ES. (2010). A national strategy to put accountable care into practice. Health Affair, 29 (5), pp. 982-990

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. (2010). US Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services https://www.healthcare.gov/where-can-i-read-the-affordable-care-act/.

Zima BT & Mangione-Smith R. (2011). Gaps in quality measures for child mental health care: an opportunity for a collaborative agenda. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry 50:735–737

A Sample Answer 3 For the Assignment: UNINTENDED CONSENQUENCES OF HEALTH CARE REFORM NURS 8100

Title: UNINTENDED CONSENQUENCES OF HEALTH CARE REFORM NURS 8100

This is insightful Edwige, Bottom of FormAccountable Care Organizations (ACOs) are groups of doctors, hospitals, and other healthcare providers who come together to provide coordinated care to their patients (Colla & Fisher, 2018). The goal of ACOs is to improve the quality of care while also reducing costs. One way that ACOs achieve this goal is by sharing information about their patients (Meyer et al., 2017). This allows the providers in the ACO to work together to come up with a plan for each patient that meets their individual needs. ACOs can also use this information to track how well they are meeting quality and cost goals (Lewis et al., 2019). ACOs are funded in part by Medicare and Medicaid. However, they are also open to patients who have private insurance. ACOs have been shown to improve the quality of care while reducing costs. For example, a study published in Health Affairs found that ACOs were associated with improvements in quality of care and reductions in spending on Medicare patients.

References

Colla, H., & Fisher, E. S. (2018). Moving forward with accountable care organizations: some answers, more questions. JAMA internal medicine, 177(4), 527-528. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamainternmed.2016.9122

Lewis, V. A., Schoenherr, K., Fraze, T., & Cunningham, A. (2019). Clinical coordination in accountable care organizations: A qualitative study. Health care management review, 44(2), 127. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5461217/

Meyer, C. P., Krasnova, A., Sammon, J. D., Lipsitz, S. R., Weissman, J. S., Sun, M., & Trinh, Q. D. (2017). Accountable care organizations and the use of cancer screening. Preventive medicine, 101, 15-17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ypmed.2017.05.017

UNINTENDED CONSENQUENCES OF HEALTH CARE REFORM NURS 8100 Rubric Detail

Select Grid View or List View to change the rubric’s layout.

Grid View
List View

	Excellent	Good	Fair	Poor
RESPONSIVENESS TO DISCUSSION QUESTION Discussion post minimum requirements: *The original posting must be completed by Wednesday, Day 3, at 11:59pm MST. Two response postings to two different peer original posts, on two different days, are required by Saturday, Day 6, at 11:59pm MST. Faculty member inquiries require responses, which are not included in the minimum number of posts. Your Discussion Board postings should be written in standard edited English and follow APA style for format and grammar as closely as possible given the constraints of the online platform. Be sure to support the postings with specific citations from this week’s Learning Resources as well as resources available through the Walden University online databases. Refer to the Essential Guide to APA Style for Walden Students to ensure your in-text citations and reference list are correct.	8 (26.67%) – 8 (26.67%) Discussion postings and responses exceed the requirements of the Discussion instructions. They: Respond to the question being asked or the prompt provided; – Go beyond what is required in some meaningful way (e.g., the post contributes a new dimension, unearths something unanticipated); -Are substantive, reflective, with critical analysis and synthesis representative of knowledge gained from the course readings and current credible evidence. – Demonstrate significant ability to generalize and extend thinking and evaluate theories or concepts within the topic or context of the discussion. -Demonstrate that the student has read, viewed, and considered the Learning -Resources as well as additional resources and has read, viewed, or considered a sampling of colleagues’ postings; -Exceed the minimum requirements for discussion posts*.	7 (23.33%) – 7 (23.33%) Discussion postings and responses meet the requirements of the Discussion instructions. They: -Respond to the question being asked or the prompt provided; -Are substantive, reflective, with critical analysis and synthesis representative of knowledge gained from the course readings and current credible evidence.re -Demonstrate ability to generalize and extend thinking and evaluate theories or concepts within the topic or context of the discussion. -Demonstrate that the student has read, viewed, and considered the Learning Resources and has read, viewed, or considered a sampling of colleagues’ postings -Meet the minimum requirements for discussion posts*.	6 (20%) – 6 (20%) Discussion postings and responses are minimally responsive to the requirements of the Discussion instructions. They: – do not clearly address the objectives of the discussion or the question or prompt; and/or -May (lack) lack in depth, reflection, analysis, or synthesis but rely more on anecdotal than scholarly evidence; and/or -Do not adequately demonstrate that the student has read, viewed, and considered the Learning -Resources and/or a sampling of colleagues’ postings; and/or has posted by the due date at least in part. – Lack ability to generalize and extend thinking and evaluate theories or concepts within the topic or context of the discussion. -Do not meet the minimum requirements for discussion posts*.	0 (0%) – 5 (16.67%) Discussion postings and responses are unresponsive to the requirements of the Discussion instructions. They: – do not clearly address the objectives of the discussion or the question or prompt; and/or – Lack in substance, reflection, analysis, or synthesis but rely more on anecdotal than scholarly evidence. – Lack ability to generalize and extend thinking and evaluate theories or concepts within the topic or context of the discussion. -Do not demonstrate that the student has read, viewed, and considered the Learning Resources and/or a sampling of colleagues’ postings; and/or does not meet the minimum requirements for discussion posts*.
CONTENT KNOWLEDGE	8 (26.67%) – 8 (26.67%) Discussion postings and responses: -demonstrate in-depth understanding and application of concepts and issues presented in the course (e.g., insightful interpretations including analysis, synthesis and/or evaluation of topic; – are well supported by pertinent research/evidence from a variety of and multiple peer- reviewed books and journals, where appropriate; -Demonstrate significant mastery and thoughtful/accurate application of content, applicable skills or strategies presented in the course.	7 (23.33%) – 7 (23.33%) Discussion postings and responses: -demonstrate understanding and application of the concepts and issues presented in the course, presented with some understanding and application of concepts and issues presented in the course (e.g., insightful interpretations including analysis, synthesis and/or evaluation of topic; -are supported by research/evidence from peer-reviewed books and journals, where appropriate; and · demonstrate some mastery and application of content, applicable skills, or strategies presented in the course.	6 (20%) – 6 (20%) Discussion postings and responses: – demonstrate minimal understanding of concepts and issues presented in the course, and, although generally accurate, display some omissions and/or errors; –lack support by research/evidence and/or the research/evidence is inappropriate or marginal in quality; and/or lack of analysis, synthesis or evaluation of topic – demonstrate minimal content, skills or strategies presented in the course. ——-Contain numerous errors when using the skills or strategies presented in the course	0 (0%) – 5 (16.67%) Discussion postings and responses demonstrate: -A lack of understanding of the concepts and issues presented in the course; and/or are inaccurate, contain many omissions and/or errors; and/or are not supported by research/evidence; and/or lack of analysis, synthesis or evaluation of topic -Many critical errors when discussing content, applicable skills or strategies presented in the course.
CONTRIBUTION TO THE DISCUSSION	8 (26.67%) – 8 (26.67%) Discussion postings and responses significantly contribute to the quality of the discussion/interaction and thinking and learning by: -providing Rich and relevant examples; discerning and thought-provoking ideas; and stimulating thoughts and probes; – -demonstrating original thinking, new perspectives, and extensive synthesis of ideas supported by the literature.	7 (23.33%) – 7 (23.33%) Discussion postings and responses contribute to the quality of the discussion/interaction and thinking and learning by -providing relevant examples; thought-provoking ideas – Demonstrating synthesis of ideas supported by the literature	6 (20%) – 6 (20%) Discussion postings and responses minimally contribute to the quality of discussion/interaction and thinking and learning by: – providing few and/or irrelevant examples; and/or – providing few if any thought- provoking ideas; and/or -. Information that is restated from the literature with no/little demonstration of critical thinking or synthesis of ideas.	0 (0%) – 5 (16.67%) Discussion postings and responses do not contribute to the quality of interaction/discussion and thinking and learning as they do not: -Provide examples (or examples are irrelevant); and/or -Include interesting thoughts or ideas; and/or – Demonstrate of critical thinking or synthesis of ideas
QUALITY OF WRITING	6 (20%) – 6 (20%) Discussion postings and responses exceed doctoral -level writing expectations. They: · Use grammar and syntax that is clear, concise, and appropriate to doctoral level writing; · Make few if any errors in spelling, grammar, and syntax; · Use original language and refrain from directly quoting original source materials; -provide correct APA · Are positive, courteous, and respectful when offering suggestions, constructive feedback, or opposing viewpoints.	5 (16.67%) – 5 (16.67%) Discussion postings and responses meet doctoral -level writing expectations. They: ·Use grammar and syntax that is clear and appropriate to doctoral level writing; ; · Make a few errors in spelling, grammar, and syntax; · paraphrase but refrain from directly quoting original source materials; Provide correct APA format · Are courteous and respectful when offering suggestions, constructive feedback, or opposing viewpoints;.	4 (13.33%) – 4 (13.33%) Discussion postings and responses are minimally below doctoral-level writing expectations. They: · Make more than occasional errors in spelling, grammar, and syntax; · Directly quote from original source materials and/or paraphrase rather than use original language; lack correct APA format; and/or · Are less than courteous and respectful when offering suggestions, feedback, or opposing viewpoints.	0 (0%) – 3 (10%) Discussion postings and responses are well below doctoral -level writing expectations. They: · Use grammar and syntax that is that is unclear · Make many errors in spelling, grammar, and syntax; and –use incorrect APA format · Are discourteous and disrespectful when offering suggestions, feedback, or opposing viewpoints.
Total Points: 30

Excellent

Good

Fair

Poor

RESPONSIVENESS TO DISCUSSION QUESTION

Discussion post minimum requirements:

*The original posting must be completed by Wednesday, Day 3, at 11:59pm MST. Two response postings to two different peer original posts, on two different days, are required by Saturday, Day 6, at 11:59pm MST. Faculty member inquiries require responses, which are not included in the minimum number of posts. Your Discussion Board postings should be written in standard edited English and follow APA style for format and grammar as closely as possible given the constraints of the online platform. Be sure to support the postings with specific citations from this week’s Learning Resources as well as resources available through the Walden University online databases. Refer to the Essential Guide to APA Style for Walden Students to ensure your in-text citations and reference list are correct.

8 (26.67%) – 8 (26.67%)

Discussion postings and responses exceed the requirements of the Discussion instructions. They: Respond to the question being asked or the prompt provided; – Go beyond what is required in some meaningful way (e.g., the post contributes a new dimension, unearths something unanticipated); -Are substantive, reflective, with critical analysis and synthesis representative of knowledge gained from the course readings and current credible evidence. – Demonstrate significant ability to generalize and extend thinking and evaluate theories or concepts within the topic or context of the discussion. -Demonstrate that the student has read, viewed, and considered the Learning -Resources as well as additional resources and has read, viewed, or considered a sampling of colleagues’ postings; -Exceed the minimum requirements for discussion posts*.

7 (23.33%) – 7 (23.33%)

Discussion postings and responses meet the requirements of the Discussion instructions. They: -Respond to the question being asked or the prompt provided; -Are substantive, reflective, with critical analysis and synthesis representative of knowledge gained from the course readings and current credible evidence.re -Demonstrate ability to generalize and extend thinking and evaluate theories or concepts within the topic or context of the discussion. -Demonstrate that the student has read, viewed, and considered the Learning Resources and has read, viewed, or considered a sampling of colleagues’ postings -Meet the minimum requirements for discussion posts*.

6 (20%) – 6 (20%)

Discussion postings and responses are minimally responsive to the requirements of the Discussion instructions. They: – do not clearly address the objectives of the discussion or the question or prompt; and/or -May (lack) lack in depth, reflection, analysis, or synthesis but rely more on anecdotal than scholarly evidence; and/or -Do not adequately demonstrate that the student has read, viewed, and considered the Learning -Resources and/or a sampling of colleagues’ postings; and/or has posted by the due date at least in part. – Lack ability to generalize and extend thinking and evaluate theories or concepts within the topic or context of the discussion. -Do not meet the minimum requirements for discussion posts*.

0 (0%) – 5 (16.67%)

Discussion postings and responses are unresponsive to the requirements of the Discussion instructions. They: – do not clearly address the objectives of the discussion or the question or prompt; and/or – Lack in substance, reflection, analysis, or synthesis but rely more on anecdotal than scholarly evidence. – Lack ability to generalize and extend thinking and evaluate theories or concepts within the topic or context of the discussion. -Do not demonstrate that the student has read, viewed, and considered the Learning Resources and/or a sampling of colleagues’ postings; and/or does not meet the minimum requirements for discussion posts*.

CONTENT KNOWLEDGE

8 (26.67%) – 8 (26.67%)

Discussion postings and responses: -demonstrate in-depth understanding and application of concepts and issues presented in the course (e.g., insightful interpretations including analysis, synthesis and/or evaluation of topic; – are well supported by pertinent research/evidence from a variety of and multiple peer- reviewed books and journals, where appropriate; -Demonstrate significant mastery and thoughtful/accurate application of content, applicable skills or strategies presented in the course.

7 (23.33%) – 7 (23.33%)

Discussion postings and responses: -demonstrate understanding and application of the concepts and issues presented in the course, presented with some understanding and application of concepts and issues presented in the course (e.g., insightful interpretations including analysis, synthesis and/or evaluation of topic; -are supported by research/evidence from peer-reviewed books and journals, where appropriate; and · demonstrate some mastery and application of content, applicable skills, or strategies presented in the course.

6 (20%) – 6 (20%)

Discussion postings and responses: – demonstrate minimal understanding of concepts and issues presented in the course, and, although generally accurate, display some omissions and/or errors; –lack support by research/evidence and/or the research/evidence is inappropriate or marginal in quality; and/or lack of analysis, synthesis or evaluation of topic – demonstrate minimal content, skills or strategies presented in the course. ——-Contain numerous errors when using the skills or strategies presented in the course

0 (0%) – 5 (16.67%)

Discussion postings and responses demonstrate: -A lack of understanding of the concepts and issues presented in the course; and/or are inaccurate, contain many omissions and/or errors; and/or are not supported by research/evidence; and/or lack of analysis, synthesis or evaluation of topic -Many critical errors when discussing content, applicable skills or strategies presented in the course.

CONTRIBUTION TO THE DISCUSSION

8 (26.67%) – 8 (26.67%)

Discussion postings and responses significantly contribute to the quality of the discussion/interaction and thinking and learning by: -providing Rich and relevant examples; discerning and thought-provoking ideas; and stimulating thoughts and probes; – -demonstrating original thinking, new perspectives, and extensive synthesis of ideas supported by the literature.

7 (23.33%) – 7 (23.33%)

Discussion postings and responses contribute to the quality of the discussion/interaction and thinking and learning by -providing relevant examples; thought-provoking ideas – Demonstrating synthesis of ideas supported by the literature

6 (20%) – 6 (20%)

Discussion postings and responses minimally contribute to the quality of discussion/interaction and thinking and learning by: – providing few and/or irrelevant examples; and/or – providing few if any thought- provoking ideas; and/or -. Information that is restated from the literature with no/little demonstration of critical thinking or synthesis of ideas.

0 (0%) – 5 (16.67%)

Discussion postings and responses do not contribute to the quality of interaction/discussion and thinking and learning as they do not: -Provide examples (or examples are irrelevant); and/or -Include interesting thoughts or ideas; and/or – Demonstrate of critical thinking or synthesis of ideas

QUALITY OF WRITING

6 (20%) – 6 (20%)

Discussion postings and responses exceed doctoral -level writing expectations. They: · Use grammar and syntax that is clear, concise, and appropriate to doctoral level writing; · Make few if any errors in spelling, grammar, and syntax; · Use original language and refrain from directly quoting original source materials; -provide correct APA · Are positive, courteous, and respectful when offering suggestions, constructive feedback, or opposing viewpoints.

5 (16.67%) – 5 (16.67%)

Discussion postings and responses meet doctoral -level writing expectations. They: ·Use grammar and syntax that is clear and appropriate to doctoral level writing; ; · Make a few errors in spelling, grammar, and syntax; · paraphrase but refrain from directly quoting original source materials; Provide correct APA format · Are courteous and respectful when offering suggestions, constructive feedback, or opposing viewpoints;.

4 (13.33%) – 4 (13.33%)

Discussion postings and responses are minimally below doctoral-level writing expectations. They: · Make more than occasional errors in spelling, grammar, and syntax; · Directly quote from original source materials and/or paraphrase rather than use original language; lack correct APA format; and/or · Are less than courteous and respectful when offering suggestions, feedback, or opposing viewpoints.

0 (0%) – 3 (10%)

Discussion postings and responses are well below doctoral -level writing expectations. They: · Use grammar and syntax that is that is unclear · Make many errors in spelling, grammar, and syntax; and –use incorrect APA format · Are discourteous and disrespectful when offering suggestions, feedback, or opposing viewpoints.

Total Points: 30