HLTH – 556 DB 3 – Urgently Required. 10-12 Hours. Need A + Work

 After reading chapter 5 and 6 of the McLaughlin & McLaughlin text, choose one government alternatives you would support, one free market alternatives you would support in any future healthcare policy. Support your reasoning with research from your text and outside readings. 

Reading & Study

McLaughlin & McLaughlin: chs. 5–6

 

Below are the specific requirements for each part of this assignment.

THREADS: 

· Must be at least 400 words.

· A minimum of one source is required (course textbook may be used).

· Citations used should be formatted in APA.

· Should thoroughly address the topic prompt, using citations as appropriate.

REPLIES: 

· Must post at least two 200–250-word replies to your classmates per forum.

· Should expand upon ideas expressed in your classmates’ threads by adding new ideas to points that you agree with and/or explaining areas of disagreement.

· Should be posted intermittently throughout the forum.  Do not complete all of the replies at one time; instead, allow for conversation to develop by posting multiple times throughout the week.

· A minimum of one source per reply is required (course textbook may be used).

· Citations used should be formatted in APA.

I have attached the Discussion Rubic as to how the Main post and Responses would be Graded. Please follow every single Instruction. 

I will be attaching the main post of two students you need to respond to later or by tomorrow. Please send me the main post first and the responses when I upload the main post of two students.

Required Resources:

McLaughlin, C. P., & McLaughlin, C. D. (2015). Health policy analysis: An interdisciplinary approach (2nd ed.). Sudbury, MA: Jones and Bartlett. ISBN: 9781284037777.

American Psychological Association. Publication manual of the American Psychological Association (Current ed.). Washington, DC: Author.

 Iverson, C, Christiansen, S, & Flanagin, A. AMA Manual of Style: A Guide for Authors and Editors Current ed. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.  

HLTH 556 Discussion Board Rubric

Advanced 92-100% (A) 

Proficient 84-91% (B) 

Developing 1-83% (< C)   Not present 

Criteria	Levels of Achievement
Content 70%		Advanced 92-100% (A)		Proficient 84-91% (B)		Developing 1-83% (< C)		Not present
Demonstrates content mastery and a well-rounded understanding of the issue. 1 8 points	18- 16.5 points All posts display clear content mastery, and relate precisely to the assigned topic.	16.49- 15.0 points All posts are related to the assigned topic, but do not provide evidence of subject mastery.	14-1 points Posts are loosely related to the assigned topic, and do not effectively contribute to the development of the discussion.	0 points  Does not provide evidence of subject mastery.
Articulates a clear position on the topic with academic support.  1 8 points	18- 16.5 points Posts are balanced in their approach to the topic, but provide evidence of a clear, well-researched position on the topic.	16.49- 15.0 points Posts are mostly balanced, but do not provide evidence of a firm position derived from research or current literature.	14-1 points Posts show a clear bias, or do not provide a discernable position on the issue. Evidence of research is not present.	0 points  Does not display evidence of individual thought or topical research.
Contributes to the overall discussion through relevant, substantive posts. 17points	17-15.5 points Unique contributions are made to the discussion in both the original thread and two responses.	15-14 points Contributions are made through an initial thread and two responses, but are definitional in nature.	13-1 points Contributions made are minimal, and are derivative in nature.	0 points  Contributions to the discussion are nominal.
Structure 30%
Grammar and Spelling 8 points	8-7.4 points Correct spelling and grammar used throughout essay. Posts contain fewer than 2 errors in grammar or spelling that distract the reader from the content.	7.3 – 6.7 points Posts contain fewer than 5 errors in grammar or spelling that distract the reader from the content.	6.6-1 points Posts contain fewer than 8 errors in grammar or spelling that distract the reader from the content.	0 points  Posts contain greater than 8 errors in grammar or spelling that distract the reader from the content.
APA Format Compliance 8 points	8-7.4 points Minimal errors (1-2) noted in the interpretation or execution of proper APA format.	7.3 – 6.7 points Few errors (3-4) noted in the interpretation or execution of proper APA format.	6.6-1 points Numerous errors (5+) noted in the interpretation or execution of proper APA format.	0 points  Notable absences in required APA formatting.
Assignment Requirements 6 points	6 points Minimum word count of 400 words for the initial thread and 200 words for each response is met or exceeded. Initial post includes one unique, relevant scholarly reference	5 points Minimum word count for each post is within 10% of the requirement. References to outside sources are included, but do not provide unique insight to the overall discussion.	4-1 points Minimum word count for each post is within 20% of the requirement. Sources referenced are not scholarly or relevant.	0 points  Word count for each post is not within 20% of the requirement. No outside references are provided.

Liberty University

             The one government alternative that I select to have the greatest viability is the captive payer system and the use of expanded / reduced eligibility / benefits. First, the captive (or single payer) system does not refer to a unitary type of payer for the entire healthcare offered. One of the most common example of a captive payer system is Medicare. Medicare is the only government payer for the elderly and or some qualified disabled individuals. Though there are other opportunities for qualifying individuals to also receive other insurance benefits Medicare is the only government issued coverage to this particular population (McLaughlin & McLaughlin, 2015). This example allows transparency that expansion on benefits would be useful to this particular population.

            One free market alternative that I would select as most successful is the modification of medical practice constraints. The modification of medical practice constraints could allow for a vast reduction in costs over time especially as new legislation allows for expansion in roles such as those of a mid-level provider such as a Nurse Practitioner or Physician Assistants (McLaughlin & McLaughlin, 2015). These roles are imperative to a successful practice as it allows serving clients in a timely and thorough manner. One study research found “employment of an NP or a PA in the hospital care setting has been shown to provide patient benefits, including reduced length of stay, lower medication use and costs, and improved communication among providers” (Mackey, Boyle, Walo, Castro, Cheng, & Cook, 2014, p112-119). Without such providers physicians would not be able to maintain their practice as they wish. Allowing expansion of mid-level practice can take stress off of the primary provider and fills a void that would certainly remain without them.

            Regardless of which government or free market alternative one selected it is important to understand that some form of regulation is warranted in order to be successful. Although rules and policies are not always favorited by individuals, one thing I have learned in my years as a registered nurse is that working for a company with policies adhered to was much more successful than ones where policies were not enforced. “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them” (Matthew 5:17, ESV).

Reference

Mackey, Patricia A,R.N., C.N.P., Boyle, Mary E,R.N., C.N.P., Walo, Patricia M,R.N., C.N.P., Castro, J. C., B.S., Cheng, M., M.S.P.H., & Cook, C. B., M.D. (2014). CARE DIRECTED BY A SPECIALTY-TRAINED NURSE PRACTIONER OR PHYSICIAN ASSISTANT CAN OVERCOME CLINICAL INERTIA IN MANAGEMENT OF INPATIENT DIABETES. Endocrine Practice, 20(2), 112-119. Retrieved from 

http://ezproxy.liberty.edu/login?url=https://search-proquest-com.ezproxy.liberty.edu/docview/1545884566?accountid=12085

McLaughlin, C. P., & McLaughlin, C. D. (2015). Health policy analysis: An interdisciplinary approach (2nd ed.). Sudbury, MA: Jones and Bartlett. ISBN: 9781284037777

The government alternative I would support would be consumer driven competition.

 

In this program the government would be involved to help ensure there are enough providers competing (McLaughlin & McLaughlin, 2015).  In addition, the government would ensure mobility within the market and that both sides, buyers and sellers, would have maximum access to price and quality information.

One of the interventions seen in consumer driven competition would be to mandate individual coverage.  This type of plan is often described as an insurance policy with a high deductible and may or may not include a health savings account (HSA) (Hilsenrath, Eakin, & Fischer, 2015).  There are a few considerations for this type of program.  One is the fact that it is important that young people pay into the system for sustainability of the program.  A second consideration is that if people cannot pay the premiums, cost sharing may have to occur (McLaughlin & McLaughlin, 2015).  According to Hilsenrath, Eakin, and Fischer (2015), consumer driven plans are steadily growing and have been credited in slowing down national health care expenses.

The free market approach is more aligned to my values and a belief personally as it takes the government out of the equation.  In this type of program, patients have data showing cost and effectiveness of the program so that health care decisions can be made.  When transparency of data is available to the public, hospitals will be focused more on improving patient safety initiatives as their quality scores will be available for all to see (Williamsen, 2017).  One example of a free market alternative is Samaritan Ministries.  This program is based on biblical principles and members receive financial support for their healthcare needs.  They also receive emotional and spiritual support.  The goal of the organization is to share each other’s burdens.  The Bible says “bear one another’s burdens and so fulfill the law of Christ” Gal 6:2 (English Standard Version).

In addition to the financial, emotional, and spiritual support, since Samaritan Ministries is non-insurance through healthcare sharing, all members have exemption from the federal requirement that they must have insurance or pay a penalty (www.samaritanministries.org).  This type of free market alternative allows patients to shop for their medical care and better manage where their money is being spent.  Testa and Block (2013) state that “the most ethically and economically sound solution to our problems will come from the free market” (p. 111).  I agree with them.  Samaritan Ministries, being Christian based, would be an excellent free market alternative health care plan. 

 

References

Hilsenrath, P., Eakin, C., & Fischer, K. (2015). Price-Transparency and cost accounting: Challenges for health care organizations in the consumer-driven era. The Journal of Health care Organization, Provision, and Financing, 1-5. https://doi.org/10.1177/0046958015574981

McLaughlin, C. P., & McLaughlin, C. D. (2015). Health policy analysis (2nd ed.). [VitalSource Bookshelf]. Retrieved from

Testa, P., & Block, W. E. (2013). Applying the free market philosophy to healthcare. Humanomics, 29, 105-114. https://doi.org/10.1108/08288661311319175

Williamsen, K. (2017). Free market healthcare reform. Retrieved from https://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/health-care/item/25568-free-market-healthcare-reform