Final Milestone

IHP 610 Final Project Guidelines and Rubric

Overview Healthcare is a field dominated by complex regulation, limited resources, highly charged debates, changing reimbursement, expensive education barriers to entry, and knowledge imbalances. Healthcare decision-makers often have to review information about an issue, analyze the applicable law, and make a decision. Those decisions are often not founded on clearly right or clearly wrong “answers.” Nonetheless, after decision makers conduct or review a policy analysis and a legal analysis and arrive at a conclusion, they must be able to support and defend that decision. Stakeholder values are often in conflict; decision makers working in the field of healthcare and health law have many opportunities to defend their decisions! The final project for this course will give you an opportunity to build policy and legal analysis skills. You will choose from one of three issue prompts at the beginning of the course. Throughout the course, you will draft a memo containing an overview and analysis of your selected issue, as well as a series of recommendations for a healthcare executive. You will experience some of the challenges of reconciling competing values, demands for resources, and organizational needs. Each issue prompt is based on “real world” scenarios, so take this opportunity to practice developing health law and policy analysis skills. This final project addresses your mastery with regard to the following course outcomes:

 Assess the impact of stakeholder needs on decision making for ensuring effective implementation of health law and policy

 Assess the impact of current healthcare laws, policies, and financing practices on affected key stakeholders for informing policy recommendations

 Determine the extent to which legal risks and potential malpractice issues influence policy decision making

 Recommend appropriate strategies for resolving value conflicts among key healthcare stakeholders

 Analyze the role of key stakeholders in shaping, implementing, and evaluating health law and policy for improving population health outcomes

Prompt You will write a policy memorandum, with recommendations, paper in which you will analyze a health law and policy issue and make a series of recommendations to a healthcare executive. At the beginning of this course, you chose one of three issue scenarios. Now, you will create each section of the policy memorandum using the tools and strategies you developed in this course. You have developed those tools and strategies in a stepwise fashion in each module. Remember that the purpose of the policy memorandum is to analyze the issue scenario, make thoughtful arguments about the issue, and make recommendations based on your analysis. Your policy memorandum with recommendations paper must contain the following critical elements. Most of the critical elements align with a particular course outcome (shown in brackets).

I. Executive Summary: Provide an executive summary that clearly identifies the issue scenario you selected, summarizes your analysis, and states your conclusion and recommendations. Be sure to avoid using healthcare jargon in your executive summary.

II. Factual Overview a. Describe the importance of the issue to the healthcare organization. b. Identify the key organizational stakeholders involved in the issue. Review the facts and consider whether any stakeholders are involved in the

issue who may not be immediately apparent upon casual observation. c. Explain how key stakeholders played a role in shaping the health law and policy issue identified in the scenario. d. Identify potential legal risks and malpractice issues that apply. Be sure to provide evidence or examples to support your response. e. Identify potential value conflicts among key stakeholders. Be sure to provide evidence or examples to support your response.

III. Analysis a. Analyze the needs and interests of the key stakeholders you identified. Be sure to provide specific examples. b. Apply current healthcare laws, policies, and financing practices to the issue. Be sure to highlight any potential financial ramifications associated

with the issue. c. Explain why stakeholder value conflicts may exist in this environment. Be sure to justify your reasoning. d. Evaluate the legal risks and malpractice issues you identified above, being sure to analyze how conflicting values may impact potential legal

risks.

IV. Recommendations a. Recommend a course of action to the healthcare executive. The course of action you recommend must be supported by your analysis. b. Propose how you plan to reconcile divergent stakeholder needs and interests. c. Assess the extent to which legal risks and potential malpractice issues shaped your decision, if at all. Be sure to explain your reasoning. d. Assess the extent to which your recommended course of action addresses financing practices that impact key stakeholders, if any. Be sure to

explain your reasoning. e. Propose how you plan to resolve potential conflicts you identified. Be sure to identify the risk management strategies you would employ. f. Propose a strategy for key stakeholders to influence the healthcare executive’s decision. g. Discuss how the strategy for key stakeholders may improve population health outcomes. Be sure to explain your reasoning. h. Summarize your analysis and recommendations in a brief concluding paragraph.

Milestones Milestone One: Executive Summary In Module Two, you will select one of the three possible issue prompts and prepare a draft of your executive summary that identifies your chosen issue prompt and includes a summary of the facts, analysis of key stakeholders and considerations, and recommendation. This submission will be graded with the Milestone One Rubric. Milestone Two: Factual Overview In Module Three, you will submit a draft of your factual overview of the issue. This submission will be graded with the Milestone Two Rubric. Milestone Three: Analysis Outline In Module Five, you will submit an outline of your analysis of the key elements surrounding your issue. This submission will be graded with the Milestone Three Rubric. Milestone Four: Full Analysis In Module Seven, you will submit a draft of your full analysis of the issue, including your analysis of the key impacted stakeholders, application of current healthcare laws, assessment of potential conflicts, and consideration of any legal risks. This submission will be graded with the Milestone Four Rubric. Final Submission: Policy Memorandum In Module Nine, you will revise your previous milestones based on instructor feedback, compile these components, and add your fully developed recommendation to submit your final policy memorandum. It should be a complete, polished artifact containing all of the critical elements of the final product. It should reflect the incorporation of feedback gained throughout the course. This submission will be graded with the Final Project Rubric.

Deliverables

Milestone Deliverable Module Due Grading

One Executive Summary Two Graded separately; Milestone One Rubric

Two Factual Overview Three Graded separately; Milestone Two Rubric

Three Analysis Outline Five Graded separately; Milestone Three Rubric

Four Full Analysis Seven Graded separately; Milestone Four Rubric

Policy Memorandum Nine Graded separately; Final Project Rubric (below)

Final Project Rubric Guidelines for Submission: Your policy memorandum with recommendations paper should not exceed 12 pages, including a one-page executive summary. It should be formatted in 12-point Times New Roman font, double-spaced, with one-inch margins. All citations and references should be formatted according to current APA guidelines.

Critical Elements Exemplary (100%) Proficient (90%) Needs Improvement (70%) Not Evident (0%) Value

Executive Summary Meets “Proficient” criteria, and articulation is exceptionally clear and consumable

Provides a comprehensive executive summary, avoiding the use of healthcare jargon

Provides an executive summary, but with gaps in required detail or uses healthcare jargon

Does not provide an executive summary

3

Overview: Importance [IHP-610-02]

Meets “Proficient” criteria and demonstrates keen insight into the importance of the issue to the organization

Logically describes the importance of the issue to the healthcare organization

Describes the importance of the issue to the healthcare organization, but with gaps in logic or required detail

Does not describe the importance of the issue to the healthcare organization

6.07

Overview: Stakeholders [IHP-610-01]

Meets “Proficient” criteria and expands identification to include external stakeholders who may be impacted by the issue

Accurately identifies key organizational stakeholders involved in the issue

Identifies key organizational stakeholders involved in the issue, but with gaps in accuracy or detail

Does not identify key organizational stakeholders involved in the issue

6.07

Overview: Role [IHP-610-05]

Meets “Proficient” criteria and demonstrates exceptional insight into the impact stakeholders can have in shaping health law and policy issues

Logically explains how identified stakeholders played a role in shaping the health law and policy issue in the selected scenario

Explains how identified stakeholders played a role in shaping the health law and policy issue in the selected scenario, but with gaps in logic or detail

Does not explain how identified stakeholders played a role in shaping the health law and policy issue in the selected scenario

6.07

Overview: Legal Risks and

Malpractice Issues [IHP-610-03]

Meets “Proficient” criteria and demonstrates keen insight into legal risks and malpractice issues

Accurately identifies potential legal risks and malpractice issues, providing evidence or examples to support response

Identifies potential legal risks and malpractice issues, providing evidence or examples to support response, but with gaps in accuracy, detail, or relevant support

Does not identify potential legal risks and malpractice issues and does not provide evidence or examples to support response

6.07

Overview: Value Conflicts

[IHP-610-04]

Meets “Proficient” criteria and demonstrates keen insight into the types of value conflicts among healthcare stakeholders

Accurately identifies potential value conflicts among stakeholders, providing evidence or examples to support response

Identifies potential value conflicts among stakeholders, providing evidence or examples to support response, but with gaps in accuracy, detail, or relevant support

Does not identify potential value conflicts among stakeholders and does not provide evidence or examples to support response

4.55

Analysis: Needs and Interests

[IHP-610-01]

Meets “Proficient” criteria and draws nuanced connections between stakeholder needs and organizational decision-making

Logically analyzes needs and interests of identified stakeholders, providing specific examples

Analyzes needs and interests of identified stakeholders, but with gaps in logic, detail, or specificity of examples

Does not analyze needs and interests of identified stakeholders and does not provide specific examples

6.07

Analysis: Laws [IHP-610-02]

Meets “Proficient” criteria and demonstrates superior insight into current healthcare laws, policies, and financing practices

Accurately applies current healthcare laws, policies, and financing practices to the issue, highlighting any potential financial ramifications associated with the issue

Applies current healthcare laws, policies, and financing practices to the issue, highlighting any potential financial ramifications associated with the issue, but with gaps in accuracy or required detail

Does not apply current healthcare laws, policies, and financing practices to the issue, highlighting any potential financial ramifications associated with the issue

6.07

Analysis: Conflicts [IHP-610-04]

Meets “Proficient” criteria and demonstrates keen insight into value conflicts among healthcare stakeholders

Logically explains why stakeholder value conflicts may exist in the environment, justifying reasoning

Explains why stakeholder value conflicts may exist in the environment, justifying reasoning, but with gaps in logic, required detail, or justification

Does not explain why stakeholder value conflicts may exist in the environment and does not justify reasoning

4.55

Analysis: Legal Risks and Malpractice

Issues [IHP-610-03]

Meets “Proficient” criteria and draws nuanced connections among legal risks, malpractice issues, and policy-making

Logically evaluates identified legal risks and malpractice issues, analyzing how conflicting values may impact potential legal risks

Evaluates identified legal risks and malpractice issues, analyzing how conflicting values may impact potential legal risks, but with gaps in logic or required detail

Does not evaluate identified legal risks and malpractice issues and does not analyze how conflicting values may impact potential legal risks

6.07

Recommendations: Course of Action

[IHP-610-04]

Meets “Proficient” criteria, and recommended course of action is aligned with industry-specific best practices

Recommends a course of action to healthcare executive that is supported by analysis

Recommends a course of action to healthcare executive that is not supported by analysis

Does not recommend a course of action to healthcare executive

4.55

Recommendations: Reconcile

[IHP-610-01]

Meets “Proficient” criteria and draws nuanced connections between stakeholder needs and decision-making

Proposes a logical plan to reconcile divergent stakeholder needs and interests

Proposes a plan to reconcile divergent stakeholder needs and interests, but with gaps in logic or required detail

Does not propose a plan to reconcile divergent stakeholder needs and interests

6.06

Recommendations: Legal Risks and

Potential Malpractice Issues

[IHP-610-03]

Meets “Proficient” criteria and draws nuanced connections among legal risks, malpractice issues, and policy-making

Logically assesses the extent to which legal risks and malpractice issues shaped decision, explaining reasoning

Assesses the extent to which legal risks and malpractice issues shaped decision, explaining reasoning, but with gaps in logic, required detail, or relevant reasoning

Does not assess the extent to which legal risks and malpractice issues shaped decision, explaining reasoning

6.06

Recommendations: Financing Practices

[IHP-610-02]

Meets “Proficient” criteria and draws nuanced connections between financing practices and decision-making

Logically assesses the extent to which recommended course of action addresses financing practices that impact key stakeholders, explaining reasoning

Assesses the extent to which recommended course of action addresses financing practices that impact key stakeholders, explaining reasoning, but with gaps in logic, required detail, or relevant reasoning

Does not assess the extent to which recommended course of action addresses financing practices that impact key stakeholders and does not explain reasoning

6.06

Recommendations: Potential Conflicts

[IHP-610-04]

Meets “Proficient” criteria and demonstrates superior judgment in determining how to employ risk management strategies to resolve conflicts fairly

Proposes a logical plan to resolve identified potential conflicts, identifying risk management strategies to be employed

Proposes a plan to resolve identified potential conflicts, identifying risk management strategies to be employed, but plan is not logical for its intended purpose or response has gaps in required detail

Does not propose a plan to resolve identified potential conflicts and does not identify risk management strategies to be employed

4.55

Recommendations: Influence

[IHP-610-05]

Meets “Proficient” criteria and demonstrates exceptional insight into the impact stakeholders can have in shaping health law and policy issues

Proposes an appropriate strategy for key stakeholders to influence healthcare executive’s decision

Proposes a strategy for key stakeholders to influence healthcare executive’s decision, but strategy is inappropriate for its intended purpose

Does not propose a strategy for key stakeholders to influence healthcare executive’s decision

6.07

Recommendations: Improve

[IHP-610-05]

Meets “Proficient” criteria and demonstrates exceptional insight into the impact stakeholders can have in shaping health law and policy issues to improve population outcomes

Logically discusses how strategy for key stakeholders may improve population health outcomes, explaining reasoning

Discusses how strategy for key stakeholders may improve population health outcomes, explaining reasoning, but with gaps in logic, required detail, or relevant reasoning

Does not discuss how strategy for key stakeholders may improve population health outcomes and does not explain reasoning

6.06

Recommendations: Summarize

Meets “Proficient” criteria and expertly balances brevity with required detail

Summarizes analysis and recommendations in a brief concluding paragraph

Summarizes analysis and recommendations, but response is verbose or has gaps in required detail

Does not summarize analysis and recommendations

3

Articulation of Response

Submission is free of errors related to citations, grammar, spelling, syntax, and organization and is presented in a professional and easy-to-read format

Submission has no major errors related to citations, grammar, spelling, syntax, or organization

Submission has major errors related to citations, grammar, spelling, syntax, or organization that negatively impact readability and articulation of main ideas

Submission has critical errors related to citations, grammar, spelling, syntax, or organization that prevent understanding of ideas

3

Total 100%