one..

Proposing Evidence-Based Change Scoring Guide

CRITERIA NON-PERFORMANCE BASIC PROFICIENT DISTINGUISHED

Identify an aspect of a local or regional health care system or program that should be a focus for change.

Does not identify an aspect of a local or regional health care system or program that should be a focus for change.

Identifies an aspect of a local or regional health care system or program that should be a focus for change, but the rationale for the choice is unclear.

Identifies an aspect of a local or regional health care system or program that should be a focus for change.

Identifies an aspect of a local or regional health care system or program that should be a focus for change. Provides clear expectations for improvements substantiated by credible evidence.

Define desirable outcomes, including who will pay for care and factors limiting achievement of those outcomes.

Does not define desirable outcomes.

Defines desirable outcomes, without including responsible payer or limiting factors.

Defines desirable outcomes, including who will pay for care and factors limiting achievement of those outcomes.

Defines desirable outcomes, including who will pay for care and factors limiting achievement of those outcomes. Provides well- reasoned justification for the definition and exhibits insight into optimal health care solutions.

Explain why specific changes will lead to improved outcomes.

Does not describe expected improvements in outcomes.

Describes expected improvements in outcomes, or provides no rationale for expectations of improved outcomes.

Explains why specific changes will lead to improved outcomes.

Explains why specific changes will lead to improved outcomes. Draws well-substantiated conclusions that are in line with reasonable expectations.

Analyze two non- U.S. health care systems or programs that offer insight into a proposed change for a health care system or program in the United States.

Does not analyze two non-U.S. health care systems or programs that offer insight into a proposed change for a health care system or program in the United States.

Analyzes two non-U.S. health care systems or programs, but relevant connections to the U.S. system are tenuous.

Analyzes two non- U.S. health care systems or programs that offer insight into a proposed change for a health care system or program in the United States.

Analyzes two non-U.S. health care systems or programs that offer insight into a proposed change for a health care system or program in the United States. Articulates insightful lessons learned from the analysis that have clear implications for U.S. health care.

Determine the financial and health implications of making—and not making—proposed changes to a health care system or program.

Does not determine the financial and health implications of making—and not making—proposed changes to a health care system or program.

Determines the effects of proposed changes, but overlooks key financial and health implications.

Determines the financial and health implications of making—and not making—proposed changes to a health care system or program.

Determines the financial and health implications of making—and not making —proposed changes to a health care system or program. Draws insightful, well-reasoned conclusions based on credible evidence.

Write clearly and concisely in a logically coherent and appropriate form and style.

Does not write clearly and concisely in a logically coherent and appropriate form and style.

Writing lacks clarity or conciseness, is loosely structured, or includes errors in grammar, mechanics, or APA formatting that inhibit effective communication or

Writes clearly and concisely in a logically coherent and appropriate form and style.

Writes clearly and concisely in a logically coherent and appropriate form and style. Main points, ideas, arguments, or propositions are well- developed and engaging. Adheres to all applicable

CRITERIA NON-PERFORMANCE BASIC PROFICIENT DISTINGUISHED detract from good scholarship.

disciplinary and scholarly writing standards and conventions.

Support assertions, arguments, propositions, and conclusions with relevant and credible evidence.

Does not support assertions, arguments, propositions, and conclusions with relevant and credible evidence.

Sources lack relevance or credibility, or the evidence is not persuasive or explicitly supportive of assertions, arguments, propositions or conclusions.

Supports assertions, arguments, propositions, and conclusions with relevant and credible evidence.

Supports assertions, arguments, propositions, and conclusions with relevant, credible, and convincing evidence. Skillfully combines error- free source citations with a perceptive and accurate synthesis of the evidence.