Studyportal

Policy Brief Instructions and Rubric

As stated in The Essentials, healthcare policy can facilitate or hinder healthcare delivery, and legislation directly affects the environment in which advanced practice nurses (APN) practice. APNs are called to participate in the legislative process, influencing policy development to better meet the needs of providers and care recipients. Ultimately, MSN and DNP education have two outcomes related to healthcare policy and advocacy: (a) examine and evaluate the policy process and (b) engage in political activism as it relates to ensuring healthcare policy reduces disparities, improves access and quality, reduces costs, and promotes equity.

This assignment focuses on the student’s ability to understand and evaluate policy processes and make decisions on whether certain policies achieve the goals outlined above. From there, graduates can transform this knowledge into political activism: Developing a policy brief is one way to accomplish this. By utilizing this strategy, graduates can ensure that they have a seat at the table when decisions about their practice are being made.

Policy briefs are succinct documents that are easy to review and work to persuade a chosen audience to support or remove support for the development of a particular policy. The following steps outline what you need to accomplish for this assignment. Additional questions are wel- come and should be posted in the Course Q&A.

Step 1:

Bill Selection. Choose a federal-level healthcare bill that addresses healthcare problem of your choosing. You must choose a federal bill from the 117th Congress (Jan. 3, 2021 to Jan. 2023). The bill must still be pending. You may not select a bill that has already passed both the Senate and the House or one that is waiting on signature from President. You  may use a bill that has only passed one of the congressional branches— either the House or the Senate, but not both. It is recommended that you use congress.gov,senate.gov,house.gov,legiscan.com,ortheThomasLibraryof Congress to search for a health-related bill to analyze for this brief.

Step 2:

Executive Summary. Begin your brief with an executive summary that introduces the chosen healthcare issue. This will be your audience’s initial contact with your brief so you want to make sure it is compelling so that they continue to read.

In 1-2 paragraphs, you should (a) describe the issue, (b) address its impact,(c) express why it’s time to address this issue now, and(d)introduce what the major outcomes that would result from fixing the problem. Support this section with relevant facts, figures, statistics, and costs.

Step 3:

Background and Significance. Discuss how each of the following factors relate to your problem. Include explanations of (a) how they contribute to the existence and magnitude of your problem, and (b) how your problem affects them:

 

 

1. Social Determinants of Health (SDOH)
2. The Local, State, or national economy
3. The Healthcare System or Advanced Nursing Practice
4. Ethical Theories or Bioethical Principles

Each of these should be developed and supported separately and include facts, numbers, figures, research, and statistics to support your statements. Specific SDOH and their connection to your issue should be included. In your ethical section, connect your discussion to a particular ethical factor or theory that is relevant to your topic. This section should paint the picture of the far-reaching impact of the issue. Focus on the problem and not potential solutions, including the bill you chose.

Step 4:

Historical context. Summarize the history of your issue as a public health concern. Discuss if the issue has been debated in the past and the major opinions that prevailed. Lastly, summarize the past legislative attempts to resolve this problem and their outcomes/impact.

Step 5:

Policy Recommendation: Introduce your policy recommendation using its bill number and title (if titled) and summarize what it is intended to do. Support your selection of this bill by addressing (a) how it fills in gaps left by previous legislation and (b) why it is preferred to other methods of solving the problem. Support this section with evidence. Include a working link to your bill.

Step 6:

Criteria for Evaluation. This section is the central aspect of this assignment and requires you to use evidence to analyze the effectiveness, efficiency, and equity (three Es) of the bill you selected as described below:

1. Effectiveness: Summarize current evidence describing how the specific strategies proposed in the bill are effective at solving the chosen problem. Discuss the immediate, short, and long-term outcomes that are achievable following the implementation of this bill.
2. Efficiency: Summarize current evidence that demonstrates how the specific strategies in the bill are efficient. Include illustrations of cost versus benefit and/or cost versus effectiveness that are supported by numerical figures.
3. Equity: Discuss how the specific strategies in the bill have been shown to impact health disparities and inequities. Also consider whether implementation of the bill itself is equitable. Identify any concerns about the fairness of cost-sharing or burden of implementation

 

Specific examples of strategies from your bill should be included in each section above. The ability to perform objective analysis is key to quality policy evaluation. The conclusions presented in this section should be the result of synthesizing research findings from the literature. It is not meant to reflect your opinion. The bill itself cannot be used for support for any of the three Es.

Step 7:

Areas of Concern. Explain at least one potential unintended negative consequence of this bill. Discuss gaps in knowledge, data, or evidence that make predicting outcomes difficult or that bar you from fully supporting a particular aspect of the bill. Support with evidence.

Step 8:

Potential Barriers. Identify and discuss potential barriers to implementation and/or full realization of intended outcomes. These may be social, educational, cultural, or legally based for example. You may also describe factors not listed here. Support with evidence.

Step 9:

Reference List. There should be a minimum of 10 references published within the last 5 years on your list. The majority must be peer-reviewed references. Additional references types may include current events, information from professional organization sites, and relevant publications from corporation websites. In-text citations and reference list entries should be presented in APA format.

Additional Notes:

• The document should be organized with headings presented in the same order in which they are presented in the rubric. Creativity in the use of space is allowed and encouraged, however.
• With styling, the assignment should be approximately 6 single-spaced pages in length (excluding the reference pages and any appendices) and must have a minimum often (10) references, the majority of which should peer reviewed. References should be timely: published within the previous five (5) years.

 

Submission Instructions: The assignment is to be submitted in the form of a policy brief (not an APA paper) in a single PDF to the appropriate assignment area. Your work will automatically be submitted to turnitin.com upon submission to the course.

DO:

• Single space and submit as a PDF
• Format this as an actual policy brief using bullets, panels, bold font, underline, color, boxes, and photos strategically
• Maintain APA format where applicable (eg, citations, references, numbers, capitalization, abbreviations, etc.). This includes the citation and reference format for your bill(s).
• Maintain your professional voice (avoid first person, colloquialisms, and unprofessional language)
• Use the advanced search feature in Google Images to filter results by images that are free for use or sharing and/or give credit to the source of your image in your work

DO NOT:

• Let the styling overshadow you message. Find a balance. Simple presentations work well also. You’ll note that most professional policy briefs rely on a combination of columns and color/color blocking to make their impact.
• Include an APA formatted title page.

 

Policy Brief
Criteria	Ratings	Pts
Executive Summary   1. Introduces purpose of the brief, its timeliness, impact, and the potential benefits of solving the problem. 2. Conclusions are supported with relevant data.	2 to >1.5 pts Fully Met In 1-2 well developed paragraphs, the executive summary addresses and supports each required component in the directions and statements are supported with relevant numerical figures. 1.5 to >0.5 pts Partially Met One of the required components is missing. Support for the student’s conclusions or use of relevant data to support could be improved. Alternatively, the section may far exceed the two paragraph limit. 0.5 to >0.0 pts Minimally Met The summary is minimally developed. More than one required component is missing, and there is a lack of support and insufficient use of relevant figures. 0 pts Not Met The section is absent or addresses material other than what was required.	2 pts
Background and Significance   1. Explains the connection between the policy issue and each of the following: (a) SDOH, (b) the economy, (c) healthcare/advanced practice, and (d) ethical theories/principles. 2. Well supported with evidence and relevant statistics.	4 to >3.0 pts Fully Met The section includes a robust discussion of each required factor and its relationship to the selected problem. The section is organized with the use of headings, well developed with supporting statements, and compelling as evidenced by the use of data to illustrate and support conclusions. 3 to >2.0 pts Partially Met Support and organization require improvement. Additional use of numerical figures needed to make the section compelling. Alternatively, the section is well developed and supported, but the student omits one of the factor criteria. 2 to >0.0 pts Minimally Met Two or more required factors are missing from the discussion. The support for each factor is minimally developed and connections to the selected problem are unclear or absent. Statistical support is insufficient to serve its intended purpose. 0 pts Not Met The section is absent or addresses material other than what was required.	4 pts
Historical Context   1. Summarizes history of issue as public health concern 2. Discusses previous debates and prevailing opinions. 3. Discussion past legislative efforts to address the problem.	2 to >1.5 pts Fully Met The section includes a well developed summary of the problem as a public health concern. Previous debates and prevailing opinions on the issue are included. Specific past legislation intending to address the problem are included. The section is supported with appropriate resources. 1.5 to >1.0 pts Partially Met At least one of the components required additional development. Support needs to be improved. 1 to >0.0 pts Minimally Met Two of the required components are underdeveloped or absent. Support is minimally included. 0 pts Not Met The section is absent or addresses material other than what was required.	2 pts
Policy Recommendation   1. Student introduces policy solution for the first time (with the exception of the executive summary) 2. Summarizes its contents, addresses the gaps that it will fill, and discusses why it is superior to other options. 3. A working link to the bill is included. 4. The bill is from the 117th Congresss.	2 to >1.5 pts Fully Met The section includes a clear summary of what the chosen legislation intends to do and how. How the bill fills gaps left by previous attempts to solve the policy issue is clear and supported. The discussion includes statements that speak to why this bill is a superior solution. A working link to the bill is included. The bill is from the 117th Congress. 1.5 to >1.0 pts Partially Met At least one of the components required additional development. Support needs to be improved. 1 to >0.0 pts Minimally Met Two of the required components are underdeveloped or absent. Support is minimally included. 0 pts Not Met The section is absent or addresses material other than what was required.	2 pts
Criteria for Evaluation   1. Analysis of effectiveness, efficiency, and equity. 2. Support from evidence and specific examples of bill strategies are used to answer posed questions.	6 to >4.5 pts Fully Met All questions regarding each of the three Es are addressed and answered using a combination of evidence and specific strategies from the bill as support. The student demonstrates exemplary understanding of what each of these terms mean specifically as they relate to policy analysis. Organization with headings preferred. 4.5 to >3.0 pts Partially Met Each of the questions posed are not clearly addressed, and support from evidence and the inclusion of specific bill strategies require improvement or consistency in application. Organization could be improved or evidence of incomplete understanding may be present. 3 to >0.0 pts Minimally Met Approximately half of the posed questions are missing or inadequately addressed. Support in all areas in insufficient or minimally developed. Organization is poor, and there is a lack of understanding of each term or inability to apply module material. 0 pts Not Met The section is absent, minimally developed, or addresses material other than what was required.	6 pts
Areas of Concern   1. Identified as least one unintended consequence. 2. Evaluates weaknesses in evidence on the issue.	2 to >1.5 pts Fully Met The section addresses at least one unintended consequence of the bill’s implementation. A discussion of gaps in knowledge, evidence, etc., related to the policy issue is included. 1.5 to >1.0 pts Partially Met Explanation of the consequence could be improved or clearer in its meaning and connection to the subject. Additional support for conclusions are needed throughout. 1 to >0.0 pts Minimally Met A clearly identified consequence is not present. Discussion of knowledge gaps is minimally developed or inadequately supported. 0 pts Not Met The section is absent, minimally developed, or addresses material other than what was required.	2 pts
Potential Barriers   1. Discuss a variety of potential barriers to implementation or success of the bill.	2 to >1.5 pts Fully Met This section addresses potential barriers to implementation and/or success of the bill. Barriers are connected to specific factors when applicable. Student’s response is completely explained and thoughtful. Support is included. 1.5 to >1.0 pts Partially Met The response requires further thought and development or may be missing discussion of obvious concerns. The relationship to specific factors is unclear in some instances. Support could be improved. 1 to >0.0 pts Minimally Met Conclusions are minimally developed and lack insight. Support is also minimal and connections to specific factors are scarce. 0 pts Not Met The section is absent, minimally developed, or addresses material other than what was required.	2 pts
Language and Styling   1. Organization and visual interest 2. Professional language and voice	2.5 to >2.0 pts Fully Met Language maintains professional voice. Visual interest is used well to enhance the message of the policy brief without being overdone or making the document difficult to read. Although students may have varying artistic abilities, effort in formatting is clear. Brief is organized. 2 to >1.0 pts Partially Met Attention to styling and/or organization could be improved. Some styling applied to the look of the brief but additional effort required. Language may occasionally stray from professional voice. 1 to >0.0 pts Minimally Met Language strays from professional voice, including the use of jargon or derogatory terms (eg, anti-vaxxer). Paper is essentially in APA format with little effort towards styling or visual interest. Organization is poor and the work is difficult to read. (To be clear, this category is not a judgement of the students’ artistic ability.) 0 pts Not Met Language and professional voice are major concerns. Jargon and derogatory terms used frequently. Brief is submitted as an APA-formatted paper or the format is so poorly organized that the required information cannot be ascertained.	2.5 pts
Scholarship   1. Scholarly writing skills and APA format. Additional deductions for scholarship may occur up to 20%. 2. Late deductions will be applied as outlined in the syllabus. 3. Plagiarism, accidental or otherwise, can also result in deductions up to and beyond the 20% This includes submitting work previously submitted to other courses or to this course in another semester. 4. Direct quotes outside of providing key definitions are discouraged.	2.5 to >2.0 pts Proficient The student’s application of graduate level critical thinking, writing skills, and illustration of APA format as applicable are exemplary. See PDF instructions on what is and is not required for this assignment. 2 to >1.5 pts Competent The student’s application of graduate level critical thinking, writing skills, and application of APA format are good with room for minor improvements. Additional assistance outside of class optional. 1.5 to >0.0 pts Developing The student’s application of graduate level critical thinking, writing skills, and application of APA format illustrates minimal competency with room for significant improvements. Additional assistance outside of class strongly recommended 0 pts Not Met The student’s application of graduate level critical thinking, writing skills, and application of APA format are absent with major improvements necessary. Additional assistance outside of class likely required for success in the course.	2.5 pts
Total Points: 25

 

 

 

 

APA

 

 

 

CLICK HERE FOR FURTHER ASSISTANCE ON THIS ASSIGNMENT

The post As stated in The Essentials, healthcare policy can facilitate or hinder healthcare delivery, and legislation directly affects the environment in which advanced practice nurses (APN) practice. APNs are called to participate in the legislative process, influencing policy development to better meet the needs of providers and care recipients. Ultimately, MSN and DNP education have two outcomes related to healthcare policy and advocacy: (a) examine and evaluate the policy process and (b) engage in political activism as it relates to ensuring healthcare policy reduces disparities, improves access and quality, reduces costs, and promotes equity. appeared first on Apax Researchers.