NURS 6130 Issue Analysis Paper Evaluation
The insurance market as currently constituted in the United States is biased towards the wealthy as a significant percentage of poor people do not have coverage. The absence of insurance for millions of Americans compel most of them to forego care because of the prohibitive costs of treatment. The existence of such a modality impacts the economic and social functions of a society as the people from poor backgrounds who cannot afford insurance continue languishing in poverty. Indeed, the productivity of this group of individuals also reduces as a result of the absence of care. Additionally, they do not move up the social ladder, which denies them opportunities to access good health care plans while their economic situations continue to deteriorate.
In addition, the need for Bernie Sanders Medicare for All proposal has been informed by the greed that has permeated the health care industry from private insurers and hospitals. In the present insurance arrangement, American doctors utilize a significant portion of money handling insurers since a lot of them exist and each one of them negotiates their own rates with hospitals and doctors. As a consequence, wide variations have been noted to the cost of several procedures such as appendectomy whose costs can vary from $1,529 to
$186,955 dependent upon the negotiating skills of the insurer. Such cost variations raise important ethical questions concerning the merits of the present Medicare system as no justification whatsoever can exist for such a large range. In addition, the political landscape has also permeated the current system wherein both sides of the political divide wants to institute their own version of insurance coverage. Whereas the current model has been existence since 2008, both sides are increasingly looking to overhaul it, which points to the fact that it may not be working. That the issue of insurance has become a campaign issue for each of the last four presidential election implies that it is faulty and thus needs to be addressed.
Moreover, the current Affordable Care Act and Medicare systems give legal advantages to private insurers as
opposed to the American people. In most cases, patients have failed to get necessary treatments owing to the pre-existing condition clause that are inserted in their insurance contracts. Further, the law bars doctors from treating certain conditions if the costs go beyond certain limit. Consequently, most people have died or failed to secure lifesaving treatments because of such legal constrictions. On the other hand, the current system does not allow for holistic care practices as its primary motivation is money as influenced by the capitalist model that is founded upon. As a consequence, patients seeking care are forced to undergo certain procedures even without considering the input of the affected individuals. Indeed, the model as currently practiced is centered on costs and credibility with the principal objectives involving questions whether the cost will be covered. This is in contrast with the Christian belief wherein the conscience precedes everything else.
| A- Mastering | B – Developing | C – Emerging | D – Keep working | F – Challenges Abound | ||||
| Issue/ Policy Analysis
180 points
|
–Policy Issue analysis coherent, explicit & addresses all areas of issue analysis.
— Personal introduction clearly explains the reason for the analysis (who, what, why, bias) — The context is relevant to the issue –Relevant arguments support analysis –Opposing arguments clearly identified & countered. –Cost implications clearly presented. — Policy/issue options cover a variety options — Evaluation explained using the score Issue Analysis Paper Evaluation Rubric—NURS 6130 – card results – –Paper well-organized & easy to read
160 – 180 points |
— Policy Issue analysis addresses all areas fairly clearly.
–Ppt generally well-organized & easy to read. –Relevant arguments support analysis –Most opposing arguments identified & countered. –Cost considered fairly well.
49-54 points |
— Policy Issue analysis addressing areas may be implied or superficial.
–Ppt less organized, sometimes hard to follow. –Some relevant arguments presented; may omit major supporting argument(s) &/or data. –Some opposing arguments identified & countered; may omit major opposing argument. –Cost considered briefly. –May include info that does not fit.
43-48 points |
— Policy Issue analysis implied, lacking clarity & not complete.
–Ppt not well organized; hard to follow information as presented. –Some relevant arguments presented but omits major supporting argument(s) &/or data. –Some opposing arguments identified & countered; may omit major opposing argument(s). –Cost considered briefly or not at all. –Includes info that does not fit. 36-42 points |
–Fails to turn in Ppt.
OR — Policy Issue analysis is unstated lacking clarity, depth or is incomplete. –Ppt not well organized; difficult to understand as presented. –May or may not present relevant arguments. –Omits major supporting argument(s) &/or data; may or may not present & counter opposing arguments –Cost considered briefly or not at all. –Includes info that does not fit
0-35 points |
|||
| Resource Use
60 points
|
–Analysis supported with predominantly primary, credible sources.
–All sources clearly- identified & credited using APA format. –Range of resources is 10 or more references –Information is accurate & current.
54-60 points |
–Analysis supported with a majority of primary, credible sources.
–Most sources clearly identified & credited using APA format. –Range of resources used is 5-6 references –Information is generally accurate & current.
24-26 points |
–Analysis supported with sources; primary source use not always clear. May be some over-reliance on secondary & other sources.
–Most sources identified & credited using APA format; citations make it possible to trace resources used. –Range of resources used meets minimum of 4 references –While information is mostly & current, there may be an area which is incomplete, out-of-date, &/or incorrect.
21-23 points |
–Analysis may/may not be supported with sources; primary source use is not clear.
–Over reliance on secondary & other sources. –Difficulty identifying & crediting sources using APA format; citations may not make it possible to trace resources used. –Range of resources used may/may not meet minimum required –Information may be incomplete, out-of-date, &/or incorrect.
18-20 points |
–Fails to turn in Ppt.
OR –Analysis not well-supported with sources; primary source use is not clear. –Over reliance on secondary & other sources. –May have difficulty identifying & crediting sources using APA format. –Sources may be omitted; citations may not make it possible to trace resources used. –Range of resources used may/may not meet minimum required –Information may be incomplete, out-of-date, &/or incorrect 0-17 points |
|||
| Communi-
cation 60 points
|
–Consistent clarity of ideas, with professional language.
–Clear logical flow from proposal through data & arguments. –Tone is professional, assertive, respectful & demonstrates author understanding of policy process. –Concise paper;
110-60 points |
–Good overall clarity of ideas, visuals, & language with only minor areas which could benefit from further revision.
–Information, data & analysis flows logically with only minor strengthening needed in these areas. –Tone is generally professional, assertive, respectful, & shows good understanding of policy process.
24-26 points |
–Thoughts & ideas about proposal are fairly clear overall but with more areas of “fuzzy” or “clouded” thinking needing explication for reader; visuals OK. –more revision needed to clarify, expand, &/or revise to increase reader understanding.–Hard for reader to follow flow of ideas & information.–Tone is professional in intent, though some areas may need revision to increase assertive, collaborative tone. –Generally met length requirements; could Increase or decrease text. 21-23 points |
–Several areas showing confusion, lack of clear thought, & problems with language &/or visual use.
–May be too aggressive, “preachy”, &/or punitive in tone. –Tone of writing conveys little understanding of policy process & professional, collaborative intent.
18-20 points |
–Fails to turn in Ppt.
OR –Ideas, visuals, & language consistently unclear &/or inappropriate. –May be too aggressive, “preachy”, punitive –Tone conveys no understanding of policy process & professional, collaborative intent.
0-17 points |
|||
| Total Points 300 (30 % of course total) | ||||||||