Assessing a Healthcare Program/Policy Evaluation.

 

PLEASE USE A APA TEMPLATE.
Assignment: Assessing a Healthcare Program/Policy Evaluation
Program/policy evaluation is a valuable tool that can help strengthen the quality of programs/policies and improve outcomes for the populations they serve. Program/policy evaluation answers basic questions about program/policy effectiveness. It involves collecting and analyzing information about program/policy activities, characteristics, and outcomes. This information can be used to ultimately improve program services or policy initiatives.Assessing a Healthcare Program/Policy Evaluation.

ORDER A PLAGIARISM-FREE PAPER HERE

Nurses can play a very important role assessing program/policy evaluation for the same reasons that they can be so important to program/policy design. Nurses bring expertise and patient advocacy that can add significant insight and impact. In this Assignment, you will practice applying this expertise and insight by selecting an existing healthcare program or policy evaluation and reflecting on the criteria used to measure the effectiveness of the program/policy.Assessing a Healthcare Program/Policy Evaluation.

To Prepare:

Review the Healthcare Program/Policy Evaluation Analysis Template provided in the Resources.
Select an existing community, state, or federal policy evaluation or choose one of interest to you and get approval to use it from your Instructor.
Review community, state, or federal policy evaluation and reflect on the criteria used to measure the effectiveness of the program or policy described.
The Assignment: (2–3 pages)

Based on the program or policy evaluation you selected, complete the Healthcare Program/Policy Evaluation Analysis Template. Be sure to address the following:

Describe the healthcare program or policy outcomes.
How was the success of the program or policy measured?
How many people were reached by the program or policy selected?
How much of an impact was realized with the program or policy selected?
At what point in program implementation was the program or policy evaluation conducted?
What data was used to conduct the program or policy evaluation?
What specific information on unintended consequences was identified?
What stakeholders were identified in the evaluation of the program or policy? Who would benefit most from the results and reporting of the program or policy evaluation? Be specific and provide examples.
Did the program or policy meet the original intent and objectives? Why or why not?Assessing a Healthcare Program/Policy Evaluation.
Would you recommend implementing this program or policy in your place of work? Why or why not?
Identify at least two ways that you, as a nurse advocate, could become involved in evaluating a program or policy after 1 year of implementation.

Learning Resources
Note: To access this week’s required library resources, please click on the link to the Course Readings List, found in the Course Materials section of your Syllabus.

Required Readings
Milstead, J. A., & Short, N. M. (2019). Health policy and politics: A nurse’s guide (6th ed.). Burlington, MA: Jones & Bartlett Learning.

Chapter 7, “Health Policy and Social Program Evaluation” (pp. 116–124 only)
Glasgow, R. E., Lichtenstein, E., & Marcus, A. C. (2003). Why don’t we see more translation of health promotion research to practice? Rethinking the efficacy-to-effectiveness transition. American Journal of Public Health, 93(8), 1261–1267.Assessing a Healthcare Program/Policy Evaluation.

Note: You will access this article from the Walden Library databases.

Shiramizu, B., Shambaugh, V., Petrovich, H., Seto, T. B., Ho, T., Mokuau, N., & Hedges, J. R. (2016). Leading by success: Impact of a clinical and translational research infrastructure program to address health inequities. Journal of Racial and Ethnic Health Disparities, 4(5), 983–991. doi:10.1007/s40615-016-0302-4

Williams, J. K., & Anderson, C. M. (2018). Omics research ethics considerations. Nursing Outlook, 66(4), 386–393. doi:10.1016/j.outlook.2018.05.003

Note: You will access this article from the Walden Library databases.

Document: Healthcare Program/Policy Evaluation Template (Word document)

Required Media
Laureate Education (Producer). (2018). The Importance of Program Evaluation [Video file]. Baltimore, MD: Author.
The Importance of Program Evaluation
Program Transcript
FEMALE SPEAKER: In an ideal world, we\'re thinking about evaluation from the
very beginning, when we\'re first crafting the policy, when we\'re first implementing
the program. I can\'t begin to tell you how important that evaluation is to help
people to understand what the impact either has been of a policy that was
implemented or what the impact is likely to be to help inform policymakers
thinking about whether or not they should support a bill or not, whether or not a
piece of legislation needs to be reshaped, how a bill that\'s been enacted should
be implemented. The public has a right to know, what are we getting for these
investments?
It\'s important for people in Congress and in the Executive Branch to know, what
impact is this program having? Are we achieving the goals that this policy was
designed to achieve, or are we off the mark? And if we\'re off the mark, where are
we off the mark? And what needs to change to get this program back on track, or
to have an even greater impact on the health of different patient populations? So
evaluation is critically important.
FEMALE SPEAKER: If you can\'t measure it, you won\'t know whether it was
effective or not. So there are two ways to measure it-- efficiency or effectiveness.Assessing a Healthcare Program/Policy Evaluation.
Mammograms, you were able to fund a program that provided free
mammograms for women. How many were there? Did they have 550,000?
That\'s one major indicator of efficiency, but it doesn\'t tell you anything about
whether it did any good or not. Did they detect more, or less, or the same number
of problems through the mammograms? That\'s the effective piece. So it\'s
important that you put that in at the beginning so you know how to evaluate
whether the program worked or not. Because if it worked, you want to go back
and repeat it. You want to expand it. You want to get more funding for it.
FEMALE SPEAKER: Evaluation reports are very important. It holds us
accountable. Everybody is accountable. I\'m accountable. Politicians are
accountable. These services are accountable.
FEMALE SPEAKER: The reports themselves, they go usually to the group that
has authorized your money or appropriated your money. You may have a couple
of ways to write your report-- one two legislators, one to community members
who were involved in it. So what you want to do is help them understand how this
program worked, how effective it was, how efficient it was. But especially focus
on the effectiveness.
FEMALE SPEAKER Just don\'t say, I want you to measure it. I want this fixed in
six months. I want this fixed in a year. And I want it in writing.
The Importance of Program Evaluation
© 2018 Laureate Education, Inc. 2
FEMALE SPEAKER: It\'s not self-interest or self-serving. It\'s all about service in
the public\'s interest and a very sharp, smart use of taxpayer dollars. That makes
evaluation extremely important. Historically, when I was much younger in my
career, I didn\'t have a great appreciation for evaluation. I sure have it now.Assessing a Healthcare Program/Policy Evaluation.
.
The Importance of Program Evaluation
Additional Content Attribution
Trowell‐Harris, I. (n.d.). Various Photographs [Photograph]. Used with permission
of Irene Trowell-Harris.
Wakefield, M. (n.d.). [Photograph]. Used with permission og Mary Wakefield
WAL_NURS6050_NIH-SenatorDanielInouye
Official White House Photo by Pete Souza

Accessible player
Laureate Education (Producer). (2018). Peter Beilenson: Ethics and advocacy [Video file]. Baltimore, MD: Author.

Video Transcripts. Ethics and Advocacy
Program Transcript
PETER BEILENSON, MD, MPH: I\'m sure that in the millions, several millions of
needles that we\'ve given out now, someone has probably overdosed with it. To
that end, however, we did address an overdose effort as well.
If you look at the criminal justice system, and actually I\'ve learned a lot about it as
Baltimore\'s health commissioner because so much of what we did in terms of
social determinants of health touched on the criminal justice system and, in fact,
the cabinet member that I worked most closely with during my entire tenure in the
city as health commissioner was the police commissioner. So as an arrestee at
central booking, you have more rights than someone who\'s jailed. And once
convicted, as an incarceree, you have fewer rights. So it\'s on the scale.Assessing a Healthcare Program/Policy Evaluation.
So these were just arrestees that we were dealing with at central booking. They
had simply been arrested. They had not been convicted. They actually had not
been indicted. They had simply been arrested for probable cause, or for being
seen doing something illegal. And so we had to get consent from them. In health
care, you always want to get informed consent. And so in this case we got
informed consent. In fact, I don\'t think we ever got turned down by anybody in the
thousands of people we tested, because who wants to have syphilis unkownst to
them.
The ethical issues, and you\'ve got to always look at them, and you have to think
carefully about them. So, for example, immunizations. There is a religious
exemption potentially. I can tell you that in 15 years, I think we got 20. That\'s not
the reason kids were not getting immunized. And most of the time, these sort of
issues, or red herrings, it actually makes it worth looking at the ethics of things,
because it usually will not defeat the purposes of what you\'re doing, if you\'re
looking at it from a purely practical point of view. If you think, if I ask this
question, then we\'re going to destroy our initiative. But in reality, that doesn\'t
happen. Very, very few people opt out of things. Immunization is one one.
One interesting ethical quandary we had with needle exchange was, and actually
it was an ethical legal one, that the mayor\'s counsel actually recommended
initially against doing needle exchange because we\'re giving syringes, right, in
needle exchange. Clean syringes, which we know are going to be used for
injecting drugs. What if someone shoots up and overdoses using one of our
needles? Aren\'t we going to be liable, even though there\'s tort claims protection
as a jurisdiction? But what about ethically? And we came down on the side of,
well, you look at the cost benefit, and clearly, many, many, many more people
are going to not get HIV/AIDS, and we\'re also tying it to drug treatment. So we
were trying to get people into drug treatment through our needle exchange
program. So that was harm reduction as well. Although we did have to live with
Ethics and Advocacy
© 2018 Laureate Education, Inc. 2
the fact that, I\'m sure that in the several millions of needles that we\'ve given out
now, someone has probably overdosed with it.Assessing a Healthcare Program/Policy Evaluation.
To that end, however, we did address an overdose effort as well. If you identify
ethical conundrums or gaps, you can try and address each of them. And so we
did with needle exchange. We got drug treatment available, basically on-demand
for people who needed it, to try to them off drugs. Secondly, we did the needle
exchange itself, which would decrease the risk dramatically of getting HIV. And
third, we launched a project, which got a lot of attention, to avoid drug overdoses
by training addicts how to give Narcan, which reverses opiates or heroin
overdose quickly.
Because what was happening with overdoses-- and, by the way, there were
more overdoses than homicides in Baltimore, which is saying a lot, actually, in
the late \'90s and early 2000s-- we trained several hundred addicts in CPR,
rescue breathing, and how to give Narcan and recognize a overdose. And we
had hundreds of documented saves. The reason for that is that most addicted
folks will have a shooting partner. And so they\'ll be shooting in house and one of
them overdoses, and what happened oftentimes is the partner who was not
overdosed would pull the person out to the porch and maybe call 911 and then
take off, because they were afraid of being arrested, and by the time the EMTs
got there, they\'d be dead from lack of breathing. So by training them to do
Narcan, it can immediately reverse, or almost immediately reverse the effects.
And we had hundreds of saves. So the point being that if you identify ethical
quandaries, you can try to address them with potentially another program.
Ethics and Advocacy
Additional Content Attribution
Trowell‐Harris, I. (n.d.). Various Photographs [Photograph]. Used with permission
of Irene Trowell-Harris.
Wakefield, M. (n.d.). [Photograph]. Used with permission og Mary Wakefield
WAL_NURS6050_NIH-SenatorDanielInouye
Official White House Photo by Pete Souza
GettyLicense_183020139
YinYang / E+ / Getty Images
Ethics and
Ethics and Advocacy
Program Transcript
PETER BEILENSON, MD, MPH: I\'m sure that in the millions, several millions of
needles that we\'ve given out now, someone has probably overdosed with it. To
that end, however, we did address an overdose effort as well.
If you look at the criminal justice system, and actually I\'ve learned a lot about it as
Baltimore\'s health commissioner because so much of what we did in terms of
social determinants of health touched on the criminal justice system and, in fact,
the cabinet member that I worked most closely with during my entire tenure in the
city as health commissioner was the police commissioner. So as an arrestee at
central booking, you have more rights than someone who\'s jailed. And once
convicted, as an incarceree, you have fewer rights. So it\'s on the scale.
So these were just arrestees that we were dealing with at central booking. They
had simply been arrested. They had not been convicted. They actually had not
been indicted. They had simply been arrested for probable cause, or for being
seen doing something illegal. And so we had to get consent from them. In health
care, you always want to get informed consent. And so in this case we got
informed consent. In fact, I don\'t think we ever got turned down by anybody in the
thousands of people we tested, because who wants to have syphilis unkownst to
them.
The ethical issues, and you\'ve got to always look at them, and you have to think
carefully about them. So, for example, immunizations. There is a religious
exemption potentially. I can tell you that in 15 years, I think we got 20. That\'s not
the reason kids were not getting immunized. And most of the time, these sort of
issues, or red herrings, it actually makes it worth looking at the ethics of things,Assessing a Healthcare Program/Policy Evaluation.
because it usually will not defeat the purposes of what you\'re doing, if you\'re
looking at it from a purely practical point of view. If you think, if I ask this
question, then we\'re going to destroy our initiative. But in reality, that doesn\'t
happen. Very, very few people opt out of things. Immunization is one one.
One interesting ethical quandary we had with needle exchange was, and actually
it was an ethical legal one, that the mayor\'s counsel actually recommended
initially against doing needle exchange because we\'re giving syringes, right, in
needle exchange. Clean syringes, which we know are going to be used for
injecting drugs. What if someone shoots up and overdoses using one of our
needles? Aren\'t we going to be liable, even though there\'s tort claims protection
as a jurisdiction? But what about ethically? And we came down on the side of,
well, you look at the cost benefit, and clearly, many, many, many more people
are going to not get HIV/AIDS, and we\'re also tying it to drug treatment. So we
were trying to get people into drug treatment through our needle exchange
program. So that was harm reduction as well. Although we did have to live with
Ethics and Advocacy
© 2018 Laureate Education, Inc. 2
the fact that, I\'m sure that in the several millions of needles that we\'ve given out
now, someone has probably overdosed with it.
To that end, however, we did address an overdose effort as well. If you identify
ethical conundrums or gaps, you can try and address each of them. And so we
did with needle exchange. We got drug treatment available, basically on-demand
for people who needed it, to try to them off drugs. Secondly, we did the needle
exchange itself, which would decrease the risk dramatically of getting HIV. And
third, we launched a project, which got a lot of attention, to avoid drug overdoses
by training addicts how to give Narcan, which reverses opiates or heroin
overdose quickly.Assessing a Healthcare Program/Policy Evaluation.
Because what was happening with overdoses-- and, by the way, there were
more overdoses than homicides in Baltimore, which is saying a lot, actually, in
the late \'90s and early 2000s-- we trained several hundred addicts in CPR,
rescue breathing, and how to give Narcan and recognize a overdose. And we
had hundreds of documented saves. The reason for that is that most addicted
folks will have a shooting partner. And so they\'ll be shooting in house and one of
them overdoses, and what happened oftentimes is the partner who was not
overdosed would pull the person out to the porch and maybe call 911 and then
take off, because they were afraid of being arrested, and by the time the EMTs
got there, they\'d be dead from lack of breathing. So by training them to do
Narcan, it can immediately reverse, or almost immediately reverse the effects.
And we had hundreds of saves. So the point being that if you identify ethical
quandaries, you can try to address them with potentially another program.
Ethics and Advocacy
Additional Content Attribution
Trowell‐Harris, I. (n.d.). Various Photographs [Photograph]. Used with permission
of Irene Trowell-Harris.
Wakefield, M. (n.d.). [Photograph]. Used with permission og Mary Wakefield
WAL_NURS6050_NIH-SenatorDanielInouye
Official White House Photo by Pete Souza
GettyLicense_183020139
YinYang / E+ / Getty Images
Ethics and
GettyLicense_118657765
[Dan Bannister]/[iStock / Getty Images Plus]/Getty Images
GettyLicense_159627464
Image Source / Image Source / Getty Images

Excellent Good Fair Poor
Program/Policy Evaluation

Based on the program or policy evaluation you seelcted, complete the Healthcare Program/Policy Evaluation Analysis Template. Be sure to address the following:

· Describe the healthcare program or policy outcomes.
· How was the success of the program or policy measured?
· How many people were reached by the program or policy selected? How much of an impact was realized with the program or policy selected?
· At what point in time in program implementation was the program or policy evaluation conducted?
32 (32%) - 35 (35%)
Response clearly and accurately describes in detail the healthcare program or policy outcomes.

Response accurately and thoroughly explains in detail how the success of the program or policy was measured.

Response clearly and accurately describes in detail how many people were reached by the program or policy and fully describes the impact of the program or policy.

Response clearly and accurately indicates the point at which time the program or policy evaluation was conducted.
28 (28%) - 31 (31%)
Response accurately describes the healthcare program or policy outcomes.

Response accurately explains how the success of the program or policy was measured.

Response accurately describes how many people were reached by the program or policy and accurately describes the impact of the program or policy.

Response accurately indicates the point at which time the program or policy evaluation was conducted.
25 (25%) - 27 (27%)
Description of the healthcare program or policy outcomes is inaccurate or incomplete.Assessing a Healthcare Program/Policy Evaluation.

Explanation of how the success of the program or policy was measured is inaccurate or incomplete.

Description of how many people were reached by the program or policy and the impact is vague or inaccurate.

Response vaguely describes the point at which the program or policy evaluation was conducted.
0 (0%) - 24 (24%)
Description of the healthcare program or policy outcomes is inaccurate and incomplete, or is missing.Assessing a Healthcare Program/Policy Evaluation.

Explanation of how the success of the program or policy was measured is inaccurate and incomplete, or is missing.

Description of how many people were reached by the program or policy and the associated impacts is vague and inaccurate, or is missing.

Response of the point at which time the program or policy was conducted is missing.
Reporting of Program/Policy Evaluations

· What data was used to conduct the program or policy evaluation?
· What specific information on unintended consequences was identified?
· What stakeholders were identified in the evaluation of the program or policy? Who would benefit the most from the results and reporting of the program or policy evaluation? Be specific and provide examples.Assessing a Healthcare Program/Policy Evaluation.
· Did the program or policy meet the original intent and objectives? Why or why not?
· Would you recommend implementing this program or policy in your place of work? Why or why not?
· Identify at least two ways that you, as a nurse advocate, could become involved in evaluating a program or policy after 1 year of implementation.
45 (45%) - 50 (50%)
Response clearly and accurately identifies the data used to conduct the program or policy evaluation.

Response clearly and thoroughly explains in detail specific information on outcomes and unintended consequences identified through the program or policy evaluation.

Response clearly and accurately explains in detail the stakeholders involved in the program or policy evaluation.

Response clearly and accurately explains in detail who would benefit most from the results and reporting of the program or policy evaluation.

Response includes a thorough and accurate explanation of whether the program met the original intent and outcomes, including an accurate and detailed explanation of the reasons supporting why or why not.

Response includes a thorough and accurate explanation of whether the program should be implemented, including an accurate and detailed explanation of the reasons supporting why or why not.
40 (40%) - 44 (44%)
Response accurately identifies the data used to conduct the program or policy evaluation.

Response explains in detail specific information on outcomes and unintended consequences identified through the program or policy evaluation.

Response explains in detail the stakeholders involved in the program or policy evaluation.

Response explains who would benefit most from the results and reporting of the program or policy evaluation.

Response includes an accurate explanation of whether the program met the original intent and outcomes, including an accurate explanation of the reasons supporting why or why not.

Response includes an accurate explanation of whether the program should be implemented, including an accurate explanation of the reasons supporting why or why not.
35 (35%) - 39 (39%)
Response vaguely or inaccurately identifies the data used to conduct the program or policy evaluation.

Explanation of specific information on outcomes and unintended consequences identified through the program or policy evaluation is vague or incomplete.

Explanation of the stakeholders involved in the program or policy evaluation is vague or inaccurate.

Explanation of who would benefit most from the results and reporting of the program or policy evaluation is vague or inaccurate.

Explanation of whether the program/policy met the original intent and outcomes and the reasons why or why not is incomplete or inaccurate.Assessing a Healthcare Program/Policy Evaluation.

Explanation of whether the program or policy should be implemented, and the reasons why or why not, is incomplete or inaccurate.
0 (0%) - 34 (34%)
Identification of the data used to conduct the program or policy evaluation is vague and inaccurate, or is missing.

Explanation of specific information on outcomes and unitended consequences identified through the program or policy evaluation is vague and incomplete, or is missing.

Explanation of the stakeholders involved in the program or policy evaluation is vague and inaccurate, or is missing.

Explanation of who would benefit most from the results and reporting of the program or policy evaluation is vague and inaccurate, or is missing.

Explanation of whether the program or policy met the original intent and outcomes and the reasons why or why not is incomplete and inaccurate, or is missing.

Explanation of whether the program or policy should be implemented, and the reasons why or why not, is incomplete and inaccurate, or is missing.
Written Expression and Formatting - Paragraph Development and Organization:

Paragraphs make clear points that support well developed ideas, flow logically, and demonstrate continuity of ideas. Sentences are carefully focused--neither long and rambling nor short and lacking substance. A clear and comprehensive purpose statement and introduction is provided which delineates all required criteria.
5 (5%) - 5 (5%)
Paragraphs and sentences follow writing standards for flow, continuity, and clarity.

A clear and comprehensive purpose statement, introduction, and conclusion is provided which delineates all required criteria.
4 (4%) - 4 (4%)
Paragraphs and sentences follow writing standards for flow, continuity, and clarity 80% of the time.

Purpose, introduction, and conclusion of the assignment is stated, yet is brief and not descriptive.
3.5 (3.5%) - 3.5 (3.5%)
Paragraphs and sentences follow writing standards for flow, continuity, and clarity 60%- 79% of the time.

Purpose, introduction, and conclusion of the assignment is vague or off topic.
0 (0%) - 3 (3%)
Paragraphs and sentences follow writing standards for flow, continuity, and clarity < 60% of the time.

No purpose statement, introduction, or conclusion was provided.
Written Expression and Formatting - English writing standards:Assessing a Healthcare Program/Policy Evaluation.

Correct grammar, mechanics, and proper punctuation
5 (5%) - 5 (5%)
Uses correct grammar, spelling, and punctuation with no errors.
4 (4%) - 4 (4%)
Contains a few (1-2) grammar, spelling, and punctuation errors.
3.5 (3.5%) - 3.5 (3.5%)
Contains several (3-4) grammar, spelling, and punctuation errors.
0 (0%) - 3 (3%)
Contains many (≥ 5) grammar, spelling, and punctuation errors that interfere with the reader’s understanding.
Written Expression and Formatting - The paper follows correct APA format for title page, headings, font, spacing, margins, indentations, page numbers, parenthetical/in-text citations, and reference list.
5 (5%) - 5 (5%)
Uses correct APA format with no errors.
4 (4%) - 4 (4%)
Contains a few (1-2) APA format errors.
3.5 (3.5%) - 3.5 (3.5%)
Contains several (3-4) APA format errors.
0 (0%) - 3 (3%)
Contains many (≥ 5) APA format errors.
Total Points: 100
Name: NURS_6050_Module05_Week10_Assignment_Rubric

 

Healthcare Program/Policy Evaluation Analysis Template

Use this document to complete the Module 6 Assessment Global Healthcare Comparison Matrix and Narrative Statement

 

Healthcare Program/Policy Evaluation State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP)
Description SCHIP is a federal and state structured program that addresses the health care needs of children in the USA. It is designed to offer health insurance coverage to children whose families whose earnings are higher than what can be covered by Medicaid and yet these earnings are not enough to cover private coverage. Through the program, the federal government ensures that these children enjoy insurance coverage and have access to health care.Assessing a Healthcare Program/Policy Evaluation. Children’s eligibility for the program across the different states, with the most common eligibility requirements being that recipients should be children less than 19 years of age and who are uninsured, and whose families earn less than $36,201 every year in a family of four members. Health care services covered by the program include emergency room visits, hospitalizations, immunizations and doctor visits (American Speech-Language-Hearing Association, 2019).
How was the success of the program or policy measured?
The success of SCHIP is evaluated using four performance measures. Firstly, the process measure evaluates the program activities and steps and outputs generates, such as the average amount of financial help offered to each child and family who benefit from the program. This measure looks at the implementation and approach. Secondly, the outcome measure reviews the long-, intermediate and short-term events offered as realistic and measurable outcomes. The long-term events include improved health care access among the population of interest. The intermediate and short-term events include individual child increased access to health care seen in terms of the number of hospital visits and mortality rates. Thirdly, the baseline measure determines the program’s position in relation to the problem of children’s health such as the percentage of children who have access to health care or who are aware of the SCHIP as a direct benefit of the program. The specific outcomes of interest in the program are health outcomes and organizational change that creates a culture of health (Huff, Kline & Peterson, 2015; Stanhope & Lancaster, 2014).
How many people were reached by the program or policy selected? How much of an impact was realized with the program or policy selected?
Since it was implemented as part of the Balanced Budget Act of 1997, SCHIP has had a profound effect on children’s health by increasing the number of those who are insured. The program offers funding to state governments to reduce the number of uninsured children, particularly children from low-income families who cannot pay for private coverage and are not eligible for Medicaid. Since it was enacted, the insurance coverage among children has increased from 85.1% to 95.2%, a 67.9% increase. The number of uninsured children decreased from 10.7 million reported in 1997 when the program was first implemented to 4.4 million reported in 2014. These figures are accompanied by a 91% participation rate for SCHIP eligible children. Overall, SCHIP has been effective in providing cost-effective and high-quality health insurance coverage for children from low-income families (Shapiro, 2017).Assessing a Healthcare Program/Policy Evaluation.
What data was used to conduct the program or policy evaluation?
SCHIP program evaluation is based on the uninsured rate among children less than 19 years of age and who are eligible for the program. The data analysis reported that the uninsured rate has been progressively reducing because of SCHIP program intervention. The rate reduced from 14% in 1997, to 10% in 2003, 8% in 2010, 6% in 2014, and 5% in 2016. The progressive reduction in the insured rate among children is an attestation to the program achieving its primary objective (Artiga & Urbi, 2017).
What specific information on unintended consequences were identified?
The program does not identify unintended consequences. It focuses on ensuring that the financial investment from the government can be translated into higher insurance figures among the targeted population.
What stakeholders were identified in the evaluation of the program or policy? Who would benefit most from the results and reporting of the program or policy evaluation? Be specific and provide examples.
Four groups were identified in the evaluation. The first group is children and their families who directly benefit from the program through increased insurance coverage that allows the previously uninsured children to have access to healthcare.Assessing a Healthcare Program/Policy Evaluation. The evaluation results benefit them by helping them to meet their ethical responsibility towards their own health even as they control costs. Besides that, it helps them in lowering healthcare costs. The second group is the insurance industry that is affected through a reduction in the market size so that they are forced to reduce premiums and place less strict coverage requirements to gain a larger market share. The evaluation results benefit them by identifying the market share available to them. The third group is medical personnel who have a responsibility in providing adequate healthcare while controlling costs. The evaluation results help them in readjusting their roles to target the remaining insured children even as they influence policy development to address the existing insurance gaps. The fourth group is the government that determines healthcare policy. The report is useful in justifying budget allocations and continued support for the program (Milstead & Short, 2019).
Did the program or policy meet the original intent and objectives? Why or why not?
SCHIP is meeting its original intent to increase the insurance rate among children who are not eligible for Medicaid and whose families cannot pay for private insurance. Since it was first implemented in 1997, the program has been progressively increasing the insurance rate among children. The insurance rate has increased from 86% in 1997, to 90% in 2003, 92% in 2010, 94% in 2014, and 95% in 2016. The implication is that more children have access to healthcare (Artiga & Urbi, 2017).Assessing a Healthcare Program/Policy Evaluation.
Would you recommend implementing this program or policy in your place of work? Why or why not?
Other governments should implement the program. Uninsured children who do not have access to private insurance will be without health care unless such a program is implemented that allocates public funds towards addressing their needs. To be more precise, the program increases children’s health insurance coverage, thereby effectively increasing their access to care, improving their health status, and reducing the financial pressure on parents, providers, and governments from ill-health among children. As a result, other governments with substantial numbers of uninsured children should implement the program (Artiga & Urbi, 2017).
Identify at least two ways that you, as a nurse advocate, could become involved in evaluating a program or policy after one year of implementation.
A nurse advocate can be involved in evaluating a program or policy in two ways. Firstly, the nurse advocate can be involved through engaging other interested parties in a conversation to collect their qualitative opinions on the program performance. This can help in identifying the needs that were overlooked when the program was first implemented. Secondly, the nurse advocate can be involved through informatics, whereby the nurse would collect performance information in terms of changing rates to determine whether the program is affecting the primary population as desired (Black, 2016).
General Notes/Comments There is a need to increase SCHIP funding. The program is shown as effective in increasing insurance coverage among the population of interest. However, approximately 5% of the population of interest does not have insurance coverage. Increasing funding would ensure that more persons are insured so that the program objective is achieved.Assessing a Healthcare Program/Policy Evaluation.

Healthcare Program/Policy Evaluation Analysis Template

Use this document to complete the Module 6 Assessment Global Healthcare Comparison Matrix and Narrative Statement

 

Healthcare Program/Policy Evaluation State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP)
Description SCHIP is a federal and state structured program that address the health care needs of children in the USA. It is designed to offer health insurance coverage to children whose families whose earnings are higher than what can be covered by Medicaid and yet these earnings are not enough to cover private coverage. Through the program, the federal government ensures that these children enjoy insurance coverage and have access to health care. Children’s eligibility for the program across the different states, with the most common eligibility requirements being that recipients should be children less than 19 years of age and who are uninsured, and whose families earn less than $36,201 every year in a family of four members.Assessing a Healthcare Program/Policy Evaluation. Health care services covered by the program include emergency room visits, hospitalizations, immunizations and doctor visits (American Speech-Language-Hearing Association, 2019).
How was the success of the program or policy measured?
The success of SCHIP is evaluated using four performance measures. Firstly, the process measure evaluates the program activities and steps and outputs generates, such as the average amount of financial help offered to each child and family who benefit from the program. This measure looks at the implementation and approach. Secondly, the outcome measure reviews the long-, intermediate and short-term events offered as realistic and measurable outcomes. The long-term events include improved health care access among the population of interest. Assessing a Healthcare Program/Policy Evaluation.The intermediate and short-term events include individual child increased access to health care seen in terms of the number of hospital visits and mortality rates. Thirdly, the baseline measure determines the program’s position in relation to the problem of children’s health such as the percentage of children who have access to health care or who are aware of the SCHIP as a direct benefit of the program. The specific outcomes of interest to the program are health outcomes and organizational change that creates a culture of health (Huff, Kline & Peterson, 2015; Stanhope & Lancaster, 2014).
How many people were reached by the program or policy selected? How much of an impact was realized with the program or policy selected?
Since it was implemented as part of Balanced Budget Act of 1997, SCHIP has had a profound effect on children’s health through increasing the number of those who are insured. The program offers funding to state governments to reduce the number of uninsured children, particularly children from low income families who cannot pay for private coverage and are not eligible for Medicaid. Since it was enacted, the insurance coverage among children has increased from 85.1% to 95.2%, a 67.9% increase.Assessing a Healthcare Program/Policy Evaluation. The number of uninsured children decreased from 10.7 million reported in 1997 when the program was first implemented to 4.4 million reported in 2014. These figures are accompanied by a 91% participation rate for SCHIP eligible children. Overall, SCHIP has been effective in providing cost-effective and high-quality health insurance coverage for children from low income families (Shapiro, 2017).
What data was used to conduct the program or policy evaluation?
SCHIP program evaluation is based on uninsured rate among children less than 19 years of age and who are eligible for the program. The data analysis reported that uninsured rate has been progressively reducing as a result of SCHIP program intervention. The rate reduced from 14% in 1997, to 10% in 2003, 8% in 2010, 6% in 2014 and 5% in 2016. The progressive reduction in insured rate among children is an attestation to the program achieving its primary objective (Artiga & Urbi, 2017).
What specific information on unintended consequences were identified?
The program does not identify the unintended consequences. It focuses on ensuring that the financial investment from the government can be translated into higher insurance figures among the targeted population.
What stakeholders were identified in the evaluation of the program or policy? Who would benefit most from the results and reporting of the program or policy evaluation? Be specific and provide examples.
There are four stakeholders identified in the evaluation. The first group are children and their families who directly benefit from the program through increased insurance coverage that allows the previously uninsured children to have access to healthcare. The evaluation results benefit them by helping them to meet their ethical responsibility towards their own health even as they control costs. Besides that, it helps them in lowering healthcare costs. The second stakeholder is the insurance industry that is affected through a reduction in the market size so that they are forced to reduce premiums and place less strict coverage requirements to gain a larger market share. The evaluation results benefit them by identifying the market share available to them. The third stakeholder are medical personnel who have a responsibility in providing adequate healthcare while controlling costs. The evaluation results help them in readjusting their roles to target the remaining insured children even as they influence policy development to address the existing insurance gaps. The fourth stakeholder is the government that determines healthcare policy. The report is useful in justifying budget allocations and continued support for the program (Milstead & Short, 2019).Assessing a Healthcare Program/Policy Evaluation.
Did the program or policy meet the original intent and objectives? Why or why not?
SCHIP is meeting its original intent to increase the insurance rate among children who are not eligible for Medicaid and whose families cannot pay for private insurance. Since it was first implemented in 1997, the program has been progressively increasing the insurance rate among children. The insurance rate has increased from 86% in 1997, to 90% in 2003, 92% in 2010, 94% in 2014 and 95% in 2016. The implication is that more children have access to healthcare (Artiga & Urbi, 2017).Assessing a Healthcare Program/Policy Evaluation.
Would you recommend implementing this program or policy in your place of work? Why or why not?
The program should be implemented by other governments. Uninsured children who do not have access to private insurance will be without health care unless such a program is implemented that allocates public funds towards addressing their needs. To be more precise, the program increases children’s health insurance coverage, thereby effectively increasing their access to care, improving their health status, and reducing the financial pressure on parents, providers and governments from ill health among children. As a result, the program should be implemented by other governments with substantial numbers of uninsured children (Artiga & Urbi, 2017).
Identify at least two ways that you, as a nurse advocate, could become involved in evaluating a program or policy after one year of implementation.Assessing a Healthcare Program/Policy Evaluation.
There are two ways in which a nurse advocate can be involved in evaluating a program or policy. Firstly, the nurse advocate can be involved through engaging other stakeholders in conversation so as to collect their qualitative opinions on the program performance. This can help in identifying stakeholder needs that were overlooked when the program was first implemented. Secondly, the nurse advocate can be involved through informatics, whereby the nurse would collect performance information in terms of changing rates to determine whether the program is affecting the primary population as desired (Black, 2016).Assessing a Healthcare Program/Policy Evaluation.
General Notes/Comments There is a need to increase SCHIP funding. The program has been shown to be effective in increasing insurance coverage among the population of interest. However, approximately 5% of the population of interest does not have insurance coverage. Increasing funding would ensure that more persons are insured so that the program objective is achieved.Assessing a Healthcare Program/Policy Evaluation.