Choose one of the following questions to answer as an initial post. Then respond to one peer. Refer to the syllabus for due dates of initial post and peer response.

Medicaid And State Children Health Insurance Program Discussion
April 3, 2021
Professional Identity And Stewardship – Part I: Peer Interview
April 3, 2021

Reflection

Choose one of the following questions to answer as an initial post. Then respond to one peer. Refer to the syllabus for due dates of initial post and peer response.

Week 6: Chapters 11 and 12

  1. Some people view increases in health care spending as a response to consumer demand, while others see these increases as potentially wasteful spending. When other industry sectors assume a rising share of gross domestic product (GDP), it is viewed as a positive development. Should we be concerned about the rising costs of health care and its share of GDP? What types of health care spending might be classified as valuable? Wasteful?
  2. Is it ethical to limit access to care for patients covered by poorly paying insurers? As a hospital administrator, how would you approach a situation in which you needed to limit losses created by treating patients with no insurance or poorly paying insurance who arrive in your emergency room? Since health care tends to be local, as a policy maker, what would you do to encourage the larger community—retailers, restaurants, employers, schools, religious institutions, payers, and pro­viders—to improve the health of the community? For these initiatives, should the government play a role or should they be sponsored by other entities?

Y520 Reflections

Reflections posts are due in the Discussion Tab Thursday night and replies due Sunday night of same week. Initial answers to the discussion should be at least 300 words. Responses to one peer are required for full credit for any week. Resources/References per APA style must be added in your graded response, and are not included the word count.The Reflection is based on the assigned readings for the class.

  • Post your entry to the appropriate discussion. You will have 2 questions each week from which to choose. Review the initial post due date on the course schedule.
  • Read the responses posted from your classmates. Choose ONE student answer that you would like to “weigh-in” on. It may be that you agree with their responses/answer OR if may be that you see the situation very differently based on experience.
    • Then respond to that person’s posting—but remember! “I agree” or “good post” (or some variation of this) is not a sufficient response! When answering questions OR in your responses to your colleagues, use YOUR OWN professional experiences and opinions. It makes it a rich way to share and learn about each other. Review the due date for the peer response post on the course schedule.

Grading of Online Discussions
Each module is worth 10 points each. Grading is based on pertinent thought and content given to answering questions for each module and your responses to your classmates’ postings. Correct spelling and grammar is expected. Assignments should be submitted on time and to the appropriate Discussion.

Grading Criteria

Performance/Points

Criteria

Satisfactory: Full Points (10)

  • Your answer to this week’s discussion is thought provoking and thorough while providing the forum with additional discussion from your peers, and elicits critical thinking.
  • The initial answer is posted by the due date.
  • The student responds to a peer by the due date of the discussion. Peer response is thought-provoking and provides support and/or another viewpoint to their questions or answers.
  • Posts have correct spelling and grammar and meets word minimum.

Marginal: 5-9 points

  • Your answer adds to the discussion, but could be developed more.
  • The student responds to one of their peers by the due date. Peer response adds to the discussion, but could be developed more.
  • It has incorrect spelling and/or grammar or does not meet word minimum.

Unsatisfactory: 0-4 points

  • The question is answered briefly with little effort of discussion provoking your peers to respond. Very little critical thinking or effort utilized to answer the questions, no contribution to further discussion.
  • There is no response to a peer.

TEXTBOOK(S):

Kovner, A.R., Knickman, J. R., Weisfeld, V. D. (2015). Jonas and Kovner’s

Healthcare delivery in the United States. (11th ed.). New York, NY: Springer

Publishing Company. ISBN#: 9780826125279.

 
Do you need a similar assignment done for you from scratch? We have qualified writers to help you. We assure you an A+ quality paper that is free from plagiarism. Order now for an Amazing Discount!
Use Discount Code "Newclient" for a 15% Discount!

NB: We do not resell papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.

Open chat
Need Help?
Need Help? You can contact our live agent via WhatsApp +1(209)962-2652
Feel free to seek clarification on prices, discount, or any other inquiry.