Discussion: Politics and the  Patient Protection

Discussion: Politics and the  Patient Protection

Discussion Post.. 350 words.. APA format..3 reference that are scholar writers. I Due by 12/10/ by 7pm

Disussion: Politics and the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act

Regardless of political affiliation, individuals often grow concerned when considering perceived competing interests of government and their impact on topics of interest to them. The realm of healthcare is no different. Some people feel that local, state, and federal policies and legislation can be either helped or hindered by interests other than the benefit to society.

Consider for example that the number one job of a legislator is to be reelected. Cost can be measured in votes as well as dollars. Thus, it is important to consider the legislator’s perspective on either promoting or not promoting a certain initiative in the political landscape.

To Prepare:

· Review the Resources and reflect on efforts to repeal/replace the Affordable Care Act (ACA).

· Consider who benefits the most when policy is developed and in the context of policy implementation.

By Day 3 of Week 3
Post an explanation for how you think the cost-benefit analysis in the statement from page 27 of Feldstein (2006) affected efforts to repeal/replace the ACA. Then, explain how analyses such as the one portrayed by the Feldstein statement may affect decisions by legislative leaders in recommending or positioning national policies (e.g., Congress’ decisions impacting Medicare or Medicaid).

Politics and the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act

Citizens of the United States were presented with a new healthcare reform act known as the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act in 2010. The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act also known as Obamacare was intended to develop healthcare and health insurance businesses in America. The main aim of Obamacare is to increase new benefits for healthcare, more patient rights, more patient protection, and making healthcare more affordable and accessible to the citizens in the United States. Attempts to repeal and replace Obamacare has been a subject matter constitutionally contested and have the subtle meaning of egotism by politicians to capitalize on voter support.  From a cost-benefit approach, for a system to be cost-effective, the benefits must be higher in comparison to the amount acquired during the enactment of the program (Milstead & Short, 2019). When the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act was developed, it made access to healthcare available to most of the American citizens, and thus, repealing and replacing the act will make political lawmakers lose voter support.

Despite reported accomplishments by the Affordable Care Act, there is still political deliberation to repeal and replace. Many political leaders are concerned that if the Act is repealed many Americans will lose coverage by insurance companies (Taylor, et al., 2017). Consequently, many low-income or middle-class families insured under the Act by the Medicaid program will lose their coverage. A study by DaVanzo (2016), projected that if the Affordable Care Act is repealed, by 2026 the number of uninsured persons would have increased by 22 million persons which can lead to an unparalleled heath crisis as persons would no longer be covered and able to receive the care they need.

Since the Act has been enacted, it has encountered many disputes amongst politicians. Since in office, the Trump administration has attempted to repeal and replace Obamacare but has since not succeeded. During his elections, many legislators supported this idea but at present time, considers this decision a liability as they are up for re-elections (Hawryluk, 2020). Legislators are more likely to support agendas that are favorable to them based on a cost-benefit analysis. As such, repealing The Affordable Care Act will not be of benefit to them and the American people. Therefore, they are unlikely to reverse the act.

The Affordable Care Act allows for many Americans to have access to services in healthcare and repealing the Act will only make legislators lose the voter support they want. Most political decisions and policies are driven by and appeal to the expectations of their voters.

References

DaVanzo, D. (2016, December 6). Estimating the Impact of Repealing the Affordable Care Act on Hospitals. Retrieved from AHA.org: https://www.aha.org/system/files/2018-02/impact-repeal-aca-report_0.pdf

Hawryluk, M. (2020, August 28). Opposition to Obamacare Becomes Political Liability for GOP Incumbents. Retrieved from KHN: https://khn.org/news/opposition-to-obamacare-becomes-political-liability-for-gop-incumbents/

Milstead, J. A., & Short, N. M. (2019). Health Policy and Politics: A Nurse’s Guide (6 ed.). Burlington, MA: Jones & Bartlett Learning.

Taylor, D., Olshansky, E. F., Fugate-Woods, N., Johnson-Mallard, V., Safriet, B. J., & Hagan, T. (2017, May 1). Corrigendum to position statement: Political interference in sexual and reproductive health research and health. Nursing Outlook, 65(3), 346-350. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.outlook.2017.05.003

Resources

Please Ask a Librarian if you have any questions about the links.

Bosse, J., Simmonds, K., Hanson, C., Pulcini, J., Dunphy, L., Vanhook, P., & Poghosyan, L. (2017). Position statement: Full practice authority for advanced practice registered nurses is necessary to transform primary care. Nursing Outlook, 65(6), 761–765. doi:10.1016/j.outlook.2017.10.002.

Corless, I. B., Nardi, D., Milstead, J. A., Larson, E., Nokes, K. M., Orsega, S., Kurth, A. E., … Woith, W. (2018). Expanding nursing’s role in responding to global pandemics. Nursing Outlook, 66(4), 412–415. doi:10.1016/j.outlook.2018.06.003.

DeMarco, R., & Tufts, K. A. (2014). The mechanics of writing a policy brief. Nursing Outlook, 62(3), 219–224. doi:10.1016/j.outlook.2014.04.002

Donkin, A., Goldblatt, P., Allen, J., Nathanson, V., & Marmot, M. (2017). Global action on the social determinants of health. BMJ Global Health, 3(1). doi:10.1136/bmjgh-2017-000603.

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.

Institute of Medicine (US) Committee on Enhancing Environmental Health Content in Nursing Practice, Pope, A. M., Snyder, M. A., & Mood, L. H. (Eds.). (n.d.). Nursing health, & environment: Strengthening the relationship to improve the public’s health.

Kingdon, J.W. (2001). A model of agenda-setting with applications. Law Review M.S.U.-D.C.L., 2(331)

Klein, K. J., & Sorra, J. S. (1996). The challenge of innovation implementation. Academy of Management Review, 21(4), 1055–1080. doi:10.5465/AMR.1996.9704071863

Neff, D. F., Yoon, S. H., Steiner, R. L., Bumbach, M. D., Everhart, D., & Harman J. S. (2018). The impact of nurse practitioner regulations on population access to care. Nursing Outlook, 66(4), 379–385. doi:10.1016/j.outlook.2018.03.001

O’Rourke, N. C., Crawford, S. L., Morris, N. S., & Pulcini, J. (2017). Political efficacy and participation of nurse practitioners. Policy, Politics, and Nursing Practice, 18(3), 135–148. doi:10.1177/1527154417728514

Peterson, C., Adams, S. A., & DeMuro, P. R. (2015). mHealth: Don’t forget all the stakeholders in the business case. Medicine 2.0, 4(2), e4. doi:10.2196/med20.4349.

Sacristán, J., & Dilla, T. D. (2015). No big data without small data: Learning health care systems begin and end with the individual patient. Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice, 21(6), 1014–1017. doi:10.1111/jep.12350

Sandoval-Almazana, R., & Gil-Garcia, J. R. (2011). Are government internet portals evolving towards more interaction, participation, and collaboration? Revisiting the rhetoric of e-government among municipalities. Government Information Quarterly, 29(Suppl. 1), S72–S81. doi:10.1016/j.giq.2011.09.004

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

Taylor, D., Olshansky, E., Fugate-Woods, N., Johnson-Mallard, V., Safriet, B. J., & Hagan, T. (2017). Corrigendum to position statement: Political interference in sexual and reproductive health research and health professional education. Nursing Outlook, 65(2), 346–350. doi:10.1016/j.outlook.2017.05.003.

Tummers, L., & Bekkers, V. (2014). Policy implementation, street level bureaucracy, and the importance of discretion. Public Management Review, 16(4), 527–547. doi:10.1080/14719037.2013.841978

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

You must proofread your paper. But do not strictly rely on your computer’s spell-checker and grammar-checker; failure to do so indicates a lack of effort on your part and you can expect your grade to suffer accordingly. Papers with numerous misspelled words and grammatical mistakes will be penalized. Read over your paper – in silence and then aloud – before handing it in and make corrections as necessary. Often it is advantageous to have a friend proofread your paper for obvious errors. Handwritten corrections are preferable to uncorrected mistakes.

Use a standard 10 to 12 point (10 to 12 characters per inch) typeface. Smaller or compressed type and papers with small margins or single-spacing are hard to read. It is better to let your essay run over the recommended number of pages than to try to compress it into fewer pages.

Likewise, large type, large margins, large indentations, triple-spacing, increased leading (space between lines), increased kerning (space between letters), and any other such attempts at “padding” to increase the length of a paper are unacceptable, wasteful of trees, and will not fool your professor.

The paper must be neatly formatted, double-spaced with a one-inch margin on the top, bottom, and sides of each page. When submitting hard copy, be sure to use white paper and print out using dark ink. If it is hard to read your essay, it will also be hard to follow your argument.

ADDITIONAL INSTRUCTIONS FOR THE CLASS

Discussion Questions (DQ)

Initial responses to the DQ should address all components of the questions asked, include a minimum of one scholarly source, and be at least 250 words.
Successful responses are substantive (i.e., add something new to the discussion, engage others in the discussion, well-developed idea) and include at least one scholarly source.
One or two sentence responses, simple statements of agreement or “good post,” and responses that are off-topic will not count as substantive. Substantive responses should be at least 150 words.
I encourage you to incorporate the readings from the week (as applicable) into your responses.
Weekly Participation

Your initial responses to the mandatory DQ do not count toward participation and are graded separately.
In addition to the DQ responses, you must post at least one reply to peers (or me) on three separate days, for a total of three replies.
Participation posts do not require a scholarly source/citation (unless you cite someone else’s work).
Part of your weekly participation includes viewing the weekly announcement and attesting to watching it in the comments. These announcements are made to ensure you understand everything that is due during the week.
APA Format and Writing Quality

Familiarize yourself with APA format and practice using it correctly. It is used for most writing assignments for your degree. Visit the Writing Center in the Student Success Center, under the Resources tab in LoudCloud for APA paper templates, citation examples, tips, etc. Points will be deducted for poor use of APA format or absence of APA format (if required).
Cite all sources of information! When in doubt, cite the source. Paraphrasing also requires a citation.
I highly recommend using the APA Publication Manual, 6th edition.
Use of Direct Quotes

I discourage overutilization of direct quotes in DQs and assignments at the Masters’ level and deduct points accordingly.
As Masters’ level students, it is important that you be able to critically analyze and interpret information from journal articles and other resources. Simply restating someone else’s words does not demonstrate an understanding of the content or critical analysis of the content.
It is best to paraphrase content and cite your source.
LopesWrite Policy

For assignments that need to be submitted to LopesWrite, please be sure you have received your report and Similarity Index (SI) percentage BEFORE you do a “final submit” to me.
Once you have received your report, please review it. This report will show you grammatical, punctuation, and spelling errors that can easily be fixed. Take the extra few minutes to review instead of getting counted off for these mistakes.
Review your similarities. Did you forget to cite something? Did you not paraphrase well enough? Is your paper made up of someone else’s thoughts more than your own?
Visit the Writing Center in the Student Success Center, under the Resources tab in LoudCloud for tips on improving your paper and SI score.
Late Policy

The university’s policy on late assignments is 10% penalty PER DAY LATE. This also applies to late DQ replies.
Please communicate with me if you anticipate having to submit an assignment late. I am happy to be flexible, with advance notice. We may be able to work out an extension based on extenuating circumstances.
If you do not communicate with me before submitting an assignment late, the GCU late policy will be in effect.
I do not accept assignments that are two or more weeks late unless we have worked out an extension.
As per policy, no assignments are accepted after the last day of class. Any assignment submitted after midnight on the last day of class will not be accepted for grading.
Communication

Communication is so very important. There are multiple ways to communicate with me:Questions to Instructor Forum: This is a great place to ask course content or assignment questions. If you have a question, there is a good chance one of your peers does as well. This is a public forum for the class.
Individual Forum: This is a private forum to ask me questions or send me messages. This will be checked at least once every 24 hours.
Discussion: Politics and the Patient Protection

Discussion: Politics and the Patient Protection

Rubric Detail

Select Grid View or List View to change the rubric’s layout.

Name: NURS_6050_Module02_Week03_Discussion_Rubric

Grid View
List View

Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
Main Posting

45 (45%) – 50 (50%)
Answers all parts of the discussion question(s) expectations with reflective critical analysis and synthesis of knowledge gained from the course readings for the module and current credible sources.

Supported by at least three current, credible sources.

Written clearly and concisely with no grammatical or spelling errors and fully adheres to current APA manual writing rules and style.

40 (40%) – 44 (44%)
Responds to the discussion question(s) and is reflective with critical analysis and synthesis of knowledge gained from the course readings for the module.

At least 75% of post has exceptional depth and breadth.

Supported by at least three credible sources.

Written clearly and concisely with one or no grammatical or spelling errors and fully adheres to current APA manual writing rules and style.

35 (35%) – 39 (39%)
Responds to some of the discussion question(s).

One or two criteria are not addressed or are superficially addressed.

Is somewhat lacking reflection and critical analysis and synthesis.

Somewhat represents knowledge gained from the course readings for the module.

Post is cited with two credible sources.

Written somewhat concisely; may contain more than two spelling or grammatical errors.

Contains some APA formatting errors.

0 (0%) – 34 (34%)
Does not respond to the discussion question(s) adequately.

Lacks depth or superficially addresses criteria.

Lacks reflection and critical analysis and synthesis.

Does not represent knowledge gained from the course readings for the module.

Contains only one or no credible sources.

Not written clearly or concisely.

Contains more than two spelling or grammatical errors.

Does not adhere to current APA manual writing rules and style.
Main Post: Timeliness

10 (10%) – 10 (10%)
Posts main post by day 3.

0 (0%) – 0 (0%)

0 (0%) – 0 (0%)

0 (0%) – 0 (0%)
Does not post by day 3.
First Response

17 (17%) – 18 (18%)
Response exhibits synthesis, critical thinking, and application to practice settings.

Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues.

Responses to faculty questions are fully answered, if posed.

Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas that are supported by at least two scholarly sources.

Demonstrates synthesis and understanding of learning objectives.

Response is effectively written in standard, edited English.

15 (15%) – 16 (16%)
Response exhibits critical thinking and application to practice settings.

Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues.

Responses to faculty questions are answered, if posed.

Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas that are supported by two or more credible sources.

Response is effectively written in standard, edited English.

13 (13%) – 14 (14%)
Response is on topic and may have some depth.

Responses posted in the discussion may lack effective professional communication.

Responses to faculty questions are somewhat answered, if posed.

Response may lack clear, concise opinions and ideas, and a few or no credible sources are cited.

0 (0%) – 12 (12%)
Response may not be on topic and lacks depth.

Responses posted in the discussion lack effective professional communication.

Responses to faculty questions are missing.

No credible sources are cited.
Second Response

16 (16%) – 17 (17%)
Response exhibits synthesis, critical thinking, and application to practice settings.

Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues.

Responses to faculty questions are fully answered, if posed.

Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas that are supported by at least two scholarly sources.

Demonstrates synthesis and understanding of learning objectives.

Response is effectively written in standard, edited English.

14 (14%) – 15 (15%)
Response exhibits critical thinking and application to practice settings.

Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues.

Responses to faculty questions are answered, if posed.

Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas that are supported by two or more credible sources.

Response is effectively written in standard, edited English.

12 (12%) – 13 (13%)
Response is on topic and may have some depth.

Responses posted in the discussion may lack effective professional communication.

Responses to faculty questions are somewhat answered, if posed.

Response may lack clear, concise opinions and ideas, and a few or no credible sources are cited.

0 (0%) – 11 (11%)
Response may not be on topic and lacks depth.

Responses posted in the discussion lack effective professional communication.

Responses to faculty questions are missing.

No credible sources are cited.
Participation

5 (5%) – 5 (5%)
Meets requirements for participation by posting on three different days.

0 (0%) – 0 (0%)

0 (0%) – 0 (0%)

0 (0%) – 0 (0%)
Does not meet requirements for participation by posting on 3 different days.
Total Points: 100
Name: NURS_6050_Module02_Week03_Discussion_Rubric