Discussion: Presidential Agendas
/in /by JamesAccess to high quality care is the key! One of the strategies of the current president is to achieve universal coverage which will help provide more people with substance use disorders with the care they need. We all know that people with substance use disorders have faced stigma and other barriers inside and outside of health care and addiction services (The White House, n.d). The Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act (MHPAEA) is essential to integrating treatment for substance use disorder into mainstream health care and improving the quality of care.
According to the current regime, education on preventing youth substance use, including the use of alcohol, tobacco and illicit drugs, is essential to young people’s healthy growth and development. Delaying use until after adolescence also decreases the likelihood of developing a substance use disorder (The White House, n.d).
Multiple stressors during the pandemic – isolation, sickness, grief, job loss, food instability and loss of routines – have devastated many Americans and presented unprecedented challenges for behavioral health providers across the nation. In view of this, The Biden administration has increased federal funding to address the opioid crisis. In March 2021, the Biden-Harris Administration announced that the American Rescue Plan would include $4 billion to enable the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) and Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) to expand vital behavioral health services, sustain the use of telehealth, reduce inequities, and even offer mental health services (Le & Rosen, 2021).
While the legislative response is primarily non-punitive, most opioid-specific policy does not explicitly address the intersection of opioid misuse and addiction with salient social factors such as economic disinvestment and social isolation (Bowen & Irish, 2019).
Discussion: Presidential Agendas References
Bowen, E. A., & Irish, A. (2019). A policy mapping analysis of goals, target populations, and punitive notions in the U.S. congressional response to the opioid epidemic. International Journal of Drug Policy, 74, 90–97.
Le, A. B., & Rosen, J. D. (2021). It Is Time to Implement Primary Prevention in the Workplace to Ameliorate the Ongoing U.S. Opioid Epidemic. NEW SOLUTIONS: A Journal of Environmental and Occupational Health Policy, 31(3), 210–218.
Name: NURS_6050_Module01_Week01_Discussion_Rubric
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_Module01_Week01_Discussion_Rubric
📚 Need a custom-written assignment from scratch?
Our expert academic writers deliver top-quality, 100% plagiarism-free work that guarantees an A+ grade.
✅ First assignment absolutely FREE!
Use code FREE at checkout for a 100% discount.
Note: We never resell papers. Every order is uniquely crafted just for you.