1. Assessing a Healthcare Program/Policy Evaluation.
Assessing a Healthcare Program/Policy Evaluation. PLEASE USE A APA
TEMPLATE.Assignment: Assessing a Healthcare Program/Policy EvaluationProgram/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 HERENurses 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

2. ResourcesNote: 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
ReadingsMilstead, 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/s40615-016-0302-4Williams, J.
K., & Anderson, C. M. (2018). Omics research ethics considerations. Nursing Outlook, 66(4),
386–393. doi:10.1016/j.outlook.2018.05.003Note: You will access this article from the
Walden Library databases.Document: Healthcare Program/Policy Evaluation Template
(Word document)Required MediaLaureate Education (Producer). (2018). The Importance
of Program Evaluation [Video file]. Baltimore, MD: Author.The Importance of Program
EvaluationProgram TranscriptFEMALE SPEAKER: In an ideal world, we're thinking about
evaluation from thevery beginning, when we're first crafting the policy, when we're first
implementingthe program. I can't begin to tell you how important that evaluation is to
helppeople to understand what the impact either has been of a policy that wasimplemented
or what the impact is likely to be to help inform policymakersthinking about whether or not
they should support a bill or not, whether or not apiece of legislation needs to be reshaped,
how a bill that's been enacted shouldbe implemented. The public has a right to know, what
are we getting for theseinvestments?It's important for people in Congress and in the
Executive Branch to know, whatimpact is this program having? Are we achieving the goals
that this policy wasdesigned to achieve, or are we off the mark? And if we're off the mark,
where arewe off the mark? And what needs to change to get this program back on track,
orto have an even greater impact on the health of different patient populations?
Soevaluation is critically important.FEMALE SPEAKER: If you can't measure it, you won't
know whether it waseffective 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 freemammograms 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 aboutwhether it did any good or not. Did they detect more, or less, or the same
numberof problems through the mammograms? That's the effective piece. So
it'simportant that you put that in at the beginning so you know how to evaluatewhether
the program worked or not. Because if it worked, you want to go backand repeat it. You
want to expand it. You want to get more funding for it.FEMALE SPEAKER: Evaluation
reports are very important. It holds usaccountable. Everybody is accountable. I'm
accountable. Politicians areaccountable. These services are accountable.FEMALE SPEAKER:
The reports themselves, they go usually to the group thathas authorized your money or
appropriated your money. You may have a coupleof ways to write your report-- one two

3. legislators, one to community memberswho were involved in it. So what you want to do is
help them understand how thisprogram worked, how effective it was, how efficient it was.
But especially focuson the effectiveness.FEMALE SPEAKER Just don't say, I want you to
measure it. I want this fixed insix months. I want this fixed in a year. And I want it in
writing.The Importance of Program Evaluation© 2018 Laureate Education, Inc. 2FEMALE
SPEAKER: It's not self-interest or self-serving. It's all about service inthe public's interest
and a very sharp, smart use of taxpayer dollars. That makesevaluation extremely important.
Historically, when I was much younger in mycareer, I didn't have a great appreciation for
evaluation. I sure have it now.Assessing a Healthcare Program/Policy Evaluation..The
Importance of Program EvaluationAdditional Content AttributionTrowell‐Harris, I. (n.d.).
Various Photographs [Photograph]. Used with permissionof Irene Trowell-
Harris.Wakefield, M. (n.d.). [Photograph]. Used with permission og Mary
WakefieldWAL_NURS6050_NIH-SenatorDanielInouyeOfficial White House Photo by Pete
SouzaAccessible playerLaureate Education (Producer). (2018). Peter Beilenson: Ethics and
advocacy [Video file]. Baltimore, MD: Author.Video Transcripts. Ethics and
AdvocacyProgram TranscriptPETER BEILENSON, MD, MPH: I'm sure that in the millions,
several millions ofneedles that we've given out now, someone has probably overdosed
with it. Tothat 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 asBaltimore's health
commissioner because so much of what we did in terms ofsocial 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 thecity as health commissioner was the police
commissioner. So as an arrestee atcentral booking, you have more rights than someone
who's jailed. And onceconvicted, 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. Theyhad simply been arrested. They had not been
convicted. They actually had notbeen indicted. They had simply been arrested for probable
cause, or for beingseen doing something illegal. And so we had to get consent from them. In
healthcare, you always want to get informed consent. And so in this case we gotinformed
consent. In fact, I don't think we ever got turned down by anybody in thethousands of
people we tested, because who wants to have syphilis unkownst tothem.The ethical issues,
and you've got to always look at them, and you have to thinkcarefully about them. So, for
example, immunizations. There is a religiousexemption potentially. I can tell you that in 15
years, I think we got 20. That's notthe reason kids were not getting immunized. And most
of the time, these sort ofissues, 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'relooking at it from a purely practical point of view. If you think, if I ask thisquestion,
then we're going to destroy our initiative. But in reality, that doesn'thappen. Very, very
few people opt out of things. Immunization is one one.One interesting ethical quandary we
had with needle exchange was, and actuallyit was an ethical legal one, that the mayor's
counsel actually recommendedinitially against doing needle exchange because we're
giving syringes, right, inneedle exchange. Clean syringes, which we know are going to be
used forinjecting drugs. What if someone shoots up and overdoses using one of ourneedles?

4. Aren't we going to be liable, even though there's tort claims protectionas 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 peopleare going to not get HIV/AIDS, and
we're also tying it to drug treatment. So wewere trying to get people into drug treatment
through our needle exchangeprogram. So that was harm reduction as well. Although we did
have to live withEthics and Advocacy© 2018 Laureate Education, Inc. 2the fact that, I'm
sure that in the several millions of needles that we've given outnow, 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 identifyethical conundrums or gaps, you
can try and address each of them. And so wedid with needle exchange. We got drug
treatment available, basically on-demandfor people who needed it, to try to them off drugs.
Secondly, we did the needleexchange itself, which would decrease the risk dramatically of
getting HIV. Andthird, we launched a project, which got a lot of attention, to avoid drug
overdosesby training addicts how to give Narcan, which reverses opiates or heroinoverdose
quickly.Because what was happening with overdoses-- and, by the way, there weremore
overdoses than homicides in Baltimore, which is saying a lot, actually, inthe late '90s and
early 2000s-- we trained several hundred addicts in CPR,rescue breathing, and how to give
Narcan and recognize a overdose. And wehad hundreds of documented saves. The reason
for that is that most addictedfolks will have a shooting partner. And so they'll be shooting
in house and one ofthem overdoses, and what happened oftentimes is the partner who was
notoverdosed would pull the person out to the porch and maybe call 911 and thentake off,
because they were afraid of being arrested, and by the time the EMTsgot there, they'd be
dead from lack of breathing. So by training them to doNarcan, it can immediately reverse, or
almost immediately reverse the effects.And we had hundreds of saves. So the point being
that if you identify ethicalquandaries, you can try to address them with potentially another
program.Ethics and AdvocacyAdditional Content AttributionTrowell‐Harris, I. (n.d.).
Various Photographs [Photograph]. Used with permissionof Irene Trowell-
Harris.Wakefield, M. (n.d.). [Photograph]. Used with permission og Mary
WakefieldWAL_NURS6050_NIH-SenatorDanielInouyeOfficial White House Photo by Pete
SouzaGettyLicense_183020139YinYang / E+ / Getty ImagesEthics andEthics and
AdvocacyProgram TranscriptPETER BEILENSON, MD, MPH: I'm sure that in the millions,
several millions ofneedles that we've given out now, someone has probably overdosed
with it. Tothat 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 asBaltimore's health
commissioner because so much of what we did in terms ofsocial 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 thecity as health commissioner was the police
commissioner. So as an arrestee atcentral booking, you have more rights than someone
who's jailed. And onceconvicted, 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. Theyhad
simply been arrested. They had not been convicted. They actually had notbeen indicted.
They had simply been arrested for probable cause, or for beingseen doing something illegal.
And so we had to get consent from them. In healthcare, you always want to get informed

5. consent. And so in this case we gotinformed consent. In fact, I don't think we ever got
turned down by anybody in thethousands of people we tested, because who wants to have
syphilis unkownst tothem.The ethical issues, and you've got to always look at them, and
you have to thinkcarefully about them. So, for example, immunizations. There is a
religiousexemption potentially. I can tell you that in 15 years, I think we got 20. That's
notthe reason kids were not getting immunized. And most of the time, these sort ofissues, 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'relooking at it from a purely practical point of view. If you think, if I ask
thisquestion, then we're going to destroy our initiative. But in reality, that doesn'thappen.
Very, very few people opt out of things. Immunization is one one.One interesting ethical
quandary we had with needle exchange was, and actuallyit was an ethical legal one, that the
mayor's counsel actually recommendedinitially against doing needle exchange because
we're giving syringes, right, inneedle exchange. Clean syringes, which we know are going
to be used forinjecting drugs. What if someone shoots up and overdoses using one of
ourneedles? Aren't we going to be liable, even though there's tort claims protectionas 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 peopleare going to not get HIV/AIDS,
and we're also tying it to drug treatment. So wewere trying to get people into drug
treatment through our needle exchangeprogram. So that was harm reduction as well.
Although we did have to live withEthics and Advocacy© 2018 Laureate Education, Inc. 2the
fact that, I'm sure that in the several millions of needles that we've given outnow,
someone has probably overdosed with it.To that end, however, we did address an overdose
effort as well. If you identifyethical conundrums or gaps, you can try and address each of
them. And so wedid with needle exchange. We got drug treatment available, basically on-
demandfor people who needed it, to try to them off drugs. Secondly, we did the
needleexchange itself, which would decrease the risk dramatically of getting HIV. Andthird,
we launched a project, which got a lot of attention, to avoid drug overdosesby training
addicts how to give Narcan, which reverses opiates or heroinoverdose quickly.Assessing a
Healthcare Program/Policy Evaluation.Because what was happening with overdoses-- and,
by the way, there weremore overdoses than homicides in Baltimore, which is saying a lot,
actually, inthe late '90s and early 2000s-- we trained several hundred addicts in
CPR,rescue breathing, and how to give Narcan and recognize a overdose. And wehad
hundreds of documented saves. The reason for that is that most addictedfolks will have a
shooting partner. And so they'll be shooting in house and one ofthem overdoses, and what
happened oftentimes is the partner who was notoverdosed would pull the person out to the
porch and maybe call 911 and thentake off, because they were afraid of being arrested, and
by the time the EMTsgot there, they'd be dead from lack of breathing. So by training them
to doNarcan, it can immediately reverse, or almost immediately reverse the effects.And we
had hundreds of saves. So the point being that if you identify ethicalquandaries, you can try
to address them with potentially another program.Ethics and AdvocacyAdditional Content
AttributionTrowell‐Harris, I. (n.d.). Various Photographs [Photograph]. Used with
permissionof Irene Trowell-Harris.Wakefield, M. (n.d.). [Photograph]. Used with permission

6. og Mary WakefieldWAL_NURS6050_NIH-SenatorDanielInouyeOfficial White House Photo by
Pete SouzaGettyLicense_183020139YinYang / E+ / Getty ImagesEthics
andGettyLicense_118657765[Dan Bannister]/[iStock / Getty Images Plus]/Getty
ImagesGettyLicense_159627464Image Source / Image Source / Getty ImagesExcellent Good
Fair PoorProgram/Policy EvaluationBased 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

7. 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

8. 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 punctuation5 (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: 100Name:
NURS_6050_Module05_Week10_Assignment_Rubric Healthcare Program/Policy Evaluation
Analysis TemplateUse 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

9. 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

10. 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 TemplateUse 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,

11. 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

12. 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.