| Instructions | |
| You are the associate vice president for education and training for OtroRaza Health, the academic medical center and health system associated with Enormous State School of Medicine (ESSM). The vice president of medical affairs comes to you concerned about the viability of the school’s residency programs. Several of ESSM’s residency site stakeholders are seeking clarification regarding new reimbursement models being used by the system. Prepare a white paper – for the VP of Medical Affairs to share with the residency sites — outlining the differences between the new reimbursement models and prior, traditional models for stakeholders.In your response, include the following:Description of each model, such as capitated payments, fee-for-service, including new and emerging models being introduced to the industry, such as value-based, MACRA, and others. In your review, compare and contrast the traditional and new models and explain the motivation / reasons for the emerging models. Finally, based on this evidence, describe what impact (if any) you perceive there would be on the cost, quality and access to patient care. Support your research with peer-reviewed sources and/or market data. The use of professional charts / graphs to reinforce written content is encouraged. Ensure that your content and information is professional and can be followed by an executive audience.Several example white paper formats can be viewed at: https://venngage.com/templates/. A free downloadable sample white paper can be found at researchpaper101.com Note: your product does not need to be this robust, but should follow the same basic framework. | |
| Due Date | |
Rubric Name: Grading Rubric
This table lists criteria and criteria group name in the first column. The first row lists level names and includes scores if the rubric uses a numeric scoring method.Criteria90-100%80-89%70-79%0-69%Criterion ScoreUnderstanding of Issue 20%20 points
The work demonstrates clear understanding of the subject, including its:
(1) history and evolution, (2) internal and external contributing factors, (3) participants and stakeholders, and (4) significance.17.8 points
The work demonstrates significant understanding of the subject, including its:
(1) history and evolution, (2) internal and external contributing factors, (3) participants and stakeholders, and (4) significance.15.8 points
The work demonstrates minimal understanding of the subject, including its:
(1) history and evolution, (2) internal and external contributing factors, (3) participants and stakeholders, and (4) significance.5 points
The work demonstrates little or no understanding of the subject, including its:
(1) history and evolution, (2) internal and external contributing factors, (3) participants and stakeholders, and (4) significance./ 20Clarity of Presentation (Logic, References) 25%25 points
The work demonstrates sound and compelling logic in incorporating relevant research in terms of (1) applicability, (2) sufficiency (i.e. more than one source), and (3) currency.
The document is well organized, straightforward, easy to understand, and leads the reader to an informed conclusion.22.25 points
The work demonstrates adequate logic in incorporating relevant research in terms of (1) applicability, (2) sufficiency (i.e. more than one source), and (3) currency.
The document is generally well organized, straightforward and somewhat easy to understand, but includes extraneous information or questionable findings as it leads the reader to a conclusion.19.75 points
The work demonstrates questionable logic, relies on literature that is dated or somewhat irrelevant in terms of (1) applicability, (2) sufficiency, or (3) currency.
The document is somewhat disjointed, not easy to understand, and the conclusion is difficult to discern.0 points
The work employs faulty logic, relying on research that is (1) not applicable, (2) too limited to support the analysis, or (3) not current.
The document is poorly organized, difficult to understand, or fails to reach a cogent conclusion./ 25Comprehensiveness of Analysis 35%35 points
The work demonstrates clear, insightful critical thinking, incorporating relevant research in identifying the (1) issues, (2) interactions, and (3) implications of the topic.
The work considers both readily identifiable factors and more obscure matters, explore risks and benefits, and examines multiple aspects that can or may influence the topic being examined.31.15 points
The work demonstrates a general understanding based on relevant research in identifying the (1) issues, (2) interactions, and (3) implications of the topic.
The work considers readily identifiable factors, but omits researching more obscure matters, focus more on benefits than associated risks, and examines the main aspects that can or may influence the topic being examined.27.65 points
The work offers superficial analysis, relying on generalized research addressing the (1) issues, (2) interactions, and (3) implications of the topic.
The work considers only readily identifiable factors, focuses mostly on benefits versus risks, and examines only the prominent factors that influence the topic being examined.5 points
The work demonstrates marginal or no understanding of the topic or the (1) issues, (2) interactions, and (3) implications thereof.
The work provides minimal or no evidence to support observations, rely on surface level information or commercial claims, or bases conclusions on limited information.