| Course | NR 540 Leading and Managing Population Health |
|---|---|
| Week | 3 |
| Paper type | Budget narrative |
| Length | About 1,120 words, 3 pages |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | Chamberlain University |
| Program | MSN, Population Health |
| Updated | September 2026 |
Free sample paper for NR 540 Week 3
Budget Narrative: Year One of the County Hepatitis C Test-and-Treat Program at $216,702, Line by Line, Where Each Amount Came From, What It Buys and What the Budget Deliberately Does Not Pay For
Student Name
College of Nursing, Chamberlain University
NR 540: Leading and Managing Population Health
Instructor Name
Month Day, Year
Budget Narrative: Year One of the County Hepatitis C Test-and-Treat Program at $216,702, Line by Line, Where Each Amount Came From, What It Buys and What the Budget Deliberately Does Not Pay For
Purpose
This narrative accompanies the first year's budget for the hepatitis C program, paid for by state opioid settlement funds and run by the county health department with a syringe services program, a community health center and the county library. A spreadsheet states amounts. Only the narrative can say where each amount came from and why it is the right size, and the state reviewer deciding whether to fund a second year will read this narrative rather than the grid. Each line below states its basis, the source of the figure and the activity it pays for. A final section explains what the budget does not pay for, because some of the program's largest costs, particularly medication, sit outside it.
The Budget
Table 1 summarizes the year-one budget.
Table 1
Year-One Budget
| Line | Basis | Amount |
|---|---|---|
| Program coordinator salary | 0.5 FTE at the county's public health nurse II midpoint | $42,500 |
| Coordinator fringe benefits | 30% county rate | $12,750 |
| Peer navigator salary | 1.0 FTE at the syringe program's navigator rate | $41,600 |
| Peer navigator fringe benefits | 25% syringe program rate | $10,400 |
| Testing staff time | 0.4 FTE of harm reduction workers, including fringe | $28,000 |
| Rapid antibody test kits | 1,200 tests at $17 | $20,400 |
| Confirmatory RNA tests for uninsured people | 180 tests at $65 contract price | $11,700 |
| Clinic visits for uninsured people | Sliding-fee gap for an estimated 40 uninsured patients | $14,000 |
| Participant incentives | 150 people, up to three milestones, $20 each | $9,000 |
| Mileage and outreach supplies | Outreach van mileage and supplies | $4,800 |
| Tracking system license | Annual license for the shared data system | $3,000 |
| Training | Tester certification and navigator training | $2,500 |
| Indirect costs | 8% of direct costs, the state's cap | $16,052 |
| Total | $216,702 |
Personnel: Why These Positions and These Sizes
Personnel is $135,250, or 62% of the budget, and it is where the program's work happens. The coordinator position is half-time because the coordinator's work, grant management, the shared tracking record, the steering committee and the biweekly case review, was estimated at about 20 hours a week, based on the time the health department's disease control manager spent coordinating a similar two-partner program last year. The salary is the midpoint of the county's pay grade for the position, not an estimate.
The peer navigator is full-time because navigation is the step the county's 2019 testing effort left out, and it is labor-intensive. The syringe program estimates that each person with a reactive test needs six to ten contacts over four months to move from a positive antibody result to a completed course of treatment, often by text message, sometimes in person and occasionally with a ride. At an expected 150 people a year, that is 900 to 1,500 contacts, which fills one position. The salary is the syringe program's own rate for peer staff.
Testing staff time is 0.4 FTE because the syringe program already runs its drop-in center; the grant pays only for the added hours spent testing, based on 25 minutes per test for 1,200 tests plus outreach sessions.
Testing and Treatment Costs
The number of tests, 1,200, is the program's year-one target: roughly the number of unique visitors to the syringe program in a year, plus people reached at library and outreach sessions. The price of $17 per rapid test is the state purchasing contract price. CDC recommends that people who inject drugs be tested for hepatitis C regularly while risk continues (Schillie et al., 2020), so some people will be tested more than once in the year.
The syringe program's past testing found antibodies in about one test in five among its clients, so about 240 reactive tests are expected. Not all will be current infections. The budget pays for confirmatory RNA tests only for uninsured people, estimated at 180 of those needing one; insured people's tests are billed to their insurers. Similarly, clinic visits are billed to Medicaid or private insurance where possible, and the grant covers only the sliding-fee gap for an estimated 40 uninsured patients.
Incentives
The budget includes $20 gift cards for up to three milestones per person: confirmatory testing, starting treatment and the test confirming cure. The purpose is to reduce the losses at each step of the cascade. Pooled U.S. data put diagnosis at roughly one person in two with chronic infection and cure at fewer than one in ten (Yehia et al., 2014). Incentives cost $9,000 at most, a small amount against the cost of a person who tests positive and never returns.
Other Direct Costs and Indirect Costs
Mileage, the tracking system license and training are based on quotes and last year's rates. The indirect cost rate of 8% is the maximum the state allows and covers the health department's finance, human resources and information technology support for the program.
What the Budget Does Not Pay For
The largest cost of curing hepatitis C, the medication, is not in this budget. A course of direct-acting antiviral treatment is paid by Medicaid for most patients, by private insurance for some and through manufacturer patient assistance programs for uninsured patients, which the health center's pharmacy benefits coordinator arranges. Including medication in the grant budget would have multiplied it several times over and duplicated payments already available.
The budget also does not pay for the library's room, which the library contributes in kind, valued at about $2,400 a year, or for the health center's nurse practitioner time for insured patients, which is covered by billing. These contributions matter for sustainability. They show that the partners are already paying for parts of the program, which strengthens the case that the program can continue with a smaller grant in later years if billing grows.
Year one's in-kind contributions total about $40,000 once insured clinic time is counted, a figure the narrative reports so the reviewer can see that the grant is not the program's only support.
What Would Change in Year Two
If year one confirms the expected numbers, year two's budget would be similar, with two adjustments: test kits would rise if repeat testing grows, and the clinic visit line would fall if more patients are enrolled in Medicaid during navigation. The narrative for year two will compare each line's year-one estimate with actual spending and explain any difference.
References
Schillie, S., Wester, C., Osborne, M., Wesolowski, L., & Ryerson, A. B. (2020). CDC recommendations for hepatitis C screening among adults: United States, 2020. MMWR. Recommendations and Reports, 69(2), 1-17. https://doi.org/10.15585/mmwr.rr6902a1
Yehia, B. R., Schranz, A. J., Umscheid, C. A., & Lo Re, V., III. (2014). The treatment cascade for chronic hepatitis C virus infection in the United States: A systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS ONE, 9(7), Article e101554. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0101554
What the NR 540 Week 3 assignment asks for
The Week 3 task is usually a budget and budget justification for your program. Prompts ask you to list costs, explain the basis for each, describe in-kind contributions and discuss sustainability. Remember that the funder reads the narrative more than the spreadsheet. For each line, state its basis and the source of the figure, such as a pay grade, a contract price or a workload estimate. Explain why personnel lines are the size they are. Say which costs are billed elsewhere and which the grant covers only for the uninsured. Explain what the budget deliberately does not pay for, and why. Describe in-kind contributions. Anticipate next year's changes. Present the budget in a table and cite supporting evidence in APA 7.
Inside the NR 540 Week 3 example
The narrative opens by explaining its purpose for a reviewer deciding on a second year. The first table gives every line, its basis and its amount. A personnel section explains the half-time coordinator from a comparable program's workload, the full-time navigator from contacts per client, and testing time from minutes per test. A testing and treatment section explains kit numbers, contract prices, expected positivity and billing for insured clients, citing screening recommendations. Incentives are linked to cascade losses reported in a national review. A section explains what the budget excludes, especially medication, and the partners' in-kind support. Year-two adjustments close the narrative. The reviewer can therefore trace every amount to a source without asking.
NR 540 Week 3 rubric: what full points look like
Budget narrative rubrics typically reward complete and accurate costs, clear justification of each line, alignment with program activities, attention to in-kind and other funding sources, and realism. Graders favor narratives in which each figure has a stated source rather than an estimate with no basis. Explaining personnel sizing from workload shows planning depth. Distinguishing costs billed to insurers from those the grant covers shows financial understanding. Explaining what is excluded, especially large costs such as medication, prevents reviewer confusion. In-kind contributions strengthen the sustainability case. A clean table and prose that follow the table's order make the narrative easy to review and support the presentation score.
Common NR 540 Week 3 mistakes, and how to avoid them
A frequent weakness is a narrative that restates the spreadsheet in sentences without explaining where numbers came from. Give sources. Another is personnel lines sized by habit rather than workload. Show the calculation. Students also budget for services that insurers already pay, which inflates the request. Bill where possible. Avoid leaving out large costs without explanation; say who pays for them. Do not forget in-kind support, which shows commitment. Check that totals add up and match the table. Finally, anticipate the reviewer's question about next year, since a narrative that says how the budget will change reads as a plan rather than a request.
Get a NR 540 Week 3 example written to your instructions
Send the budget template your section uses, the rubric and any cost categories the assignment names, and a custom NR 540 Week 3 budget narrative is written against them and returned inside 24-48h, free the first time. If the figures come from your employer, replace them with plausible equivalents before sending; the narrative is marked on its reasoning, not on your organization's salary bands.
More NR 540 papers and MSN samples
- NR 540 Week 1: Discussion on a Program That Faded
- NR 540 Week 2: Program Structure Brief
- NR 540 Week 4: Role and Staffing Plan
- NR 540 Week 5: Partnership Agreement Outline
- NR 540 Week 6: Quality Monitoring Plan
- NR 540 Week 7: Sustainability Plan
- NR 540 Week 8: Leadership Reflection
- NR 539 Week 3: Intervention Selection Memo
- NR 538 Week 3: Indicator Selection Memo
- NR 530 Week 3: Social Determinants Map
NR 540 Week 3 questions, answered
Where do the salary figures come from if the syllabus gives none?
Public wage data by occupation and region is the usual source, cited like any other reference. Sections generally accept a stated range with the source named, and penalize a bare number. The same applies to supply costs: a linked catalog price or a published unit cost turns an invented figure into a defensible one and takes about a minute to find.
How detailed should the narrative be?
Detailed enough that a reader could rebuild the spreadsheet without seeing it, and no longer. Two or three sentences per line is the working length. Lines carrying most of the money deserve more, and a stack of small supply items can be summarized in one entry as long as the arithmetic and the unit cost behind the group are visible.
Does the narrative include anything about future funding?
A short forward-looking note is usually welcome and sets up the later weeks, but the budget narrative is not the sustainability plan. Naming which lines end with the founding money and which continue is enough here. Arguing where replacement money will come from belongs in the assignment that asks for it, and doing it early crowds out the arithmetic being marked.
Where can I find a free NR 540 Week 3 sample paper?
This page reproduces the hepatitis C program's year-one budget narrative, the whole NR 540 Week 3 sample, open to every reader. If you need a narrative for another program's budget, send us the lines and their bases and one can be written.
What should an NR 540 budget narrative explain?
Where each figure came from, what it buys and what the budget does not pay for. The sample traces each line to a pay grade, contract price or workload estimate and explains why medication sits outside the grant.