| Course | NR 540 Leading and Managing Population Health |
|---|---|
| Week | 7 |
| Paper type | Sustainability plan |
| 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 7
Sustainability Plan: Moving Each Cost of the Hepatitis C Program From Two Years of Grant Money to a Payer That Recurs Every Year, Line by Line, Before the Grant Ends Rather Than After
Student Name
College of Nursing, Chamberlain University
NR 540: Leading and Managing Population Health
Instructor Name
Month Day, Year
Sustainability Plan: Moving Each Cost of the Hepatitis C Program From Two Years of Grant Money to a Payer That Recurs Every Year, Line by Line, Before the Grant Ends Rather Than After
The Distinction That Matters
Grant money and budget money buy exactly the same staff and mean completely different things about the year ahead. Two years of state settlement money, roughly $217,000 annually, pay for the hepatitis C program at present. Every position and supply it buys is real, but none of it is recurring. When the grant ends, the program ends unless each of its costs has moved to a payer that pays every year: a general fund line, insurance billing or a partner's own budget.
Research on the sustainability of public health programs has noted that many programs decline or end after initial funding and that sustainability depends on planning for it from the start rather than at the end of a grant (Scheirer & Dearing, 2011). This plan takes each line of the year-one budget and names the recurring payer it will move to, when the move will happen and what must be true for it to work. It is written in the program's first year, while there is still time to act on it.
Assessing Readiness
Before writing the plan, the steering committee completed the Program Sustainability Assessment Tool, which scores a program across nine domains, among them funding stability, partnerships, political support and evaluation (Luke et al., 2014). The program scored highest on partnerships and program evaluation, because of the partnership agreement and the shared tracking record, and lowest on funding stability and political support. The plan concentrates on those two weaknesses.
Line by Line
Table 1 shows each cost, its recurring payer after the grant and the date by which the move should be agreed.
Table 1
Moving Each Cost to a Recurring Payer
| Year-one cost | Amount | Recurring payer after the grant | Agree by | Condition |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Program coordinator, 0.5 FTE with fringe | $55,250 | Health department general fund, reduced to 0.3 FTE | County budget request, month 14 | Commissioners approve |
| Peer navigator with fringe | $52,000 | Health center, funded from savings on hepatitis C medication purchased under the federal drug discount program for health centers and from billing for community health worker services | Month 16 | Health center board approves |
| Testing staff time | $28,000 | Syringe program operating budget; test kits from the state's free testing program | Month 12 | State kit program continues |
| Test kits | $20,400 | State hepatitis C testing program supply | Month 10 | Enrollment accepted |
| Confirmatory tests, uninsured | $11,700 | Health center sliding-fee program | Month 16 | Uninsured share stays small |
| Clinic visits, uninsured | $14,000 | Health center sliding-fee program | Month 16 | Same |
| Participant incentives | $9,000 | Local foundation small grant, or discontinued | Month 18 | Foundation interest |
| Other direct and indirect | $26,352 | Absorbed by partners or discontinued | Month 18 | Review of need |
The Two Largest Moves
The navigator. The peer navigator is the program's most important position and its hardest to sustain. The plan moves it to the health center, which gains from the program: every person cured is a person whose treatment the health center prescribed. Health centers that purchase outpatient drugs at the federal discount price and are reimbursed at higher insurer rates generate savings they may use for services to their patients, and hepatitis C medications are high-cost drugs. The health center's finance director estimates that the savings from the program's expected treatment volume would cover most of a navigator's cost. Some states also allow billing for community health worker services under Medicaid, which would cover part of the rest. The condition is that the health center's board agrees to employ the navigator, and that the navigator can continue to work at the syringe program's drop-in center, where clients trust them. The partnership agreement will be amended to allow this.
The coordinator. The coordinator's work shrinks once the program is established. The case review and tracking record continue, but grant reporting ends. The plan proposes a 0.3 FTE position in the health department's general fund. This requires the county commissioners to approve a recurring line of about $33,000, which is where the program's weak score on political support matters. The plan therefore begins briefing commissioners in month 9, with the cascade report showing how many residents have been cured, rather than asking for money in month 20.
What Will Not Survive, and Why That Is Acceptable
Not every cost needs to continue. Participant incentives may end if no local funder takes them on. The program will monitor whether losses in the cascade increase when incentives stop, and if they do, the steering committee will seek funding specifically for that step. Some indirect costs will be absorbed by partners as part of normal operations. A sustainability plan that tries to preserve every line of a grant budget usually preserves none; one that preserves the core functions, testing, navigation, treatment and tracking, has a better chance.
Neither move happens by itself. The health center's board meets quarterly and will need two presentations: one in month 10 describing the program and its results so far, and one in month 15 with a formal proposal and the finance director's estimate. The county's budget cycle opens in month 13. Each date is on the steering committee's calendar, with the coordinator and the relevant director responsible for preparing the case. A sustainability plan that relies on a single meeting at the end of the grant almost always meets a budget already committed elsewhere.
Milestones and Review
The steering committee will review the plan quarterly. By month 12, test kits and testing staff time should have moved. By month 16, the navigator and uninsured care should have agreed payers. By month 18, the coordinator's position should be in the county's budget request. If any milestone is missed by more than two months, the committee will decide whether to seek a bridge grant, reduce the program's scope or plan an orderly close. An orderly close, with clients transferred to the health center's regular care and the tracking record archived, is better than the quiet ending that befell the county's 2019 effort.
The steering committee also agreed that the program's name and materials belong to all four partners jointly, so that no single organization's withdrawal takes the program's identity with it. Clients know the program by its name and its navigator, and both should survive the grant.
References
Luke, D. A., Calhoun, A., Robichaux, C. B., Elliott, M. B., & Moreland-Russell, S. (2014). The Program Sustainability Assessment Tool: A new instrument for public health programs. Preventing Chronic Disease, 11, Article 130184. https://doi.org/10.5888/pcd11.130184
Scheirer, M. A., & Dearing, J. W. (2011). An agenda for research on the sustainability of public health programs. American Journal of Public Health, 101(11), 2059-2067. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2011.300193
The Chamberlain NR 540 Week 7 instructions
For Week 7 you typically develop a plan to sustain your program beyond its initial funding. Prompts ask about funding strategies, partnerships, organizational capacity, policy support and a timeline. Distinguish grant money, which ends, from budget money, which recurs. Take each budget line and name the payer that will cover it after the grant, the date by which the move must be agreed and the condition it depends on. Use a sustainability assessment to find your weakest areas and focus there. Schedule the meetings where decisions will be made, well before the grant ends. Accept that some costs may end, and say how you will watch for harm. Set milestones and a fallback. Cite sustainability research in APA 7.
Inside the NR 540 Week 7 example
The plan opens with the distinction between grant and budget money and cites research on planning sustainability early. A section reports the program's scores on a sustainability assessment tool and focuses on funding and political support. Table 1 lists each year-one cost with its recurring payer, date and condition. A section explains the two largest moves: the navigator to the health center, funded by drug discount savings and community health worker billing, and a reduced coordinator post to the county general fund, with commissioner briefings from month 9. Board and budget dates are placed on the calendar. The plan accepts that incentives may end and sets milestones with an orderly close as a fallback.
Where the points sit in the NR 540 Week 7 rubric
Sustainability plan rubrics generally reward realistic funding strategies, attention to organizational and partner capacity, policy and political support, a clear timeline and contingency planning. Graders favor plans that match each cost to a specific recurring source rather than hoping for another grant. Using a sustainability assessment to target weak areas demonstrates method. Placing decisions on a calendar well before funding ends shows foresight. Accepting that some elements may not continue, and monitoring for consequences, shows judgment. A fallback such as an orderly close demonstrates responsibility to clients. A clear table of costs and payers and correct citations complete the evaluation. A named owner for each milestone usually lifts the plan into the top band.
Common NR 540 Week 7 mistakes, and how to avoid them
The most common weakness is a sustainability plan that says the program will seek additional grants. Name recurring payers. Another is starting sustainability planning in the final months, when budgets are already set. Begin in year one. Students also try to preserve every line of the grant budget, which is rarely possible. Protect the core functions. Avoid vague references to partner support without a decision date. Do not ignore political support; elected officials and boards decide recurring funding. Plan what happens if milestones are missed. Finally, keep clients in view, since a sudden end harms the people the program was built to serve.
Get a NR 540 Week 7 example written to your instructions
Send the assignment prompt, the rubric and the budget your earlier weeks produced, and a custom NR 540 Week 7 sustainability plan is written to them and returned inside 24-48h, the first one at no cost. Your employer's real funding arrangements are not needed; the plan is marked on how the sources are reasoned about, not on whose money it is.
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 3: Budget Narrative
- 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 8: Leadership Reflection
- NR 539 Week 7: Outcome Evaluation Plan
- NR 538 Week 7: Priority Ranking Matrix
- NR 530 Week 7: Framework Comparison Paper
NR 540 Week 7 questions, answered
What counts as a sustainable source?
Anything arriving again without a fresh competition. A line in a department's annual budget, a service reimbursed per encounter, a contract with a public agency, or duties folded into posts that exist anyway. Another award is not sustainability, though it can buy the time needed to reach one. Sections usually reward a mix, with at least one source not depending on an application.
Does the plan need letters of support from partners?
Coursework rarely requires real letters, but the plan should say what evidence would exist in practice. Where a partner is said to be absorbing a cost, the credible version names the document that would record it and the post that would sign. Writing that a partner is enthusiastic, with nothing behind it, is the weakest claim in most submissions.
How far ahead should the plan look?
Three years is the common horizon and works well, since it is long enough to cross a funding cliff and short enough to stay concrete. Beyond that the arithmetic becomes decorative. What matters more than the horizon is the density of dates inside it, because a plan with no months in it cannot be acted on by anyone.
Where can I find a free NR 540 Week 7 sample paper?
The line-by-line hepatitis C sustainability plan above is the whole NR 540 Week 7 sample, with every budget line shown. If your program's funding ends on a different date, send us its budget and partners and a plan naming recurring payers can be prepared.
How should an NR 540 sustainability plan handle each cost?
Match it to a payer that recurs every year, with a date and a condition. The sample does this for every budget line and accepts that some small costs, such as incentives, may end.