| Course | NR 717 Concepts in Population Health Outcomes & Health Policy |
|---|---|
| Week | 7 |
| Paper type | Advocacy plan |
| Length | About 1,120 words, 5 pages |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | Chamberlain University |
| Program | Doctor of Nursing Practice (DNP) |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for NR 717 Week 7
Advocacy Plan: Four Ways to Pay for Postpartum Blood Pressure Monitoring at Riverbend Health, and Why the Managed Care Contract Is the One to Pursue
Student Name
College of Nursing, Chamberlain University
NR 717: Concepts in Population Health Outcomes & Health Policy
Instructor Name
Month Day, Year
Advocacy Plan: Four Ways to Pay for Postpartum Blood Pressure Monitoring at Riverbend Health, and Why the Managed Care Contract Is the One to Pursue
The Change Being Pursued
The change is remote blood pressure monitoring for each Riverbend patient whose delivery admission ends with a diagnosis of a hypertensive disorder of pregnancy: a home cuff, twice-daily text reporting for six weeks and same-day nurse review, at about $160 per patient. Last year 502 patients would have qualified, and only 39.0% had a blood pressure check in the recommended 7 to 10 days. The clinical case has been made in earlier work and is not repeated here. The question this plan answers is who pays, and how to get that party to agree before the next contract year begins.
Four Pockets, One Chosen
The same change can be funded in four ways, each with a different decision maker, timescale and chance of surviving a lean year.
Table 1
Four Ways to Fund Postpartum Remote Monitoring
| Who decides | How long | Survives a lean year? | Verdict | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Riverbend operating budget | Chief financial officer and budget committee | Next fiscal year, from July | Unlikely; the system earns a margin on the readmissions it would prevent | Rejected |
| Managed care contract term | Lakeview's chief medical officer and finance vice president | At contract renewal, 1 July 2027 | Likely; the plan pays for the events prevented | Chosen |
| Grant | State maternal and child health program or a foundation | Six to twelve months to award | No; ends when the grant does | Fallback for start-up costs only |
| State mandate | Legislature, then Medicaid agency rules | Two years or more | Yes, once in place | Too slow for now; revisit in 2029 |
Note. Note. Lakeview Community Health Plan covers about 49% of Riverbend's Medicaid deliveries.
The managed care contract is chosen because it puts the cost where the savings fall. Lakeview pays about $122,600 a year for avoidable hypertension readmissions and emergency visits among its members delivering at Riverbend, and the pilot would cost it about $23,500. The hospital's own budget is the wrong pocket, because the hospital earns about $1,350 on each readmission it would prevent. A grant would fund a start, but programs paid by grants tend to end when the grant does. A state mandate would be the most durable route but would take at least two legislative sessions.
A Change Somebody Can Approve
The specific request is a contract amendment: a per-member payment of $160 to Riverbend for each Lakeview member enrolled in monitoring, for twelve months from 1 July 2027, with monthly reporting. Two people at Lakeview can approve it, the chief medical officer and the vice president of finance, without board action, because it falls within the medical management budget they control.
Allies, Named by Role
Four allies matter. Lakeview's director of quality needs better results on the postpartum care measure the state now requires plans to report. Riverbend's director of women's services runs the units that would deliver the program. The state perinatal quality collaborative publishes the benchmark that shows Riverbend below the median, which gives both organizations a reason to act. And a member of Riverbend's patient and family advisory council who was readmitted with postpartum preeclampsia has offered to speak.
Opposition, Read by What It Stands to Lose
Lakeview's actuarial team will resist a new per-member cost that appears in this year's figures before any savings do; the response is the break-even point, three prevented readmissions, and a twelve-month review. Riverbend's hospital finance office stands to lose about $13,500 a year in readmission margin if the program works; the response is that the amount is small and the program builds a contract relationship worth more. The obstetric practices stand to gain work without payment, since same-day referrals fall inside the global fee; the response is to ask Lakeview to pay those referral visits separately in the same amendment.
Where the Clinical Testimony Goes
Clinical testimony is spent only where it can change a decision. The patient advisor and the DNP student will present to Lakeview's quality committee, which advises the chief medical officer, at its April meeting. They will not testify at the legislature this year, because the legislature is not the decision maker for this route. Testimony at the committee will be short: one patient's account and one nurse's description of the day-five telephone call that ends in an emergency visit. Both will be de-identified and cleared with the patient in writing beforehand. The nurse's account carries a specific weight: a doctoral nurse who has made that call can tell the committee what happens when the program is not funded, in terms no claims report contains. That is the standing the plan spends, and it is spent once, in the room where the decision is shaped, rather than in letters to people who cannot act on them.
The Calendar That Governs
The calendar is Lakeview's contract cycle, not the academic term. Contract amendments for 1 July must be agreed in a term sheet by 1 April, and Lakeview's quality committee sits monthly, on second Tuesdays.
Table 2
Advocacy Timeline Set by the Contract Cycle
| Date | Step |
|---|---|
| 15 February 2027 | Brief delivered to the chief medical officer and finance vice president |
| 9 March 2027 | Presentation to Lakeview's quality committee |
| 1 April 2027 | Term sheet for the contract amendment |
| 1 July 2027 | Pilot begins |
| 1 January 2028 | Six-month review with Lakeview |
Note. Note. Dates follow Lakeview's published contracting and committee schedule.
Policy windows tend to open when a problem is widely recognized, a workable solution is ready and the people who decide are receptive, all at once (Kingdon, 2011). Twelve-month postpartum coverage, adopted under federal guidance (Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, 2021), has made Lakeview responsible for these members for a full year, and its contract renewal is the window when the problem and the solution can meet.
Movement Short of Approval
If Lakeview declines the full amendment, three smaller outcomes would still count as progress: a data-sharing agreement that lets Riverbend see Lakeview's emergency visit claims for its patients, a smaller pilot covering cuffs only, or a commitment to revisit the request at the six-month point of the contract year. Any of these keeps the decision maker engaged, and research on evidence-based policy suggests that sustained relationships between those who hold the evidence and those who decide improve the chance that evidence is used (Brownson et al., 2009).
References
Brownson, R. C., Chriqui, J. F., & Stamatakis, K. A. (2009). Understanding evidence-based public health policy. American Journal of Public Health, 99(9), 1576-1583. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2008.156224
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. (2021). Improving maternal health and extending postpartum coverage in Medicaid and the Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP) (State Health Official Letter No. 21-007). U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. https://www.medicaid.gov/federal-policy-guidance/downloads/sho21007.pdf
Kingdon, J. W. (2011). Agendas, alternatives, and public policies (Updated 2nd ed.). Longman.
Reading the NR 717 Week 7 instructions
Begin with the change you want funded, stated as something a named person could approve. Then set out the routes, or pockets, through which it could be paid: an operating budget, a billing code or contract rate, a grant or a mandate that obliges someone else to pay. For each, say who decides, how long it takes and whether it would survive a lean year, and argue for one rather than listing all four. Name allies by role. Read opponents by what they stand to lose, not by what they say, and name the concession that might move each. Decide where your clinical testimony will be spent, since it should go to the room where the decision is shaped. Build the timeline on the decision maker's calendar, not the academic term. Close with outcomes short of full approval that would still count as progress.
How the NR 717 Week 7 example is put together
The sample states the change and its price, then compares four pockets in a table with decision maker, timescale, durability and verdict. The hospital budget is rejected because the hospital earns about $1,350 per readmission, the grant is kept only for start-up costs and the mandate is deferred to 2029. The contract amendment is defined as a $160 per-member payment two plan executives can approve. Allies include the plan's quality director and a patient advisor. Opponents are read financially: the plan's actuaries, hospital finance losing about $13,500 a year and obstetric practices facing unpaid referrals. Testimony goes to one quality committee meeting. A timeline runs from a February brief to a July start, linked to policy windows, and the plan lists three smaller outcomes worth having.
Reading the NR 717 Week 7 grading rubric
A plan with no pocket loses most: it argues persuasively for a change and never says which fund would carry it, which leaves every decision maker free to agree and do nothing. Next is the wrong route chosen, often a legislative campaign for something an organization could approve within a quarter. Marks are also lost for allies listed as categories, for opponents described by their statements rather than their stakes and for clinical standing spent on audiences that will not decide. Timelines built on the academic term cost points, as does a plan with no fallback short of approval. Plans score well when the chosen pocket matches where the savings fall and when each opponent is paired with a concession.
Common NR 717 Week 7 mistakes, and how to avoid them
Most advocacy plans argue for the change and skip the question of who pays, which is the question this week grades. Tell us the change, the organizations involved and what you know about their budgets and calendars, and we can help you compare the four funding routes, choose one with reasons, read each opponent by what it stands to lose and build a timeline on the decision maker's own cycle. We can also help you plan where your clinical testimony will count most. The strategy and judgments are your own.
Get a NR 717 Week 7 example written to your instructions
Send the Week 7 instructions with the element list your section uses and the change you costed earlier in the term, and a custom example is written to those requirements and returned inside 24 to 48 hours. The first one is free. Which route is worth taking remains your judgment to make.
More NR 717 papers and DNP samples
- NR 717 Week 1: Outcome and Cost Post
- NR 717 Week 2: Population Health Analysis
- NR 717 Week 3: Epidemiologic Profile
- NR 717 Week 4: Sample Paper, in Real Form
- NR 717 Week 5: Health Care Financing Analysis
- NR 717 Week 6: Policy Brief Memo
- NR 717 Week 8: Policy Presentation
- NR 716 Week 7: Evidence Synthesis Paper
- NR 715 Week 7: Framework Application Paper
- NR 714 Week 7: Evaluation Plan
- NR 702A Week 7: Practicum Objectives
NR 717 Week 7 questions, answered
How do I choose between funding routes?
By speed, durability and who has to agree. An operating line can move quickly and disappears in the next lean year. A rate or code change is slow and outlasts everybody involved. A grant funds the pilot that makes the permanent case. Naming the trade you are accepting is what the assignment is assessing, rather than which of the four you finally pick.
What if the decision maker is my own employer?
That is the ordinary case in this course and the plan should say so plainly, including what the organization currently gains from the arrangement you want changed. Where your employer restricts public advocacy on matters touching its operations, those rules govern what you may do. The academic plan can still be written, and acting on it is a separate decision that stays yours.
Does the plan need a public campaign?
Only where public attention moves the person holding the money, which for an internal budget decision it usually does not. Directing effort at an audience that cannot approve anything is the commonest way these plans waste their strongest resource. Choosing the smaller audience that holds the authority generally produces both the better paper and the better campaign.
Where can I find a free NR 717 Week 7 sample paper?
The full advocacy plan for funding postpartum blood pressure monitoring through a managed care contract is shown on this page.
Why does the NR 717 Week 7 sample reject the hospital's own budget?
The hospital earns a small margin on each readmission the program would prevent, so its budget committee has little reason to pay for it.