HS810 Unit 5 Policy Alternatives Memo Example

Course	HS810 Advanced Health Policy
Unit	Unit 5
Paper type	Policy alternatives memo
Length	About 770 words, 5 pages double-spaced
Format	APA 7 student paper
School	Purdue University Global
Program	Doctor of Health Science (DHSc)
Updated	October 2026

Free sample paper for HS810 Unit 5

Four Ways to Pay for Readiness, Plus Doing Nothing: A Unit 5 Policy Alternatives Memo on Rural Ambulance Financing

[Student Name]

Purdue University Global

HS810: Advanced Health Policy

Unit 5 Policy Alternatives Memo

[Instructor Name]

[Date]

The composite state, its staffer and every local figure are composite; the federal programs and sources cited are real.

What this part is doingGiving every option the same four headings and similar length prevents the memo from judging options by the attention they get.

Memorandum

To: Health Policy Staff, Senate Committee on Health and Human Services

From: Policy Analyst

Re: Options for financing rural ambulance readiness

The Problem, Restated

Payment arrives only when a patient is carried to a hospital, yet a rural service spends most of its money simply being ready, so thinly used services run deficits, shut down, and leave longer waits behind them. Each option below is described by how it changes that mechanism.

Option A: State Readiness Grants

Mechanism: the state pays each licensed rural service an annual grant based on the population and area it covers, independent of transports, to fund staffed readiness. Precedent: several states fund EMS through dedicated state grants or fees, and federal reviews have long recommended funding readiness separately from transports (Institute of Medicine, 2007). Evidence: grants address the readiness gap directly, but there is little published evaluation of grant programs' effect on response times. Strongest objection: grants become a permanent line in the state budget, vulnerable in lean years, and may sustain inefficient services that should merge.

Option B: Medicaid Payment for Treatment Without Transport and Higher Rates

Mechanism: the state Medicaid program pays ambulance services when they treat a patient at the scene or connect them to other care without transport, and raises base rates for rural transports. Precedent: Medicare tested payment for treatment in place and transport to alternative destinations through its Emergency Triage, Treat, and Transport model from 2021 until it ended early in 2023; several state Medicaid programs pay for treatment in place. Evidence: paying for treatment in place recognizes work that now earns nothing, but it raises revenue only for calls involving Medicaid patients, a minority in many rural counties. Strongest objection: the federal share helps, but the state share still costs money, and the change does little for readiness hours with no calls.

Option C: Designate EMS an Essential County Service With State Matching Funds

Mechanism: state law requires each county to ensure ambulance coverage, as it does for other essential services, and offers state matching funds for counties that levy a local tax for EMS. Precedent: some states have designated EMS an essential service in statute, shifting responsibility from volunteer associations to local government. Evidence: designation creates a clear responsible government, but whether coverage improves depends on local willingness to tax and on the size of the match. Strongest objection: rural counties with small tax bases would face the highest levies for the same service, making the burden regressive by geography.

Option D: Incentives for Regional Consolidation

Mechanism: the state funds the startup costs of merging small services into regional systems with shared staff, dispatch and billing. Precedent: regional EMS authorities exist in parts of several states. Evidence: consolidation can lower cost per call by spreading readiness across more calls, but it can lengthen response times for communities farthest from the new base. Strongest objection: communities lose a local service and may experience the merger as a closure.

Option E: Status Quo

Mechanism: no change; services continue to rely on transports, volunteers and ad hoc county support. Precedent: current practice. Evidence: the composite state's closures, 23 of 61 rural services in a decade, suggest continued decline. Federal auditors found that low-volume providers face the highest costs per transport (Government Accountability Office [GAO], 2007). Strongest objection: rural response times will keep lengthening, and the cost will appear as worse outcomes rather than as a budget line.

Every option either pays for readiness directly or makes each call worth more, and the choice between them is really a choice about who should pay.

What this part is doingIncluding the status quo with its own evidence and objection reminds the reader that doing nothing is also a decision with consequences.

Comparing the Options

The options differ less in whether they help than in who pays and how stable the money is. Option A spends state general revenue; Option B draws federal matching funds but helps only Medicaid calls; Option C shifts cost to counties; Option D trades local presence for efficiency. Policy analysis texts recommend comparing alternatives against criteria fixed before any option is favored (Bardach & Patashnik, 2020), and the next unit's cost and equity appraisal will do that.

What this part is doingRestating the problem's mechanism at the top lets every option be read against the same definition.

What This Memo Does Not Do

The memo does not recommend an option. A recommendation would follow from criteria the committee chooses, such as cost to the state, effect on response times and fairness across counties.

References

Bardach, E., & Patashnik, E. M. (2020). A practical guide for policy analysis: The eightfold path to more effective problem solving (6th ed.). CQ Press.

Government Accountability Office. (2007). Ambulance providers: Costs and expected Medicare margins vary greatly (GAO-07-383). U.S. Government Accountability Office.

Institute of Medicine. (2007). Emergency medical services: At the crossroads. The National Academies Press.

What the HS810 Unit 5 assignment asks for

The fifth unit usually asks for a memo describing several policy alternatives for the problem you defined, often for a legislative or agency audience. Expect a restatement of the problem, a handful of options with the status quo among them, each described in turn. Four pages under a memo header is typical. Describe every option at the same depth and on the same template, because an option given more space has already been favored. Tie each option's mechanism back to the cause in your problem definition. Cite precedents from other states or federal programs, and be honest about the strength of evidence. State each option's strongest objection fairly. Many instructors ask that the memo not recommend; save that for the analysis that follows.

How the HS 810 Unit 5 example is put together

A memo header and a restatement of the problem open the document. Five options follow on a fixed template: readiness grants citing a national review, Medicaid treatment-in-place payment with Medicare's 2021 to 2023 model as precedent, county essential-service designation, consolidation incentives, and the status quo with the state's closures and a federal audit. The highlighted sentence says the real choice is who pays. A comparison paragraph contrasts funding sources and cites policy analysis guidance on fixing criteria first. A note explains why the memo does not recommend. Each option's objection is stated as its opponents would state it. No option receives more space than any other.

Where the points sit in the HS810 Unit 5 rubric

Policy alternatives memos are generally graded on fairness and parallelism, accuracy of mechanisms, quality of precedents and evidence, honest objections and professional format. Parallelism and fairness often weigh most: graders check that each option receives the same headings and similar depth. Mechanisms earn credit when they connect to the problem definition. Precedents should be real and accurately described. Objections must be the strongest available, not straw arguments. Including the status quo with its own evidence is expected. Memo format and APA citations complete the grade. Memos that describe a favored option in detail and others in a line, or omit the status quo, tend to lose points. Describing a real precedent accurately, including when it ended, is a mark of care that graders tend to reward.

HS810 Unit 5 help: mistakes that cost points

Alternatives memos most often fail through uneven treatment, one option described at length and others dismissed. Another is options that do not connect to the problem's mechanism. Some students invent precedents or overstate evidence. Objections are often weak, which makes the analysis less credible. The status quo is frequently left out. Recommendations slip in where the prompt asks for neutrality. If your problem is different, perhaps physician workforce gaps or high insulin costs, bring your problem definition and we will lay out options on the same template so none is favored in advance. Remember that the status quo needs evidence too.

Get an HS810 Unit 5 example written to your instructions

Whether your memo builds on an earlier definition or starts fresh, share the problem, the rubric and how many options your section wants. Each option returns on the same template, mechanism, precedent, evidence, objection, and the status quo is written as a real choice. A first custom sample costs nothing and arrives in 24-48h. The paper above is an original model document written by our desk, not a submitted student paper and not an official Purdue University Global document.

More HS810 papers and DHSc samples

HS810 Unit 5 questions, answered

Should the memo recommend an option?

Not in this form. An alternatives memo describes options so a decision maker can weigh them, and the course usually saves appraisal and recommendation for later units. The sample previews its criteria so the reader knows what will matter, but it applies none of them. If your prompt does ask for a preferred option, it belongs in a clearly separated final section.

How many alternatives are enough?

Enough that each changes something different. The sample settles on four plus the status quo, a count common at this level, because each alters a separate incentive: payment, inventory, information and contract length. Options that differ only in degree, such as two stockpile sizes, are better treated as variants inside one option than as separate choices.

Where can I find a free HS810 Unit 5 sample paper?

This page holds the full Unit 5 memo, five rural ambulance financing options on one template with their strongest objections.

Should a policy alternatives memo recommend an option?

Often not at this stage. Describing options fairly first, then recommending in a later analysis against fixed criteria, keeps the recommendation credible.

Was Medicare's ET3 model a real precedent?

Yes. Medicare tested payment for treatment in place and transport to alternative destinations from 2021 until ending the model early in 2023.