| Course | HS820 Global and National Health and Health Systems |
|---|---|
| Unit | Unit 10 |
| Paper type | System recommendation report |
| Length | About 1,130 words, 7 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 HS820 Unit 10
Every Household Has a Name on a List: A Unit 10 Recommendation for Rural Medicaid to Borrow Household Empanelment From Ethiopia and Pakistan
[Student Name]
Purdue University Global
HS820: Global and National Health and Health Systems
Unit 10 System Recommendation Report
[Instructor Name]
[Date]
The state and counties are composite; the international programs, U.S. evidence and sources cited are real. Costs are placeholders in brackets.
Executive Summary
In three rural counties of the state, Medicaid enrollees use emergency departments for conditions that primary care could manage, at rates well above the state average. The report recommends that the state fund teams of community health workers, each assigned about [250] enrolled households, through a Medicaid state plan amendment. The model borrows household empanelment from two large international programs but keeps clinical care with licensed clinicians. It requires payment authority, certification, supervision, a household registry and fair pay. Estimated first-year cost is [$X million], with an evaluation comparing the three counties with matched counties that do not adopt the model.
The Problem
The three counties have few primary care clinicians per person, long travel distances and high rates of diabetes, hypertension and chronic lung disease. Medicaid enrollees there visit emergency departments for asthma, uncontrolled diabetes and similar conditions at about [1.8] times the state rate. Many enrollees have no regular source of care, and clinics report that patients miss follow-up appointments because of transport, cost of time off work and confusion about coverage. The problem is not only a shortage of clinicians but a gap between households and the care that exists.
International Evidence: What the Programs Share
Ethiopia's Health Extension Program, launched in 2003, places two salaried health extension workers, usually women with about a year of training, in each kebele, the smallest administrative unit, typically serving about 5,000 people. They register households, visit them, deliver preventive services and refer patients to health centers, under supervision from health center staff (Wang et al., 2016). Pakistan's Lady Health Worker Program, begun in 1994, assigns each worker to a registered set of households, usually around 1,000 people, in her own community, for family planning, maternal and child health and referral.
The programs operate in settings with too few clinicians, and both workers provide some basic clinical services. But they share four design features that do not depend on that setting: a defined population assigned to each worker, household registration, routine home visits and supervision by facility staff. The World Health Organization's guideline on community health worker programs recommends these features, along with formal pay, training and integration with the health system (World Health Organization [WHO], 2018).
Household empanelment travels to a rural American state; replacing clinicians with community workers does not, and the report borrows only the first.
Domestic Evidence
American programs that pay community workers to support Medicaid patients supply the domestic evidence base. Randomized trials of a standardized model in which workers help low-income patients address social needs and find their way through care have found fewer hospital days and improved patient-reported outcomes, and an analysis of that model estimated a return of about two dollars for every dollar invested by a Medicaid payer (Kangovi et al., 2020). Medicare introduced payment codes for community health integration services in 2024, and a growing number of state Medicaid programs pay for community health worker services through state plan amendments or managed care contracts.
Recommendation
The state should fund community health worker teams in the three counties through a Medicaid state plan amendment. Each worker would be assigned about [250] enrolled households, register them, visit each at least quarterly, help with appointments, transport and coverage, and refer to the household's primary care clinic. Workers would be employed by local clinics or federally qualified health centers and supervised by a nurse or social worker at a ratio of about one supervisor to [eight] workers.
Requirements
1. Payment authority: a state plan amendment defining community health worker services as preventive services recommended by a licensed practitioner, with a per-member or per-visit payment; responsible agency, the state Medicaid office; timeline, [six to nine] months.
2. Certification: a state certification standard with core training of about [120] hours; responsible agency, the state health department with community colleges.
3. Supervision: a required supervisor ratio and clinical oversight agreement at each employing clinic.
4. Household registry: a shared registry linked to Medicaid enrollment and clinic records, so that each enrolled household is assigned to one worker; responsible agency, the Medicaid office with the state health information exchange.
5. Pay: a salaried position with benefits at a rate of about [$X] per year, consistent with the WHO recommendation for formal pay.
Risks and Mitigations
Recruitment may be difficult in sparsely populated counties; the mitigation is to hire from the community and offer paid training. Clinics may lack capacity to absorb referrals; the mitigation is to pair the program with telehealth and same-day appointment slots. Workers may be pulled into tasks outside their role; the mitigation is a written scope of practice and supervision. Enrollees may decline visits; the mitigation is to start with high-need households and use trusted local hires.
A Week in One Worker's Panel
To show how empanelment changes daily practice, consider one worker based at a clinic in the largest of the three counties. Her registry lists 250 enrolled households. On Monday she reviews a list of households whose members visited the emergency department in the past week, generated from Medicaid claims and the hospital's admission feed. On Tuesday and Wednesday she visits six of those households, checks that an asthma inhaler was refilled, arranges a ride for a diabetes follow-up and helps one family renew coverage that was about to lapse. On Thursday she makes routine quarterly visits. On Friday she meets her supervisor, a registered nurse, to review cases that need a clinician's attention. Nothing in that week replaces a clinical visit; it connects households to visits they would otherwise miss.
Costs
First-year costs include salaries for about [30] workers and [four] supervisors, training, the registry and evaluation, estimated at [$X million]. Savings would come mainly from reduced emergency department visits and hospital days, but the report does not count on savings to justify the program.
Evaluation Plan
The evaluation will compare the three counties with matched rural counties on emergency department visits for ambulatory care sensitive conditions per 1,000 enrollees, the share of enrollees seen by their assigned clinic at least once in twelve months, and hospital days. Measures and the comparison group will be fixed before implementation, with results reported at 12 and 24 months.
Limits
The international programs operate in very different health systems, and the report borrows only one mechanism. Cost estimates are placeholders until local salary and registry costs are confirmed.
References
Kangovi, S., Mitra, N., Grande, D., Long, J. A., & Asch, D. A. (2020). Evidence-based community health worker program addresses unmet social needs and generates positive return on investment. Health Affairs, 39(2), 207-213. https://doi.org/10.1377/hlthaff.2019.00981
Wang, H., Tesfaye, R., Ramana, G. N. V., & Chekagn, C. T. (2016). Ethiopia health extension program: An institutionalized community approach for universal health coverage. World Bank. https://doi.org/10.1596/978-1-4648-0815-9
World Health Organization. (2018). WHO guideline on health policy and system support to optimize community health worker programmes. World Health Organization.
Reading the HS 820 Unit 10 instructions
The final unit commonly asks for a recommendation report applying lessons from other countries to a specific system. Expect about fourteen pages with an executive summary. Define a local problem with data. Present international programs for their mechanisms rather than their outcomes alone, and separate what was built for their settings from what could serve yours. Give domestic evidence equal weight. State one clear recommendation, then a requirements section naming each condition with the responsible agency, legal authority, cost and timeline. Pair each risk with a mitigation. Put unknown figures in brackets rather than inventing them. Close with an evaluation plan that names measures and a comparison group before implementation begins.
How this HS820 Unit 10 example is built
Two pages in, a reader of this report already knows the counties' problem, the single proposal, what it needs and a cost held in brackets. The problem section describes three counties with few clinicians and emergency visits for asthma and diabetes. International evidence covers Ethiopia's two workers per kebele, citing Wang and colleagues, Pakistan's registered households and the WHO's 2018 guideline. The highlighted sentence says empanelment travels while replacing clinicians does not. Domestic evidence cites Kangovi and colleagues' return on investment and the 2024 Medicare codes. The recommendation, five numbered requirements, a week in one worker's panel, risks with mitigations, bracketed costs, an evaluation against matched counties and limits complete the report. The requirements list names an agency, a legal tool and a timeline for each item.
HS820 Unit 10 rubric: what earns full points
Recommendation reports in this course are usually marked on problem definition, use of international and domestic evidence, feasibility of the recommendation, implementation detail, evaluation and writing. Implementation detail and feasibility often carry the most points: graders want requirements tied to agencies, authority, costs and timelines. Evidence earns credit when the report explains which features transfer and why. Reports that recommend adopting a foreign program wholesale, or that skip legal and payment authority, lose marks. Bracketed placeholders are accepted where figures are unknown, while invented precision is not. An evaluation plan with named measures is often rewarded. A crisp executive summary and correct APA references take the final points.
HS820 Unit 10 help from the desk
Recommendation reports often praise a foreign program and propose copying it, without asking what the local system already has. Others skip the requirements section, which is where feasibility is shown. Costs are frequently invented to look precise. Evaluation plans are often added at the end without measures or a comparison group. If your system and problem are different, perhaps maternal care deserts or mental health access, send the prompt and the setting, and we can draft a report that borrows one mechanism and spells out what it requires. Another frequent gap is the evaluation's comparison group, which needs naming before launch so results cannot be explained away later. Domestic trials deserve the same weight as foreign programs, since they show what works in American payment systems.
Get an HS820 Unit 10 example written to your instructions
What change does your Unit 10 report propose, and for which system? Forward the prompt and rubric, with local data if you have it. The report will define the local problem first, examine borrowed programs for mechanism, separate what travels from what does not, and list requirements by owner, cost and timeline. Expect it in 24-48h; a first custom sample is free. 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 HS820 papers and DHSc samples
- HS820 Unit 1: Spain Discussion Post
- HS820 Unit 2: Estonia Health System Profile
- HS820 Unit 3: Dutch and Swiss Comparative Matrix
- HS820 Unit 4: France Health Financing Analysis
- HS820 Unit 5: Kerala and Uttar Pradesh Burden Review
- HS820 Unit 6: MERS Seminar Reflection
- HS820 Unit 7: Mexico Seguro Popular Reform Case Study
- HS820 Unit 8: MediSave Transferability Appraisal
- HS820 Unit 9: Waiting-Time Country Comparison
- HS810 Unit 10: Policy Analysis Paper
HS820 Unit 10 questions, answered
Can a recommendation for a US state draw on low-income countries?
Yes, when the mechanism fits. Ethiopia and Pakistan designed community health programs for defined populations with routine household contact, and those choices can inform a rural state with thin primary care. The report must explain what differs, including workforce, regulation and payment, and borrow only what the local setting can support. Describing the source programs accurately, as answers to their own conditions, makes the borrowing credible.
What belongs in a requirements section?
Every condition the change depends on, each with an owner, legal authority, cost and timeline. For the sample that means Medicaid state plan authority, a certification standard, supervision ratios, a household registry, pay levels and data-sharing agreements. A requirement without an owner tends to become nobody's job, which is why graders check for one.
How much cost detail does the report need?
Enough to show the change is affordable, or to state what it would take. The sample brackets figures for the composite state, separates start-up from recurring costs, and names the funding source for each. If your prompt uses a real jurisdiction, public budget documents and Medicaid spending data can replace the brackets, and any estimate borrowed from another state should say which state and which year.
Where can I find a free HS820 Unit 10 sample paper?
This page holds the complete Unit 10 report, recommending household empanelment for rural Medicaid with requirements, risks and an evaluation plan.
Why borrow only household empanelment from Ethiopia and Pakistan?
Because those programs also substitute for clinicians in settings without enough of them, which a rural US state should not copy; assigning households to a named worker does transfer.