| Course | HS830 Advanced Health Issues and Trends |
|---|---|
| Unit | Unit 10 |
| Paper type | Emerging issue analysis |
| Length | About 1,110 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 HS830 Unit 10
A Quarter Fewer Deaths: A Unit 10 Emerging Issue Analysis of Whether the 2024 Overdose Decline Will Last, Written for a State Medicaid Agency
[Student Name]
Purdue University Global
HS830: Advanced Health Issues and Trends
Unit 10 Emerging Issue Analysis
[Instructor Name]
[Date]
The state Medicaid agency and its programs are composite; national figures and studies cited are real, and provisional counts are dated.
Part One: The Evidence of a Decline
Annual counts. Final national data show 107,941 overdose deaths in 2022, a rate of 32.6 per 100,000 after more than two decades of near-continuous increase (Spencer et al., 2023). CDC's provisional counts, which estimate deaths in rolling twelve-month periods, peaked above 110,000 in periods ending in 2023 and then fell steadily through 2024, reaching about 80,000 for the twelve months ending in December 2024, a decline of roughly 27 percent (Ahmad et al., 2025).
How provisional counts work. Provisional figures are built from death certificates as they arrive, and many overdose deaths are certified only after toxicology and investigation, which can take months. CDC therefore publishes both reported and predicted counts, adjusting for deaths still pending investigation. Recent months tend to be revised upward as certificates close. The size of the 2024 decline makes it unlikely that revisions will erase it, but the most recent months should be treated as the least certain points in the series.
How drug involvement is coded. Death certificates list the drugs involved, and a death can involve several. Most of the national change came from fewer deaths in which fentanyl and related synthetic opioids were listed. Because certificates list every drug found, a single death can appear in the fentanyl, stimulant and alcohol counts at once, so the drug-specific lines add up to more than the total. Deaths involving stimulants also fell, though less steeply.
State lines. The decline was not uniform, and the agency's own state matters more to its decision than the national average. Most states saw large decreases, but several western states saw smaller declines or none, and a few saw increases in some months. States where fentanyl arrived later, mostly in the West, were at an earlier point in their epidemic curve when the national decline began.
A decline that appears everywhere at once points toward a national cause; one that skips the places fentanyl reached last points toward the drug supply itself.
Part Two: Weighing the Explanations
Four explanations circulate, and each is judged by whether it fits the timing and the geography, not by whether it is plausible.
Naloxone. The FDA approved over-the-counter naloxone nasal spray in March 2023, and distribution through community programs expanded. Naloxone reverses opioid overdoses and plausibly prevents deaths. But community distribution had been expanding for years, and over-the-counter sales began only months before deaths started falling. Naloxone fits the direction but probably not the full size or the sharpness of the turn.
Treatment access. The federal requirement for a special waiver to prescribe buprenorphine ended in early 2023, and telehealth prescribing flexibilities continued. Treatment with buprenorphine or methadone reduces overdose death substantially for people who stay in care. Yet the number of patients receiving buprenorphine did not rise sharply after the waiver ended, which makes it hard to credit treatment expansion with a national decline of a quarter in a single year.
Changes in the drug supply. Federal drug seizure testing found that the share of counterfeit pills containing a potentially deadly dose of fentanyl fell from about seven in ten in 2023 to about five in ten in 2024 (Drug Enforcement Administration [DEA], 2025). Reports from drug checking programs described weaker and more variable fentanyl in some markets, and enforcement actions against precursor suppliers intensified. A supply change fits the speed of the decline and its national reach, and it could also explain why places with different policies saw similar falls.
A smaller at-risk population. After a decade in which more than half a million people died of overdoses, the pool of people at highest risk is smaller than it was. This is a grim explanation, and it is hard to measure, but it predicts a slow, sustained decline rather than a sharp turn in one year.
The best reading is that a supply change triggered the sharp turn, while naloxone and treatment expanded the protection that kept deaths from rising again. That reading has a direct implication for the agency: a decline driven by supply is a decline the state does not control.
Part Three: The Strongest Counterargument
The strongest case against durability comes from the 2018 dip. Overdose deaths fell from 70,237 in 2017 to 67,367 in 2018, the first annual decline in decades, and many observers attributed it to prescribing limits and wider naloxone access. Deaths rose again to 70,630 in 2019 and then surged as fentanyl spread and the pandemic disrupted services (Spencer et al., 2023). A supply-driven decline can reverse just as quickly when the supply shifts again, for example if a new synthetic opioid or adulterant enters the market or if fentanyl potency recovers.
This counterargument should be given its full weight. The 2024 decline is much larger than 2018's, and protective measures are more widespread now. But size is not proof of durability, and the mechanism most likely to have driven the turn is the one most capable of reversing.
Part Four: Timing and the Recommendation
The agency is considering cutting its naloxone distribution, peer recovery and treatment retention programs by a combined 30 percent next fiscal year. Cutting early and cutting late fail differently. If the agency cuts and the decline continues, it saves money it could have saved anyway a year or two later. If it cuts and the decline reverses, the programs that keep a supply shock from becoming a death toll will have been weakened at the worst moment, and rebuilding staff and distribution networks takes longer than dismantling them.
The analysis recommends holding funding at current levels for two years and setting a clear indicator for reductions. The indicator is the state's own provisional twelve-month overdose death count, reported quarterly. If it stays at least 30 percent below its 2023 peak for eight consecutive quarters, the agency should reduce program funding in stages, beginning with the least effective programs. If it rises for two consecutive quarters, the agency should treat that as a warning and review distribution and treatment capacity.
Limits
The analysis relies on national data and published reports. Provisional counts will be revised. The relative weight of each mechanism is uncertain, and the recommendation is built to be robust to that uncertainty rather than to depend on one explanation.
References
Ahmad, F. B., Cisewski, J. A., Rossen, L. M., & Sutton, P. (2025). Provisional drug overdose death counts. National Center for Health Statistics.
Drug Enforcement Administration. (2025). National drug threat assessment 2025. U.S. Department of Justice.
Spencer, M. R., Garnett, M. F., & Miniño, A. M. (2023). Drug overdose deaths in the United States, 2002-2022 (NCHS Data Brief No. 491). National Center for Health Statistics. https://doi.org/10.15620/cdc:135849
Reading the HS 830 Unit 10 instructions
Unit 10 is the course's culminating analysis, usually ten to fourteen pages, and it typically asks learners to bring together the evidence, explanations, opposing views and implications developed earlier into one argument about an emerging issue. Most prompts follow the course sequence: establish the trend, explain it, test the explanation against the strongest objection and recommend action with attention to timing. Revision of earlier work is expected rather than pasting units together. A named decision maker, often an agency or health system, is the usual audience. Instructors frequently ask for limits and for an indicator that would show whether the recommendation should change. Length expectations vary by section, so the syllabus should be checked before planning the outline.
Inside the HS830 Unit 10 example
Part one presents final 2022 data and provisional counts through December 2024, explains reported versus predicted counts, describes how certificates list several drugs and notes that states where fentanyl arrived later lagged. The highlighted sentence contrasts a uniform decline with one that skips late-fentanyl states. Part two judges four explanations by fit to timing and place and concludes that a supply change likely triggered the turn. Part three presents the 2018 dip and its reversal at full weight. Part four compares cutting early with cutting late and sets eight consecutive quarters at least 30 percent below the 2023 peak as the condition for reductions.
Where the points sit in the HS830 Unit 10 rubric
Capstone analyses at this level are usually assessed on integration of course concepts, quality of evidence, depth of causal analysis, engagement with counterarguments, soundness of the recommendation and scholarly writing. Integration often carries the largest share, because the paper is meant to show the full analytic sequence working together. Evidence points reward accurate handling of provisional and revised data. Causal analysis earns credit when explanations are tested against timing and geography rather than plausibility. Counterargument points depend on presenting a real precedent fairly. Recommendations score well when they are specific, tied to an indicator and robust to uncertainty. APA style and organization complete the grade. A paper that names how its own recommendation could fail usually stands out to graders reviewing a whole section of capstones.
HS830 Unit 10 help: mistakes that cost points
Final papers often fall short when they stitch together earlier units without revising them into one argument. Another frequent problem is treating provisional data as final. Some writers pick one explanation, often the most politically appealing, and ignore evidence on timing. Others mention the 2018 dip in a sentence without engaging it. Recommendations that say "continue to monitor" without an indicator or threshold lose points for actionability. If your capstone tracks a different issue, perhaps maternal mortality or measles resurgence, send your earlier units and the final prompt, and a paper can be drafted that carries your thread through to a recommendation. Leaving the agency's own state out of a paper about state funding is another gap reviewers notice quickly.
Get an HS830 Unit 10 example written to your instructions
A capstone this size matches better when there is more to work from: the Unit 10 prompt, the rubric, and whatever earlier work of yours it should absorb. Expect the movement established with its limits, explanations tested against timing and geography, the strongest counterargument engaged, and a recommendation carrying a date. The first custom sample costs nothing and comes within 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 HS830 papers and DHSc samples
- HS830 Unit 1: Vendor Concentration Discussion Post
- HS830 Unit 2: Pediatric Issue Scan With Four Tests
- HS830 Unit 3: Dementia Trend Evidence Appraisal
- HS830 Unit 4: Adult Obesity Trend Data Analysis
- HS830 Unit 5: Autism Prevalence Seminar Reflection
- HS830 Unit 6: Resistant Infection Counterargument
- HS830 Unit 7: Heat Horizon Scanning Report
- HS830 Unit 8: Oropouche Virus Implications Briefing
- HS830 Unit 9: Anti-Amyloid Treatment Position Paper
- HS820 Unit 10: Rural Medicaid Recommendation Report
- HS810 Unit 10: Policy Analysis Paper
HS830 Unit 10 questions, answered
Can the final paper reuse earlier units?
Usually, and often it is expected, but reuse means revision. The capstone should integrate earlier evidence and counterarguments into one argument, updated where sources have changed. Pasting earlier sections end to end produces the disconnected paper graders mark down. Check whether your section requires new sources in the final unit, and cite the updated versions.
How should a paper handle provisional data?
Name it as provisional, give the release date, and explain how revision works. CDC's provisional overdose counts are adjusted as pending death investigations close, and recent months typically rise. The sample uses predicted counts, which account for that pattern, and says so. A paper ignoring revision risks building on numbers that change.
Why recommend holding funding instead of cutting or expanding?
Because the evidence cannot yet tell a durable decline from a supply-driven lull, and the two errors cost differently: cutting during a lull risks a rebound, while holding costs only the funding. The sample states the level at which cutting would become justified. Naming its own exit makes a recommendation harder to dismiss than one that simply assumes the trend continues.
Where can I find a free HS830 Unit 10 sample paper?
The complete Unit 10 emerging issue analysis is on this page, asking whether the 2024 overdose decline will last and advising a state Medicaid agency to hold funding for two years.
What explanation does the paper favor for the 2024 decline?
A change in the illicit fentanyl supply most likely triggered the sharp turn, while naloxone and treatment access helped keep deaths from rising again.