| Course | PU501 Fundamentals of Public Health and Health Systems |
|---|---|
| Unit | Unit 7 |
| Paper type | Health system comparison |
| Length | About 870 words, 6 pages double-spaced |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | Purdue University Global |
| Program | Master of Public Health (MPH) |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for PU501 Unit 7
Follow a Diabetes Dollar and It Almost Never Lands in Public Health: A Health System Comparison Setting Medical Care Paid Through Claims Beside Public Health Paid Through Appropriations and Grants in a Composite State, and Tracing What Each Can Do
[Student Name]
Purdue University Global
PU501: Fundamentals of Public Health and Health Systems
Unit 7 Health System Comparison
[Instructor Name]
[Date]
The state and its figures are composite and bracketed for the writer's own data; national figures and research cited are real.
Scale First
Readers often assume public health is a large part of health spending. It is not. National Health Expenditure data show public health's share rising to [3.18] percent in 2002, then falling to [2.65] percent by 2014, with further decline projected (Himmelstein & Woolhandler, 2016). Nearly everything else is medical care.
Side-by-Side Table
Purpose. Medical care: diagnose and treat individuals. Public health: prevent disease and protect populations. Population served. Medical care: patients who seek care. Public health: everyone in a jurisdiction, whether or not they seek care. Payment. Medical care: claims paid per service by insurers, Medicare and Medicaid. Public health: legislative appropriations and categorical grants with set purposes. Governing authority. Medical care: licensure, payer rules and contracts. Public health: statutes granting powers to health departments. Workforce. Medical care: clinicians in hospitals and clinics. Public health: epidemiologists, nurses, sanitarians and educators in agencies. Accountability. Medical care: to patients and payers, through quality and billing rules. Public health: to elected officials and the public, through budgets and outcomes that are hard to see when prevention works.
One Condition Through Both Systems
A [58]-year-old with type 2 diabetes in the composite state is admitted for a foot infection that ends in an amputation. The hospital bills Medicaid about [$41,000]; the claim is paid because a covered service was delivered. Follow-up visits, insulin and wound care are billed the same way. Every dollar follows a service to an individual. The same state's health department runs a diabetes prevention program funded by a federal categorical grant of [$620,000] a year, covering [14] community sites. It offers a year-long lifestyle program to adults with prediabetes. In the federally funded trial on which the program is modeled, adults who changed diet and activity were far less likely to progress to diabetes than those given placebo, and the benefit exceeded that of metformin (Diabetes Prevention Program Research Group, 2002). Yet the program's budget is fixed by the grant, not by how many people would benefit. The amputation is paid in full because it happened; the prevention that might have avoided it is paid only as far as a grant allows.
How Payment Decides What Each System Can Do
Claims expand with need: more admissions bring more payment. Appropriations do not: a health department serving more people with prediabetes receives the same grant. Medical care can therefore grow where illness grows, while public health must ration prevention within a fixed amount. Measures that reach whole populations, such as changes to food environments, have the largest potential reach, yet they rarely generate a claim anyone can bill (Frieden, 2010).
Why Medical Care Rarely Funds Prevention Itself
A hospital that prevents the amputation loses the [$41,000] claim. A Medicaid managed care plan that funds prevention may see the savings only if the member stays enrolled for years, and many do not. An insurer bears the cost of prevention today and may lose the member before the benefit arrives. Each party acts sensibly on its own terms, and the result is that prevention depends on the one system whose budget does not grow with need.
What the Health Department Cannot See
The health department's program knows how many people enrolled at its [14] sites, but it cannot see which of them later avoided a hospital stay, because those records sit with insurers and hospitals. Without that link, the department cannot show legislators what its grant bought. The medical system, which holds the outcome data, has little reason to share it. If the Medicaid agency agreed to share matched claims, the department could report avoided admissions among its participants, the evidence most likely to move an appropriation.
Where the Systems Meet
Some bridges exist. Medicare has covered a version of the diabetes prevention program as a billable service since [2018], and some state Medicaid programs cover it too. Hospitals' community benefit spending can fund prevention. These bridges matter because they let prevention earn money the way treatment does, though uptake has been modest.
What the Comparison Shows
The two systems are not competitors; they are built on different logics. Medical care is paid for what it does to individuals, public health for what it is allowed to do for populations. That difference explains why prevention remains small even when it works.
Implications for a State Health Official
Seek Medicaid coverage for prevention programs so they can grow with need; braid grant funds with hospital community benefit spending; and report prevention results in terms legislators can compare with treatment costs, such as amputations avoided.
Limits
Figures are composite, and spending shares vary by how public health is defined in national accounts.
Conclusion
Following one condition shows that payment, not intent, decides where health dollars go.
References
Diabetes Prevention Program Research Group. (2002). Reduction in the incidence of type 2 diabetes with lifestyle intervention or metformin. New England Journal of Medicine, 346(6), 393-403. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa012512
Frieden, T. R. (2010). A framework for public health action: The health impact pyramid. American Journal of Public Health, 100(4), 590-595. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2009.185652
Himmelstein, D. U., & Woolhandler, S. (2016). Public health's falling share of US health spending. American Journal of Public Health, 106(1), 56-57. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2015.302908
What the PU501 Unit 7 assignment asks for
Unit 7 in PU 501 usually asks students to compare the medical care system and the public health system. Instructions commonly require a comparison across several dimensions, attention to financing, an example that shows the differences in practice and implications for policy or practice. Fix the dimensions in a table before arguing, so both systems are judged on the same terms. Correct the common misunderstanding about scale with national spending data. Pull one condition through both systems to make abstract payment categories concrete. Explain why each system behaves as it does, not just how they differ. Note where the systems meet, such as prevention services that can be billed. Cite national data and research in APA style, and close with implications for a public health official.
How this PU501 Unit 7 example is built
The sample opens with national spending data on public health's small share, with a margin note on why every section is a pairing. A table compares six dimensions, flagged by a margin note. One condition is traced through both systems: a Medicaid-paid amputation and a grant-funded prevention program, with a highlighted line contrasting how each is paid. The diabetes prevention trial evidence is summarized. A section on how payment decides what each system can do carries a third margin note. Sections on why medical care rarely funds prevention, what the health department cannot see, where the systems meet, implications and limits close the comparison. Each section ends by naming what the difference means for a state health official.
PU501 Unit 7 rubric: what earns full points
PU 501 comparison rubrics generally award points for clear dimensions, accurate description of each system, correct financing analysis, a concrete example, explanation of causes, attention to connections between systems, implications, sources and presentation. Dimension points go to a consistent set applied to both systems. Description points reward accuracy. Financing points depend on distinguishing claims from appropriations and grants. Example points require one condition followed through both systems. Cause points go to explaining why the systems differ. Connection points reward noting bridges such as billable prevention. Comparisons that show how payment rules shape what each system can do tend to earn the strongest grades. Graders likewise reward a brief limits note on how national spending accounts define public health.
Common PU501 Unit 7 mistakes, and how to avoid them
Comparison papers often lose points by writing two separate descriptions with no direct pairing, or by repeating that public health is underfunded without explaining why. Fix your dimensions in a table first. Use national spending data to set the scale. Follow one condition through both systems, showing who pays for what and how. Explain the mechanisms: claims grow with service, while appropriations and grants are fixed. Note where the systems connect, such as prevention programs that insurers cover. Close with practical steps an official could take to let prevention grow with need, and keep figures sourced and dated. Keep the table to one page and let the prose explain the most important rows.
Get a PU501 Unit 7 example written to your instructions
Your PU501 section may frame Unit 7 as a US comparison or as a cross-national one. Either way, once the assignment instructions and rubric arrive, a free first custom sample follows in 24-48 hours, tracing the money through whichever systems and condition you choose and sourced to published expenditure data. 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 PU501 papers and MPH samples
- PU501 Unit 1: Population Health Question Post
- PU501 Unit 2: Tattoo Safety Core Functions Analysis
- PU501 Unit 3: Rural County Health Snapshot
- PU501 Unit 4: County Health Department Profile
- PU501 Unit 5: Essential Services County Audit
- PU501 Unit 6: Smoke-Free Housing Seminar Reflection
- PU501 Unit 8: Prevention Level Analysis
- PU501 Unit 9: Policy Scan
- PU501 Unit 10: Public Health Issue Paper
PU501 Unit 7 questions, answered
Where can I find a free PU501 Unit 7 sample paper?
The complete PU501 Unit 7 health system comparison is here, following a diabetes dollar through medical care and public health in a composite state.
What share of health spending goes to public health?
About 2.7 percent in 2014, down from about 3.2 percent in 2002, according to national accounts.
Why does medical care grow with need while public health does not?
Claims are paid per service, while public health budgets are set by appropriations and grants.
Where do the two systems meet?
In prevention services that insurers cover, such as Medicare's diabetes prevention benefit.
How long is the PU501 Unit 7 comparison?
About five pages around a side-by-side table.