Objective:
The goal of this assignment is to craft a compelling and well-informed testimony for a legislative bill related to healthcare quality or healthcare economics. This testimony should advocate for or against the bill, presenting evidence-based arguments and personal insights to persuade policymakers. Through this exercise, students will develop skills in policy analysis, research, and persuasive writing, as well as deepen their understanding of the complexities of healthcare quality and economics. The testimony should reflect a clear stance, supported by relevant data, case studies, or expert opinions, and be presented in a format appropriate for a public policy setting.
- Choose a Bill:
- Go to https://www.congress.govLinks to an external site.
- Search for a healthcare-related bill that has been introduced in the past five years and that addresses healthcare quality (e.g., patient outcomes, safety, standards) or healthcare economics (e.g., costs, affordability, funding).
- Read through the bill summary, text, and relevant Congressional Research Service (CRS) reports to understand its key provisions, goals, and potential impact.
- Research Background Information:
- Investigate the context of the bill. Consider why the bill was introduced and which problems it aims to address.
- Look for recent statistics, expert opinions, case studies, or current issues that highlight the importance of the bill’s focus area.
- Review statements from lawmakers, healthcare professionals, or advocacy groups to gain different perspectives on the bill.
- Outline Your Testimony:
- Introduction: Introduce yourself and provide a brief background relevant to the issue (e.g., healthcare student, future healthcare provider, or public health advocate).
- Statement of Position: Clearly state your position on the bill (support or oppose) and briefly explain why.
- Main Arguments: Present 2-3 key arguments that support your stance. Each argument should:
- Be supported by specific evidence (e.g., statistics, expert insights, or examples from healthcare).
- Address potential impacts on patients, healthcare providers, the economy, or healthcare systems.
- Counter arguments: Briefly acknowledge potential counterarguments and explain why your position remains valid despite these.
- Conclusion: Summarize your position and call for a specific action (e.g., passage of the bill, amendment, or reconsideration).
- Writing Tips:
- Be clear, concise, and professional. Write as if addressing a Congressional committee.
- Use evidence to support your statements, avoiding vague or generalized claims.
- Avoid overly technical language. Your testimony should be accessible to a general audience.
- Aim for a respectful, solution-oriented tone, regardless of your position.
- Formatting:
- Use this Written Testimony Sample document Download Written Testimony Sample documentas a reference.
- Use headings to organize sections if needed.
- Submission Requirements:
- Submit your testimony as a PDF or Word document file here and also to the Week 11 Discussion Forum “Written Testimony.” Make sure your classmates are able to open your file.
- Include a cover page with your name, the course title, and the date.
- Attach a link to the bill’s page on Congress.gov.
By completing this assignment, you’ll develop your ability to analyze legislative policy, present evidence-based arguments, and communicate effectively on issues of healthcare quality or economics.
Parameters:
Write a testimony to present a well-supported stance on a recent healthcare-related bill, focusing on aspects of healthcare quality or healthcare economics. The testimony should convey your position clearly and persuasively to a policymaking audience.
Refer to this rubric below on how the assignment will be graded.
Module Learning Outcomes related to this assignment
- Recall key concepts related to health disparities and social determinants of health.
- Explain economic implications of health disparities on productivity, access, outcomes, and community well-being.
- Assess the effectiveness of policies addressing health disparities.
Rubric
Health Policy Testimony Rubric
| Criteria | Ratings | Pts | |
|---|---|---|---|
| This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeSelection of Bill | 10 ptsExcellent8-10 points: Thoughtfully selected a relevant bill (within 5 years) addressing significant healthcare quality/economic issue; cited from Congress.gov; shows deep understanding7 ptsGood6-7 points: Selected an appropriate healthcare-related bill and cited from Congress.gov. Demonstrates adequate understanding5 ptsSatisfactory4-5 points: Selected a bill loosely related to healthcare quality/ economics, limited citation, or basic understanding of the topic.3 ptsNeeds Improvement0-3 points: Selected an inappropriate or unrelated bill; lacks understanding of the topic; Does not use www.Congress.gov | 10 pts | |
| This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomePosition Statement | 10 ptsExcellent8-10 points: Clearly and persuasively states a well-defined position with a strong rationale; demonstrates thorough understanding of issue complexity7 ptsGood6-7 points: States a clear position with adequate rationale, showing a good understanding of the issue.5 ptsSatisfactory4-5 points: Position is vague or lacks sufficient explanation; understanding of the issue is basic or incomplete.3 ptsNeeds Improvement0-3 points: No clear position or rationale; lacks understanding of the issue | 10 pts | |
| This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeArgument Development | 20 ptsExcellent18-20 points: Provides 2-3 compelling, evidence-based arguments that are well-researched and directly support the position.17 ptsGood15-17 points: Provides 2-3 relevant arguments with some supporting evidence that mostly aligns with the position.14 ptsSatisfactory10-14 points: Provides arguments but they may lack relevance. Evidence, or alignment with the position.9 ptsNeeds Improvement0-9 points: Lacks coherent arguments or provides arguments with little to no support; does not clearly support the position. | 20 pts | |
| This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeUse of Evidence | 15 ptsExcellent13-15 points: Skillfully incorporates relevant data, expert opinions, and/or case studies to strengthen arguments. Sources are credible and well-chosen.12 ptsGood10-12 points: Incorporates relevant evidence with some credible sources; evidence mostly supports arguments effectively.9 ptsSatisfactory7-9 points: Limited or general use of evidence; sources may lack credibility or relevance.6 ptsNeeds Improvement0-6 points: Little or no evidence provided; sources, if used, are not credible or relevant. | 15 pts | |
| This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeAcknowledgement of Counter arguments | 10 ptsExcellent8-10 points: Effectively addresses counterarguments with a respectful, logical response that reinforces the position.7 ptsGood6-7 points: Briefly addresses counterarguments and provides a satisfactory response.5 ptsSatisfactory4-5 points: Acknowledges counterarguments but lacks a clear or effective response.3 ptsNeeds Improvement0-3 points: Does not acknowledge counterarguments or fails to provide a logical response. | 10 pts | |
| This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeConclusion and Call for Action | 10 ptsExcellent8-10 points: Provides a concise, impactful conclusion that reinforces the position and includes a specific, persuasive call to action.7 ptsGood6-7 points: Conclusion restates position and includes a call to action, though it may lack impact.5 ptsSatisfactory4-5 points: Conclusion is weak or general; call to action is vague or missing.3 ptsNeeds Improvement0-3 points: No clear conclusion or call to action. | 10 pts | |
| This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeClarity and Tone | 10 ptsExcellent8-10 points: Writing is clear, concise, professional, and respectful. Tailored to a policymaker audience and accessible to a general reader.7 ptsGood6-7 points: Writing is clear and professional but may lack a fully tailored tone; mostly accessible to general readers.5 ptsSatisfactory4-5 points: Writing is somewhat unclear or lacks professional tone; may use overly technical or vague language.3 ptsNeeds Improvement0-3 points: Writing is unclear, unprofessional, or inappropriate for audience. | 10 pts | |
| This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeMechanics of Writing | 10 ptsExcellent8-10 points: Meets all formatting requirements (2-3 pages, double-spaced, 12-pt Times New Roman, 1-inch margins); logical flow and well-organized sections.7 ptsGood6-7 points: Mostly meets formatting and organizational requirements, with minor deviations.5 ptsSatisfactory4-5 points: Partially meets formatting and organization requirements; may lack logical flow or structure.3 ptsNeeds Improvement0-3 points: Does not meet formatting and organizational requirements; lacks clear structure. | 10 pts | |
| This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeCitation of Bill and References | 5 ptsExcellent5 points: Properly cites and provides the bill from Congress.gov and accurately cites all sources used in the testimony.4 ptsGood4 points: Cites and provides the bill from Congress.gov and provides citations for most sources with minor errors.3 ptsSatisfactory2-3 points: Limited or incorrect citation of the bill and sources; errors in citation format.1 ptsNeeds Improvement0-1 point: Fails to cite and/or provide the bill from Congress.gov and/or sources; no citations or major errors in format. | 5 pts | |
| Total Points: 100 | |||