Economic Policies for Health Promotions, Wellness and Prevention Programs
Economic Policies for Health Promotions, Wellness and Prevention Programs
The Assignment
In a 4- to 6-page paper, address the following: Paper should be 4–6 pages, not including the title and reference pages. Your Assignment must be written in standard edited English. Be sure to support your work with specific citations from this module’s Learning Resources and additional scholarly sources, as appropriate. APA Style
Review the World Health Organization (WHO), National Institutes of Health (NIH), and the Health System Tracker websites in this week’s Learning Resources. Research health care disparities between the United States and another country of your choice. https://www.who.int/en/
Compare the economic policies for health promotion, wellness, and prevention programs in the United States and the country you selected (Germany). Include differences in approaches to wellness and prevention.
Analyze implications of these policies and disparities.
Analyze how you might implement the policies from the country (Germany) you selected in the United States and your own state (Georgia). Evaluate the influence of U.S. market conditions on the provision of health care.
Learning Resources
https://www.commonwealthfund.org/sites/default/fil…
https://www.healthsystemtracker.org/chart-collecti…
GRADING RUBRIC
XCELLENT – above expectations
GOOD – met expectations
FAIR – below expectations
POOR – significantly below expectations or missing
Comparison of economic policies for health promotion, wellness, and prevention programs in the United states and another country
Points:
Points Range: 18 (24%) – 20 (26.67%)
The comparison shows depth and breadth in critical thinking when addressing the key points related to the differences in the programs including, but not limited to, approaches in health promotion, wellness, and prevention.
Feedback:
Points:
Points Range: 16 (21.33%) – 17 (22.67%)
The comparison fully addresses the key points related to the differences in the programs including, but not limited to, approaches in health promotion, wellness, and prevention.
Feedback:
Points:
Points Range: 14 (18.67%) – 15 (20%)
The comparison lacks depth, breadth or clarity in addressing the key points related to the differences in the programs including, but not limited to, approaches in health promotion, wellness, and prevention.
Feedback:
Points:
Points Range: 0 (0%) – 13 (17.33%)
The comparison does not address (zero points) or poorly addresses key points related to the differences in the programs including, but not limited to, approaches in health promotion, wellness, and prevention.
Feedback:
Analysis of the implications of policies and disparities
Points:
Points Range: 18 (24%) – 20 (26.67%)
The analysis shows critical thinking, considers divergent and competing opinions, and displays creative problem solving in its analysis of the implications of policies and disparities for both the U.S. and another country.
Feedback:
Points:
Points Range: 16 (21.33%) – 17 (22.67%)
The analysis fully addresses the implications of policies and disparities for both the U.S. and another country.
Feedback:
Points:
Points Range: 14 (18.67%) – 15 (20%)
The analysis lacks depth or clarity in addressing the implications of policies and disparities for both the U.S. and another country.
Feedback:
Points:
Points Range: 0 (0%) – 13 (17.33%)
The analysis does not address (zero points) or poorly addresses the implications of policies and disparities for both the U.S. and another country.
Feedback:
Analysis of the implementation of foreign policies in the U.S.
Points:
Points Range: 9 (12%) – 10 (13.33%)
The analysis shows critical thinking, considers divergent and competing opinions, and displays creative problem solving in its analysis of the implementation of foreign policies in the U.S.
Feedback:
Points:
Points Range: 8 (10.67%) – 8 (10.67%)
The analysis fully addresses the implementation of foreign policies in the U.S.
Feedback:
Points:
Points Range: 7 (9.33%) – 7 (9.33%)
The analysis lacks depth or clarity in addressing the implementation of foreign policies in the U.S.
Feedback:
Points:
Points Range: 0 (0%) – 6 (8%)
The analysis does not address (zero points) or poorly addresses the implementation of foreign policies in the U.S.
Feedback:
Evaluations of the influence of U.S. market conditions on the provision of healthcare
Points:
Points Range: 9 (12%) – 10 (13.33%)
The evaluation shows critical thinking, considers divergent and competing opinions, and displays creative problem solving in its evaluation of U.S. market conditions on the provision of healthcare.
Feedback:
Points:
Points Range: 8 (10.67%) – 8 (10.67%)
The evaluation fully addresses the influence of U.S. market conditions on the provision of healthcare.
Feedback:
Points:
Points Range: 7 (9.33%) – 7 (9.33%)
The evaluation lacks depth or clarity in addressing the influence of U.S. market conditions on the provision of healthcare.
Feedback:
Points:
Points Range: 0 (0%) – 6 (8%)
The evaluation does not address (zero points) or poorly addresses the influence of U.S. market conditions on the provision of healthcare.
Feedback:
Writing
Points:
Points Range: 14 (18.67%) – 15 (20%)
The paper is well organized, uses scholarly tone, contains original writing and proper paraphrasing, follows APA style, contains very few or no writing and/or spelling errors, and is fully consistent with graduate-level writing style.
Feedback:
Points:
Points Range: 12 (16%) – 13 (17.33%)
The paper is mostly consistent with graduate-level writing style and may have some spelling, APA, and writing errors.
Feedback:
Points:
Points Range: 10 (13.33%) – 11 (14.67%)
The paper is somewhat consistent with graduate-level writing style and may have some spelling, APA, and writing errors.
Feedback:
Points:
Points Range: 0 (0%) – 9 (12%)
The paper is well below graduate-level writing style expectations for organization, scholarly tone, APA style, and writing, or shows heavy reliance on quoting.
Feedback:
Show DescriptionsShow Feedback
Comparison of economic policies for health promotion, wellness, and prevention programs in the United states and another country—
Levels of Achievement:
EXCELLENT – above expectations18(24%) – 20(26.67%)
The comparison shows depth and breadth in critical thinking when addressing the key points related to the differences in the programs including, but not limited to, approaches in health promotion, wellness, and prevention.
GOOD – met expectations16 (21.33%) – 17 (22.67%)
The comparison fully addresses the key points related to the differences in the programs including, but not limited to, approaches in health promotion, wellness, and prevention.
FAIR – below expectations14 (18.67%) – 15 (20%)
The comparison lacks depth, breadth or clarity in addressing the key points related to the differences in the programs including, but not limited to, approaches in health promotion, wellness, and prevention.
POOR – significantly below expectations or missing0 (0%) – 13 (17.33%)
The comparison does not address (zero points) or poorly addresses key points related to the differences in the programs including, but not limited to, approaches in health promotion, wellness, and prevention.
Feedback:
Analysis of the implications of policies and disparities—
Levels of Achievement:
EXCELLENT – above expectations18(24%) – 20(26.67%)
The analysis shows critical thinking, considers divergent and competing opinions, and displays creative problem solving in its analysis of the implications of policies and disparities for both the U.S. and another country.
GOOD – met expectations16 (21.33%) – 17 (22.67%)
The analysis fully addresses the implications of policies and disparities for both the U.S. and another country.
FAIR – below expectations14 (18.67%) – 15 (20%)
The analysis lacks depth or clarity in addressing the implications of policies and disparities for both the U.S. and another country.
POOR – significantly below expectations or missing0 (0%) – 13 (17.33%)
The analysis does not address (zero points) or poorly addresses the implications of policies and disparities for both the U.S. and another country.
Feedback:
Analysis of the implementation of foreign policies in the U.S.—
Levels of Achievement:
EXCELLENT – above expectations9(12%) – 10(13.33%)
The analysis shows critical thinking, considers divergent and competing opinions, and displays creative problem solving in its analysis of the implementation of foreign policies in the U.S.
GOOD – met expectations8 (10.67%) – 8 (10.67%)
The analysis fully addresses the implementation of foreign policies in the U.S.
FAIR – below expectations7 (9.33%) – 7 (9.33%)
The analysis lacks depth or clarity in addressing the implementation of foreign policies in the U.S.
POOR – significantly below expectations or missing0 (0%) – 6 (8%)
The analysis does not address (zero points) or poorly addresses the implementation of foreign policies in the U.S.
Feedback:
Evaluations of the influence of U.S. market conditions on the provision of healthcare—
Levels of Achievement:
EXCELLENT – above expectations9(12%) – 10(13.33%)
The evaluation shows critical thinking, considers divergent and competing opinions, and displays creative problem solving in its evaluation of U.S. market conditions on the provision of healthcare.
GOOD – met expectations8 (10.67%) – 8 (10.67%)
The evaluation fully addresses the influence of U.S. market conditions on the provision of healthcare.
FAIR – below expectations7 (9.33%) – 7 (9.33%)
The evaluation lacks depth or clarity in addressing the influence of U.S. market conditions on the provision of healthcare.
POOR – significantly below expectations or missing0 (0%) – 6 (8%)
The evaluation does not address (zero points) or poorly addresses the influence of U.S. market conditions on the provision of healthcare.
Feedback:
Writing—
Levels of Achievement:
EXCELLENT – above expectations14(18.67%) – 15(20%)
The paper is well organized, uses scholarly tone, contains original writing and proper paraphrasing, follows APA style, contains very few or no writing and/or spelling errors, and is fully consistent with graduate-level writing style.
GOOD – met expectations12 (16%) – 13 (17.33%)
The paper is mostly consistent with graduate-level writing style and may have some spelling, APA, and writing errors.
FAIR – below expectations10 (13.33%) – 11 (14.67%)
The paper is somewhat consistent with graduate-level writing style and may have some spelling, APA, and writing errors.
POOR – significantly below expectations or missing0 (0%) – 9 (12%)
The paper is well below graduate-level writing style expectations for organization, scholarly tone, APA style, and writing, or shows heavy reliance on quoting.
Feedback:
