HLTH 5453 Module 4 Policy Evaluation Paper Example

Reviewed by Cornelius Ravenhill, MBA · American College of Education · Updated

Here is a full HLTH 5453 Module 4 example: a policy evaluation paper judging the 12-month postpartum Medicaid coverage extension against four stated criteria for a composite state Medicaid agency. It answers the fourth module of American College of Education HLTH 5453 (HLTH5453, Health Policy Evaluation and Development) in ACE's MHA. The paper defines the problem with its denominator, Medicaid-financed births, and cites the federal authority, Section 9812 of the American Rescue Plan Act. It scores effectiveness and equity against published evidence and says plainly that outcome effects are not yet proven. It prices the state share through the matching mechanism, names the three systems that must change together and recommends keeping the extension with two conditions, scored against two alternatives, with four dated measures. Sections usually leave the choice of policy to you.

CourseHLTH 5453 Health Policy Evaluation and Development
ModuleModule 4
Paper typePolicy evaluation paper
Length1,440 words, about 5 pages plus title and reference pages
FormatAPA 7 student paper
SchoolAmerican College of Education
ProgramMHA
UpdatedOctober 2026

Free sample paper for HLTH 5453 Module 4

1

Evaluating the 12-Month Postpartum Medicaid Coverage Extension: A Criteria-Based Policy Evaluation for a State Medicaid Agency

Student Name

American College of Education

HLTH5453: Health Policy Evaluation and Development

Module 4 Assignment

Instructor Name

June 9, 2025

What this page is doingThe title sheet names the policy, the decision maker, and the method in one line, so a reader knows the paper evaluates something specific rather than discussing policy in general. American College of Education publishes no deliverable name for this module, so the sheet carries the plain line a student would actually type, Module 4 Assignment, instead of an invented official title. The course code appears in its ACE form with no space, and the course name is spelled out the way it reads in the catalog.
2

The Problem, the Population, and the Policy Under Review

The agency in this evaluation is the Medicaid division of a composite Midwestern state with about 6.2 million residents and roughly 62,000 births a year. The division, its staff, and its internal figures are written for teaching, so no real agency or employee is described here. Medicaid finances about 25,800 of those births, close to the national share of roughly four in ten (Medicaid and CHIP Payment and Access Commission [MACPAC], 2020). Before the state acted, pregnancy-related Medicaid eligibility ended 60 days after birth, and the division's own claims review found that 34 percent of people whose delivery Medicaid paid for had a coverage gap of 30 days or more during the year that followed.

The policy under review is a real federal option rather than a local invention. Section 9812 of the American Rescue Plan Act allowed states to extend postpartum Medicaid and CHIP coverage from 60 days to 12 months through a state plan amendment, and the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (2021) set out the operating rules in State Health Official letter 21-007. The Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2023 removed the sunset date and made the option permanent. Coverage runs continuously through the last day of the month containing the 365th day after pregnancy ends, and it is full-scope coverage rather than a limited benefit package. KFF (2024) reports that most states have taken the option, which matters here because it makes comparison states available.

The problem the policy addresses is the timing of harm. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (2022) reviewed maternal mortality review committee findings from 36 states for 2017-2019 and reported that 53 percent of pregnancy-related deaths occurred between 7 days and one year after pregnancy ended, and that 84 percent of the deaths reviewed were considered preventable. A rule that ends coverage at day 60 therefore withdraws the payer during the period when most of the deaths happen. This evaluation judges the policy against four criteria fixed before any evidence was read: effectiveness against that timing problem, equity in who receives the benefit, cost and financing feasibility, and administrative feasibility.

What this page is doingThis section does the two things graders look for before they read any argument. It fixes the denominator first, 25,800 Medicaid-financed births out of about 62,000, so every later rate has something to sit on, and it cites the legal mechanism by name before judging the policy. Stating the four criteria at the end of the section, and saying they were fixed before the evidence was read, protects the whole paper from the common failure of choosing criteria that happen to favor a conclusion already reached.
3

Effectiveness and Equity Against the Stated Criteria

Effectiveness here means whether the policy reaches the period when harm occurs and keeps a payer present through it. It does so by construction. Continuous eligibility to day 365 covers the whole span the mortality review data identify, and full-scope coverage reaches the conditions that drive late deaths, which those data place in cardiovascular disease, mental health conditions, and substance use rather than obstetric hemorrhage. Bardach and Patashnik (2020) warn against grading an option on its intentions, so the evaluation also asked what the policy cannot do. It cannot create clinicians where none practice, it does not make appointments, and it does not by itself move the postpartum visit rate, which stood at 71 percent in the division's 2023 claims year.

Equity was scored on who gains coverage and who is left where they were. The gain concentrates among people whose income sits between the pregnancy eligibility level and the much lower parent eligibility level, which is exactly where the day 61 cliff used to fall, and in this state that group is disproportionately rural and disproportionately Black. Federal surveillance gives the reason to care, since the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (2022) places the pregnancy-related mortality ratio for Black women at roughly three times the ratio for White women. Two groups gain nothing. People held ineligible on immigration status do not become eligible, and people who move across a state line lose the benefit at the border.

The honest reading of the evidence is that continuity is well documented and outcomes are not yet. MACPAC (2020) establishes how large a share of births Medicaid pays for, and Teitelbaum and Wilensky (2020) describe why eligibility categories built around pregnancy produce churn at the moment the category expires. What no published study can yet show is a mortality change attributable to the 12-month rule, because the option is recent and the outcome is rare enough that one state cannot power the comparison alone. The evaluation therefore scores effectiveness as strong on the mechanism and unproven on the terminal outcome, and it says so rather than borrowing certainty it does not have.

What this page is doingTwo moves lift this section. The equity paragraph names the groups that gain nothing, which is what separates an evaluation from advocacy, and the closing paragraph refuses to claim a mortality effect the published evidence cannot yet support. Splitting the verdict, strong on the mechanism and unproven on the outcome, gives a grader a defensible finding to reward. Writers lose points here by treating a plausible chain of reasoning as if it were a measured result.
4

Financing Mechanism and Administrative Feasibility

The financing mechanism is the state plan amendment itself. Extending coverage this way draws the state's regular federal medical assistance percentage rather than an enhanced match (Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, 2021). The division priced the extension in member months. About 25,800 Medicaid-financed births, each carrying 10 additional covered months, produce roughly 258,000 member months. At the division's projected postpartum cost of $402 per member per month, total computable spending is about $103.7 million a year. At a 63 percent federal match the state share is about $38.4 million, close to 1 percent of the state's own Medicaid spending. Those three figures, the member months, the rate, and the match, are stated openly so a reviewer can recalculate the line rather than trust it.

The evaluation does not book offsetting savings. Continuous coverage plausibly reduces emergency department use and avoidable admission in the year after birth, and finance staff asked for that offset to be netted against the state share. It was left out for two reasons. The published evidence supports continuity, not a defensible avoided cost per member, and a budget request leaning on an unproven offset fails at the first hearing where someone asks for the source. The line carried to the legislature is therefore the gross state share, with any savings treated as upside to be measured later rather than money spent in advance.

Administrative feasibility is where extensions fail quietly. Three systems have to change together. The eligibility system has to carry a postpartum span running to the end of the month containing day 365 and has to stop generating a redetermination notice at day 60, because a notice that arrives is a notice that gets acted on. Managed care contracts have to be amended so plans are paid for the longer span and are held to a continuity measure. Member notices have to be rewritten in plain language and in the languages the state already publishes, since a person who believes coverage ended at day 60 behaves as though it did. The division estimated 0.9 additional staff positions for the first year and none after.

What this page is doingThe arithmetic is shown in the order a reviewer would rebuild it: member months, then the rate per member month, then the match, then the state share. A number that arrives with its inputs can be checked, and a number that arrives alone can only be believed. Declining to book savings is the stronger move in the same paragraph set, because an offset the evidence cannot support is the line a finance committee attacks first. The staffing estimate keeps administrative feasibility from becoming a slogan.
5

Recommendation, Alternatives Considered, and Monitoring

The recommendation this evaluation supports is to keep the 12-month extension in the state plan and to fund it at the gross state share, with two implementation conditions attached. Three options were compared on the same four criteria. Returning to 60 days scores highest on cost and fails effectiveness outright, since it removes the payer during the period when most pregnancy-related deaths occur. A limited-scope package covering family planning and behavioral health alone scores well on cost and poorly on effectiveness, because it excludes the cardiovascular care the mortality review data put at the center of late deaths. Full-scope coverage to day 365 costs the most and is the only option shaped like the problem.

The two conditions are what turn a decision into an operating policy. First, the postpartum span should continue automatically, with no member action required and no redetermination step before day 365, because every step a person must complete is a place where coverage is lost for administrative reasons rather than eligibility ones. Second, the managed care contract amendment should tie part of the plan withhold to continuous enrollment and to the 84-day postpartum visit rate, so plans have a reason to find members who have moved. Neither condition needs new federal authority. Both fit inside the state plan amendment and the next contract cycle.

Four measures would show whether the recommendation was right, each carrying a baseline and a date. The first is continuous enrollment through day 365 among Medicaid-financed births, baseline 66 percent, target 90 percent by the close of the second full year. The second is attendance at a postpartum visit within 84 days of birth, baseline 71 percent, target 82 percent over the same period. The third is behavioral health treatment started within 30 days of a positive postpartum depression screen, which the division does not yet measure and will first report at 12 months. The fourth is severe maternal morbidity per 10,000 delivery hospitalizations, reported stratified by race and by rural residence, because a state average can improve while the disparity that justified the policy holds steady.

What this page is doingA recommendation earns credit when it names what it beat. Three options are scored on the same four criteria used earlier in the paper, so the conclusion follows visibly from the analysis rather than appearing at the end as an opinion. The two implementation conditions turn the decision into something an agency can operate, and the four measures each carry a baseline, a target, and a reporting date. The stratified morbidity measure closes the loop with the equity criterion that opened the evaluation.
6

References

Bardach, E., & Patashnik, E. M. (2020). A practical guide for policy analysis: The eightfold path to more effective problem solving (6th ed.). CQ Press.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2022). Pregnancy-related deaths: Data from maternal mortality review committees in 36 US states, 2017-2019. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. https://www.cdc.gov/reproductivehealth/maternal-mortality/erase-mm/data-mmrc.html

Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. (2021). Improving maternal health and extending postpartum coverage in Medicaid and the Children's Health Insurance Program (SHO# 21-007). U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. https://www.medicaid.gov/federal-policy-guidance/downloads/sho21007.pdf

KFF. (2024). Medicaid postpartum coverage extension tracker. https://www.kff.org/medicaid/issue-brief/medicaid-postpartum-coverage-extension-tracker/

Medicaid and CHIP Payment and Access Commission. (2020). Medicaid's role in financing maternity care (Issue brief). https://www.macpac.gov/publication/medicaids-role-in-financing-maternity-care/

Teitelbaum, J. B., & Wilensky, S. E. (2020). Essentials of health policy and law (4th ed.). Jones & Bartlett Learning.

Reading the HLTH 5453 Module 4 instructions

HLTH 5453 Module 4 asks you to evaluate one named policy against criteria you state in advance. Most prompts expect the problem and the affected population with figures, the policy and its legal or financing mechanism, criteria such as effectiveness, equity, cost and feasibility applied with evidence, alternatives compared on the same criteria and a recommendation with measures. Many sections want the evaluation written for a decision maker, such as an agency director or a legislative committee. A policy evaluation commonly runs five pages plus title and references. The HLTH 5453 Canvas page states whether the policy must be current law or may be a proposal. Choose a policy that has a mechanism you can cite and a cost you can calculate.

How the HLTH 5453 Module 4 example is put together

The paper begins with the agency, about 62,000 births a year in a composite state, and the share Medicaid pays for, then names the policy and its authority. The problem section uses Centers for Disease Control and Prevention data showing that most pregnancy-related deaths occur after the first week and many within the year after birth. The effectiveness section explains why the extension reaches that period by design, and the equity section names who gains and who is left where they were. The financing section builds the state share from member months, the monthly rate and the regular match, and refuses to book offsetting savings it cannot support. The final section scores three options on the same four criteria, attaches two operating conditions and sets measures with baselines and dates.

HLTH 5453 Module 4 rubric: what full marks look like

Policy evaluations in HLTH 5453 are graded against criteria the paper sets for itself. Problem credit requires a population and denominator, with sources. Mechanism marks go to citing the authorizing law and the agency guidance by name. The criteria row usually carries the most weight: each criterion defined, applied with evidence and kept separate from the others. Graders give credit for equity analysis that names who is left out. Financing marks reward arithmetic shown in the order a reviewer would rebuild it. Recommendation credit requires alternatives scored on the same criteria and measures with targets and dates. APA 7 references to statute, agency and research sources complete the rubric.

HLTH 5453 Module 4 help from the desk

Policy papers most often evaluate a broad idea, such as better access, instead of a policy with a mechanism. Another frequent weakness is advocacy dressed as evaluation, where every criterion favors the chosen policy. Students also give a single cost total with no inputs. Name the policy and its authority. State your criteria before applying them. Report evidence that does not support you. Show the cost arithmetic. Compare at least two alternatives on the same criteria. End with measures someone could track. If your policy concerns hospital price transparency, a nurse staffing law or a public health program, the desk can write a policy evaluation of it.

Write yours, or have the desk draft it

This paper is an original model document written by our desk, not a submitted student paper and not an official American College of Education document. Read it for the moves, then write your own to the instructions in your classroom. If you want one built to your exact prompt and rubric, the first custom sample is free and arrives in 24 to 48 hours.

More HLTH 5453 and MHA sample papers

HLTH 5453 Module 4 questions, answered

How do I choose a policy that is easy to evaluate?

Pick a policy with a name, a legal mechanism, and a payer. A federal option a state adopts by state plan amendment works well because you can point to the authorizing law, the agency guidance, the money, and the operating steps. Broad ideas like improving access have no mechanism to price and no criteria to score, which is why those papers stall.

Do I have to include cost figures in a policy evaluation paper?

Include them whenever the policy spends money, and show the inputs rather than the total alone. Give the volume, the rate per member or per case, the match or funding split, and the resulting share the payer carries. A reviewer who can recalculate your figure will accept it. A single large number with no inputs reads as decoration and is usually marked down.

Where can I find a free HLTH 5453 Module 4 sample paper?

This HLTH 5453 Module 4 page holds the complete policy evaluation paper. It opens with "The Problem, the Population, and the Policy Under Review" and ends with "Recommendation, Alternatives Considered, and Monitoring".

What criteria should a policy evaluation use?

Common sets include effectiveness, equity, cost and administrative feasibility, drawn from texts such as Bardach and Patashnik. State them before the analysis and apply the same set to every option you compare.

What is a state plan amendment?

It is the document a state submits to the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services to change how its Medicaid program operates, such as extending coverage. Once approved, the change draws the federal match.