| Course | HLTH 5453 Health Policy Evaluation and Development |
|---|---|
| Module | Module 6 |
| Paper type | Policy brief |
| Length | 820 words, about 3 pages plus title and reference pages |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | American College of Education |
| Program | MHA |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for HLTH 5453 Module 6
Policy Brief: Make 340B Savings Visible Without Cutting Them
Student Name
American College of Education
HLTH5453: Health Policy Evaluation and Development
Module 6 Assignment
Instructor Name
December 6, 2027
Memo Header and Bottom Line
To: Health policy advisor, Senate committee with jurisdiction over the Public Health Service Act (composite recipient for this assignment). From: Graduate student, health administration. Date: December 6, 2027. Re: A reporting requirement for hospitals in the 340B Drug Pricing Program.
Bottom line: The 340B program reliably increases revenue for participating hospitals, but there is no strong evidence that this revenue reaches the low-income patients the program is commonly understood to serve, and no one can check, because hospitals do not have to report their savings or how they use them. We recommend a statutory amendment requiring participating hospitals to disclose each year what the discount earns them, payer by payer, and where the money goes, using the categories they already file for community benefit, and to lose program eligibility if they do not. The amendment cuts no one's benefits. It asks hospitals to show what the program does, which the strongest defenders of the program should welcome.
Why This Matters Now
The program has grown far beyond its early scale, with many more hospitals and thousands of contract pharmacies now participating, and it faces pressure from all sides: manufacturers restricting contract pharmacy pricing, litigation in several states and repeated congressional hearings. In that environment, the absence of data works against everyone. Hospitals cannot demonstrate the good they do with the program, critics cannot be answered with evidence and Congress has to legislate without knowing what the program delivers.
What the Evidence Shows
Three findings matter most. First, a strong study design comparing hospitals just above and below the eligibility threshold found that eligibility led to more hospital-employed oncologists and more hospital-billed infused drugs, but not to clear increases in care for low-income patients or lower mortality in their communities (Desai & McWilliams, 2018). Second, after entering the program, hospitals raised charity care spending by roughly 29 percent, yet overall community benefit spending stayed flat, which points to cuts somewhere else (Nikpay et al., 2020). Third, federal auditors have found that oversight of the program, especially at contract pharmacies, is limited (U.S. Government Accountability Office [GAO], 2018). Together these findings show a program that works as a financial mechanism and cannot yet demonstrate its purpose.
The Ask
We recommend legislative language with four elements. First, participating hospitals, but not federal grantees such as community health centers, report annual 340B savings, broken out by payer type, and disclose whether they carve Medicaid out of 340B purchasing. Second, hospitals report the use of savings in categories that match their existing community benefit reporting to the Internal Revenue Service. Third, any hospital that does not report loses eligibility, with the administering agency handling enforcement within its current compliance procedures. Fourth, the agency publishes the reports in a standard format each year.
We do not recommend using Medicare payment to enforce reporting. After the Supreme Court held that Medicare could not cut payment rates for 340B hospitals without first completing a required survey of acquisition costs (American Hospital Association v. Becerra, 2022), a payment-based penalty would invite litigation and delay.
What You Will Hear, and What to Say
Hospital associations will say reporting is burdensome. Aligning categories with reports hospitals already file limits the burden, and the requirement applies only to hospitals, not to small grantees. Some will say reporting is the first step toward cuts. The amendment contains no cuts, and data showing that savings support patient care would be the strongest defense against future cuts. Manufacturers will say reporting is not enough and eligibility should be narrowed. That is a separate debate that this amendment does not preclude, and it would be better informed by the data this amendment produces. Every side of the 340B debate claims to know what the program does; this amendment is the only proposal that would find out.
Cost and Feasibility
The amendment has little direct federal cost. The administering agency would need modest additional staff to build the reporting template, receive the reports and publish them, which could be funded through a small appropriation or a modest participation fee. For hospitals, the main cost is staff time to calculate savings by payer, work that many larger participants already do internally for their own financial planning. Because the categories for the use of savings match the community benefit schedule hospitals file with their tax returns, most of the reporting would draw on information already assembled each year. A phased start, beginning with the largest participating hospitals in the first year and extending to all hospitals in the second, would let the agency refine the template before every participant must use it.
Next Step
We would welcome thirty minutes with your staff to walk through draft legislative language and the reporting template, and we can provide a short list of hospitals and community health centers in the state that would speak to the proposal's workability.
References
American Hospital Association v. Becerra, 596 U.S. 724 (2022).
Desai, S., & McWilliams, J. M. (2018). Consequences of the 340B drug pricing program. New England Journal of Medicine, 378(6), 539-548. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMsa1706475
Nikpay, S. S., Buntin, M. B., & Conti, R. M. (2020). Relationship between initiation of 340B participation and hospital safety-net engagement. Health Services Research, 55(2), 157-169. https://doi.org/10.1111/1475-6773.13278
U.S. Government Accountability Office. (2018). Drug discount program: Federal oversight of compliance at 340B contract pharmacies needs improvement (GAO-18-480).
HLTH 5453 Module 6 instructions, in plain terms
HLTH 5453 Module 6 asks you to compress your policy work into a brief a decision maker could act on. Most prompts expect the recommendation first, a short case for why it matters now, the few findings that support it, a specific ask, anticipated objections with responses, cost and feasibility, and a next step. Many sections set a strict length, often two to four pages. The Canvas instructions name the audience, such as a legislator, an agency head or a hospital executive, and say whether a memo format is required and how many sources to cite.
How the HLTH 5453 Module 6 example is put together
The brief opens with a memo header to a composite advisor and a bottom line in three sentences: hospitals do not report how they use 340B savings, a statutory reporting requirement would fix that without cutting the program, and transparency protects the program from cuts. The next section explains why the issue is live now, with litigation and state laws in motion. The evidence section gives three findings in one sentence each with a source and a one-sentence synthesis. The ask states the provision requested. A section anticipates objections from hospitals, manufacturers and budget staff and answers each in a sentence or two. Cost and feasibility are stated briefly, and the brief ends with a meeting request as the next step.
Where the points sit in the HLTH 5453 Module 6 rubric
Policy briefs are graded on usefulness to a busy reader. The bottom line row usually carries the most weight: problem, recommendation and strongest argument in the first lines. Evidence credit requires a few findings, accurately compressed and sourced. The ask must be specific enough to act on. Graders reward objections attributed to the groups that will raise them and answered in language an advisor could repeat. Cost, feasibility and a next step earn the remaining substantive credit. Plain language, length discipline and APA 7 with sparing citations complete the grade. Answers short enough for an advisor to repeat in a hallway show graders the brief was written for its reader. A next step with a date makes the ask concrete.
HLTH 5453 Module 6 help from the desk
Policy briefs most often read like shortened research papers, with background first and the recommendation at the end. Another frequent weakness is too much evidence and no clear ask. Students also forget the objections the reader will hear the next day. Put the recommendation in the title and first sentence. Keep evidence to three findings. Make the ask specific. Answer objections briefly. End with a next step the reader can take. If your brief is for a hospital board, a state agency or a governor's office, the desk can prepare a brief for that audience. Read the brief aloud to check that it fits a five-minute meeting.
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 1: Policy Analysis Paper
- HLTH 5453 Module 2: Criteria-Based Policy Evaluation
- HLTH 5453 Module 3: Policy Power Map
- HLTH 5453 Module 5: Policy Position Stress Test
- HLTH 5683 Module 6: Project Closeout and Handover Report
- HLTH 5663 Module 5: Retention Strategy Paper
- HLTH 5663 Module 3: Compensation Analysis
- HLTH 5683 Module 2: Work Breakdown and Stakeholder Analysis
HLTH 5453 Module 6 questions, answered
What does HLTH5453 Module 6 usually ask for?
HLTH5453 Module 6 usually asks students to compress their policy analysis into a brief for a decision maker, such as a legislator, agency head or board. Many sections set a page limit and expect the recommendation to come first. Your classroom's instructions decide the audience, the length and whether APA formatting applies to the brief itself.
How is a policy brief different from a policy paper?
A policy brief puts the recommendation first, uses only the evidence the reader needs to act and anticipates objections the reader will face. A policy paper explains methods, reviews evidence fully and shows reasoning in detail. The brief should be readable in a few minutes; the paper is where the detail lives.
Should a policy brief include citations?
Yes, but sparingly. Cite the few sources that carry the key findings, so the reader can check them or share them, and keep the citation format simple. The brief's credibility depends on accurate evidence, even though it presents only the conclusions of that evidence.
Where can I find a free HLTH 5453 Module 6 sample paper?
You are reading it: the HLTH 5453 Module 6 policy brief, from "Memo Header and Bottom Line" through "Next Step", free and open.
How long should a policy brief be?
Usually two to four pages, or shorter if the audience is senior. Follow your Canvas limit, put the recommendation first and move detail to an appendix or a longer paper.