| Course | NUR 5133 Knowledge of the Healthcare Environment |
|---|---|
| Module | Module 3 |
| Paper type | Health policy issue analysis |
| Length | 1,180 words, about 4 pages plus title and reference pages |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | American College of Education |
| Program | MSN Nurse Administrator |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for NUR 5133 Module 3
Covered for Twelve Months, Then What? Continuous Medicaid Eligibility for Children After the Pandemic Protections Ended, and What It Asks of a Children's Hospital's Nurse Leaders
Student Name
American College of Education
NUR5133: Knowledge of the Healthcare Environment
Module 3 Assignment
Instructor Name
September 21, 2027
The Issue
Medicaid and the Children's Health Insurance Program pay for 58% of patient days at the composite children's hospital described in the earlier modules. Whether a child stays enrolled from one month to the next therefore affects not only the family but the hospital's finances and the nurses who plan that child's discharge. Over five years, federal policy on this question changed three times. During the COVID-19 public health emergency, states that accepted extra federal funds agreed not to disenroll Medicaid members, so children stayed covered continuously. In April 2023 that protection ended, and states began redetermining eligibility for everyone enrolled, a process widely called the unwinding. Then, from January 2024, federal law required states to provide children under 19 with 12 months of continuous eligibility, so that a child found eligible stays covered for a year regardless of changes in family income (Eliason, Howland, et al., 2025). States now face a narrower question: whether a year of guaranteed coverage is long enough, or whether the youngest children should be covered without interruption until they start school, as a handful of states have asked federal permission to do.
What the Evidence Shows
Research on the unwinding shows that coverage losses among children were large and varied with state policy. One analysis of monthly federal enrollment data from 49 states and the District of Columbia found substantially lower Medicaid and CHIP enrollment among children during the unwinding than during the pandemic protections, and smaller declines in states that already guaranteed children 12 months of continuous eligibility and in states whose CHIP program was structured separately or as a Medicaid expansion rather than as a combination of the two (Eliason, Nelson, et al., 2025). After the national 12-month requirement began, children's enrollment rose, and the gains were larger in states that had not previously offered continuous eligibility (Eliason, Howland, et al., 2025).
Coverage loss affects care, not only paperwork. In a national analysis of pharmacy data, Chua et al. (2025) found that children living in states with the largest Medicaid enrollment losses during the unwinding had greater decreases in days with active prescriptions for at least one class of chronic medication and a greater increase in paying cash for prescriptions in three classes, including medicines for attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder, depression, epilepsy, psychosis and asthma, with even larger effects among young adults. A child who loses coverage does not lose the asthma; the family loses the inhaler, and the hospital sees the child again.
Stakeholders and Their Interests
Families want stable coverage without repeated paperwork, and many lost coverage during the unwinding for procedural reasons, such as a renewal form sent to an old address, rather than because they were no longer eligible. States must balance the cost of continuous coverage, since some children remain enrolled after their family income rises, against the administrative savings of fewer redeterminations and the health benefits of stable care. Medicaid managed care plans gain from stable enrollment, which allows them to manage care over time, but bear the cost of members who remain enrolled while using services. Children's hospitals, pediatricians and pediatric nurses have generally supported longer continuous eligibility, because coverage gaps lead to missed care, emergency visits and uncompensated costs. Taxpayer and budget advocates tend to favor regular eligibility checks to limit spending on people who no longer qualify.
Effects on the Children's Hospital and Its Nurses
The hospital felt each phase directly. During the unwinding, the share of its admissions arriving without active coverage rose from about 2% to nearly 5%, and its financial counselors, who had helped fewer than 20 families a month to re-enroll before 2023, helped more than 70 a month at the peak. Many of those families were identified by nurses, often at discharge, when a prescription could not be filled because coverage had lapsed. On the medical-surgical floors, the author's unit saw children with asthma readmitted after running out of controller medication and adolescents with depression discharged without a way to pay for antidepressants, the same patterns the national pharmacy data describe.
The 12-month rule has reduced these problems but not ended them. Children can still lose coverage at their annual renewal, and families who move or change phone numbers may not receive renewal notices. Nurses remain the staff most likely to discover a coverage problem, because they are present when a family is asked to fill a prescription, schedule a follow-up visit or arrange home equipment.
What Remains Uncertain
The evidence on continuous eligibility is still young, and a careful analysis should say what it cannot yet show. The studies of the unwinding describe enrollment and prescriptions, not hospital admissions, emergency visits or health outcomes, so the link between coverage loss and the readmissions seen on the author's unit rests on local observation rather than on published data. The national 12-month requirement began during the unwinding itself, which makes it hard to separate the effect of the new rule from families simply re-enrolling after being dropped. And the cost of longer continuous eligibility for states is debated: it keeps some children enrolled after their families' incomes rise, but it also reduces the administrative cost of repeated eligibility checks and the churn of children leaving and returning to coverage within months. For the hospital, these uncertainties argue for collecting its own data. The finance and case management departments will track, for each discharged child, coverage status at admission, at discharge and 90 days later, and link it to readmissions. Within two years the hospital will be able to describe the effects of coverage policy on its own patients, which will make its advocacy more credible than national figures alone.
Options and Recommendation
Three state policy options are under discussion: keep the federal 12-month minimum, extend continuous eligibility for children from birth to age six through a federal waiver, or reduce the administrative burden of renewal by using data the state already holds to renew families automatically. The evidence that states with prior continuous eligibility lost fewer children during the unwinding supports longer guaranteed coverage, and automatic renewal addresses the procedural losses that longer coverage alone would not.
The recommendation for the hospital is to support the state's pending waiver for continuous eligibility from birth to age six and to advocate for automatic renewal, through the state children's hospital association and through testimony by nurses and physicians who see the effects. Within the hospital, nurse administrators should act in three ways. First, add a coverage check to the admission nursing assessment, so that lapsed or expiring coverage is flagged on the first day rather than the last. Second, ensure that every child discharged on a chronic medication leaves with a supply or a confirmed way to obtain it, working with the outpatient pharmacy and financial counselors. Third, give nurses a simple script and a direct referral route to financial counseling, so that finding a coverage problem leads to help rather than to a note in the chart.
References
Chua, K.-P., Constantin, J., Kenney, G. M., Conti, R. M., & Simon, K. (2025). Changes in chronic medication dispensing to children and young adults during Medicaid unwinding. Pediatrics, 155(6), Article e2024070380. https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2024-070380
Eliason, E., Howland, R. E., & Vasan, A. (2025). Children's Medicaid enrollment increased during first year of Consolidated Appropriations Act. Health Affairs, 44(11), 1344-1348. https://doi.org/10.1377/hlthaff.2025.01000
Eliason, E., Nelson, D., & Vasan, A. (2025). Continuous eligibility policies and CHIP structure affected children's coverage loss during Medicaid unwinding. Health Affairs, 44(3), 288-295. https://doi.org/10.1377/hlthaff.2024.01099
Reading the NUR 5133 Module 3 instructions
Module 3 of NUR 5133 usually asks you to analyze a current health policy issue that affects your organization and its nurses. Most prompts expect the issue defined with its history, the evidence on its effects, the stakeholders and their interests, the effect on your organization, options and a recommendation. Many sections ask how nurse administrators can influence the policy. A policy analysis in this course often runs about five pages. The Canvas instructions state whether the issue is assigned or chosen, whether a position must be taken, and how current the evidence must be.
How the NUR 5133 Module 3 example is put together
The analysis begins with the issue in three phases: continuous enrollment during the public health emergency, the unwinding that followed, and the new requirement of twelve months of continuous eligibility for children. The evidence section summarizes three recent studies with their designs and findings on coverage loss and its consequences, with a highlighted sentence on what they mean together. The stakeholder section states each party's interests fairly, including fiscal concerns of those opposing longer coverage. The organization section applies the policy with local figures on Medicaid patients and lapses and follows it to discharge, where nurses confirm coverage before prescriptions and follow-up. A section on uncertainty proposes local data collection, and options are compared before the recommendation for state advocacy and hospital practice.
Where the points sit in the NUR 5133 Module 3 rubric
Policy analyses are scored on accuracy, balance and application. Accuracy credit requires the policy's history stated precisely, with dates and the current rule. Evidence marks reward recent studies summarized with design and findings. The stakeholder row rewards fair statements of every side, including opposing interests. Application usually weighs most: the policy shown at work in the organization with local data, down to a nursing task. Naming what remains uncertain earns credit when it leads to a plan. The recommendation row rewards options compared and specific actions for both policy and practice. APA 7 and a graduate register complete the grade. A recommendation that pairs state advocacy with a change the hospital controls, such as checking coverage at discharge, shows the practical judgment administrators need.
Common NUR 5133 Module 3 mistakes, and how to avoid them
Policy papers most often argue for one side without stating the other side's interests. Another frequent weakness is evidence older than the policy change it is meant to evaluate. Students also stop at the state level and never show the effect on nurses. Date each phase of the policy. Use studies from the last few years. Show the bedside task the policy creates. Recommend something the hospital can do on its own as well as something it can advocate for. If your issue is nurse staffing laws, telehealth payment or scope of practice, the desk can prepare a policy analysis on 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 NUR 5133 and MSN Nurse Administrator sample papers
- NUR 5133 Module 1: Health System Structure Analysis
- NUR 5133 Module 2: Regulation and Accreditation
- NUR 5133 Module 4: Market Analysis
- NUR 5133 Module 5: Nursing Workforce Trend Analysis
- NUR 5133 Module 6: Strategic Response Plan
- NUR 5094 Module 5: Leadership Project Evaluation
- NUR 5094 Module 6: Executive Report and Reflection
- NUR 5113 Module 6: Executive Financial Proposal
- NUR 5094 Module 2: Organizational Assessment
NUR 5133 Module 3 questions, answered
How current does the evidence need to be?
As current as the issue. For a policy that changed recently, use studies from the last few years and say what is not yet known. Older sources can explain the background.
What if my recommendation is about state policy?
Explain how nurse leaders can influence it, such as through professional associations or testimony, and pair it with actions the organization can take on its own regardless of what the state decides.
Where can I find a free NUR 5133 Module 3 sample paper?
Free to read in full above: the continuous eligibility analysis, covering the policy history, the evidence, stakeholders, effects on the hospital and its nurses, uncertainties and the recommendation.
What is continuous eligibility for children in Medicaid?
It keeps a child enrolled in Medicaid or CHIP for a full twelve months after enrollment or renewal, regardless of changes in family income during that period. It became a federal requirement for children in 2024.
How can nurse administrators influence health policy?
Through professional associations, testimony at state hearings, data from their own organizations, and service on hospital association committees. Pair advocacy with changes the hospital can make itself.