Get fast, custom help from our academic experts, any time of day.
Place your order now for a similar assignment and have exceptional work written by our team of experts.
Secure Original On Schedule
Start Date
Aug 4, 2022, 12:00 AM
Due Date
Aug 10, 2022, 11:59 PM
Points
80
Rubric
View RubricStatus
Upcoming
Assessment TraitsRequires Lopeswrite
Assessment Description: Scenario
You work for the contracting department for a national payer that is working to convert its provider contracts to value-based arrangements. Your team is approaching large physician groups for recontracting. Develop a 12-15-slide presentation with speaker notes to show the value of converting to a value-based arrangement:
Explain value-based care.
Explain how value-based care differs from a fee-for-service or a capitated approach.
Describe why adopting a value-based purchasing arrangement would be financially advantageous for the physician groups and to the health plan.
Include at least three references, including your textbook.
Prepare this assignment according to the guidelines found in the APA Style Guide, located in the Student Success Center. This assignment uses a rubric. Please review the rubric prior to beginning the assignment to become familiar with the expectations for successful completion.
You are required to submit this assignment to LopesWrite. A link to the LopesWrite technical support articles is located in Class Resources if you need assistance.
Value-Based Care16 pointsCriteria DescriptionValue-Based Care
5. Target16 pointsThe presentation explains value-based care in a substantial and thought-provoking manner.
4. Acceptable14.72 pointsThe presentation explains value-based care in a substantial manner.
3. Approaching14.08 pointsThe presentation clearly explains value-based care.
2. Insufficient12.8 pointsThe presentation vaguely explains value-based care.
1. Unsatisfactory0 pointsThe presentation does not sufficiently explain value-based care.
Differences in Value-Based Care16 pointsCriteria DescriptionDifferences in Value-Based Care
5. Target16 pointsThe presentation explains how value-based care differs from a fee-for-service or a capitated approach in a substantial and thought-provoking manner.
4. Acceptable14.72 pointsThe presentation explains how value-based care differs from a fee-for-service or a capitated approach in a substantial manner.
3. Approaching14.08 pointsThe presentation clearly explains how value-based care differs from a fee-for-service or a capitated approach.
2. Insufficient12.8 pointsThe presentation vaguely explains how value-based care differs from a fee-for-service or a capitated approach.
1. Unsatisfactory0 pointsThe presentation does not sufficiently explain how value-based care differs from a fee-for-service or a capitated approach.
Financial Advantages to Value-Based Purchasing16 pointsCriteria DescriptionFinancial Advantages to Value-Based Purchasing
5. Target16 pointsThe presentation thoroughly and substantially describes why adopting a value-based purchasing arrangement would be financially advantageous for the physician groups and to the health plan.
4. Acceptable14.72 pointsThe presentation thoroughly describes why adopting a value-based purchasing arrangement would be financially advantageous for the physician groups and to the health plan.
3. Approaching14.08 pointsThe presentation clearly describes why adopting a value-based purchasing arrangement would be financially advantageous for the physician groups and to the health plan.
2. Insufficient12.8 pointsThe presentation vaguely describes why adopting a value-based purchasing arrangement would be financially advantageous for the physician groups and to the health plan.
1. Unsatisfactory0 pointsThe presentation does not sufficiently describe why adopting a value-based purchasing arrangement would be financially advantageous for the physician groups and to the health plan.
Presentation of Content8 pointsCriteria DescriptionPresentation of Content
5. Target8 pointsThe content is written clearly and concisely. Ideas universally progress and relate to each other. The project includes motivating questions and advanced organizers. The project gives the audience a clear sense of the main idea.
4. Acceptable7.36 pointsThe content is written with a logical progression of ideas and supporting information exhibiting a unity, coherence, and cohesiveness. Includes persuasive information from reliable sources.
3. Approaching7.04 pointsThe presentation slides are generally competent, but ideas may show some inconsistency in organization or in their relationships to each other.
2. Insufficient6.4 pointsThe content is vague in conveying a point of view and does not create a strong sense of purpose. Includes some persuasive information.
1. Unsatisfactory0 pointsThe content lacks a clear point of view and logical sequence of information. Includes little persuasive information. Sequencing of ideas is unclear.
Layout8 pointsCriteria DescriptionLayout
5. Target8 pointsThe layout is visually pleasing and contributes to the overall message with appropriate use of headings, subheadings, and white space. Text is appropriate in length for the target audience and to the point. The background and colors enhance the readability of the text.
4. Acceptable7.36 pointsThe layout background and text complement each other and enable the content to be easily read. The fonts are easy to read and point size varies appropriately for headings and text.
3. Approaching7.04 pointsThe layout uses horizontal and vertical white space appropriately. Sometimes the fonts are easy to read, but in a few places the use of fonts, italics, bold, long paragraphs, color, or busy background detracts and does not enhance readability.
2. Insufficient6.4 pointsThe layout shows some structure, but appears cluttered and busy or distracting with large gaps of white space or a distracting background. Overall readability is difficult due to lengthy paragraphs, too many different fonts, dark or busy background, overuse of bold, or lack of appropriate indentations of text.
1. Unsatisfactory0 pointsThe layout is cluttered, confusing, and does not use spacing, headings, and subheadings to enhance the readability. The text is extremely difficult to read with long blocks of text, small point size for fonts, and inappropriate contrasting colors. Poor use of headings, subheadings, indentations, or bold formatting is evident.
Language Use and Audience Awareness 8 pointsCriteria DescriptionLanguage Use and Audience Awareness (includes sentence construction, word choice, etc.)
5. Target8 pointsThe writer uses a variety of sentence constructions, figures of speech, and word choice in distinctive and creative ways that are appropriate to purpose, discipline, and scope.
4. Acceptable7.36 pointsThe writer is clearly aware of audience, uses a variety of appropriate vocabulary for the targeted audience, and uses figures of speech to communicate clearly.
3. Approaching7.04 pointsLanguage is appropriate to the targeted audience for the most part.
2. Insufficient6.4 pointsSome distracting inconsistencies in language choice (register) or word choice are present. The writer exhibits some lack of control in using figures of speech appropriately.
1. Unsatisfactory0 pointsInappropriate word choice and lack of variety in language use are evident. Writer appears to be unaware of audience. Use of primer prose indicates writer either does not apply figures of speech or uses them inappropriately.
Mechanics of Writing 4 pointsCriteria DescriptionMechanics of Writing (includes spelling, punctuation, grammar, language use)
5. Target4 pointsWriter is clearly in control of standard, written, academic English.
4. Acceptable3.68 pointsSlides are largely free of mechanical errors, although a few may be present.
3. Approaching3.52 pointsSome mechanical errors or typos are present, but they are not overly distracting to the reader.
2. Insufficient3.2 pointsFrequent and repetitive mechanical errors distract the reader.
1. Unsatisfactory0 pointsSlide errors are pervasive enough that they impede communication of meaning.
Documentation of Sources4 pointsCriteria DescriptionDocumentation of Sources (citations, footnotes, references, bibliography, etc., as appropriate to assignment and style)
5. Target4 pointsSources are completely and correctly documented, as appropriate to assignment and style, and format is free of error.
4. Acceptable3.68 pointsSources are documented, as appropriate to assignment and style, and format is mostly correct.
3. Approaching3.52 pointsSources are documented, as appropriate to assignment and style, although some formatting errors may be present.
2. Insufficient3.2 pointsDocumentation of sources is inconsistent or incorrect, as appropriate to assignment and style, with numerous formatting errors.
1. Unsatisfactory0 pointsSources are not documented.
Total80 points
Get fast, custom help from our academic experts, any time of day.
Secure Original On Schedule