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 Care

16 points

Criteria Description

Value-Based Care

 

5. Target

16 points

The presentation explains value-based care in a substantial and thought-provoking manner.

 

4. Acceptable

14.72 points

The presentation explains value-based care in a substantial manner.

 

3. Approaching

14.08 points

The presentation clearly explains value-based care.

 

2. Insufficient

12.8 points

The presentation vaguely explains value-based care.

 

1. Unsatisfactory

0 points

The presentation does not sufficiently explain value-based care.

 

 

Differences in Value-Based Care

16 points

Criteria Description

Differences in Value-Based Care

 

5. Target

16 points

The presentation explains how value-based care differs from a fee-for-service or a capitated approach in a substantial and thought-provoking manner.

 

4. Acceptable

14.72 points

The presentation explains how value-based care differs from a fee-for-service or a capitated approach in a substantial manner.

 

3. Approaching

14.08 points

The presentation clearly explains how value-based care differs from a fee-for-service or a capitated approach.

 

2. Insufficient

12.8 points

The presentation vaguely explains how value-based care differs from a fee-for-service or a capitated approach.

 

1. Unsatisfactory

0 points

The presentation does not sufficiently explain how value-based care differs from a fee-for-service or a capitated approach.

 

 

Financial Advantages to Value-Based Purchasing

16 points

Criteria Description

Financial Advantages to Value-Based Purchasing

 

5. Target

16 points

The 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. Acceptable

14.72 points

The presentation thoroughly describes why adopting a value-based purchasing arrangement would be financially advantageous for the physician groups and to the health plan.

 

3. Approaching

14.08 points

The presentation clearly describes why adopting a value-based purchasing arrangement would be financially advantageous for the physician groups and to the health plan.

 

2. Insufficient

12.8 points

The presentation vaguely describes why adopting a value-based purchasing arrangement would be financially advantageous for the physician groups and to the health plan.

 

1. Unsatisfactory

0 points

The 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 Content

8 points

Criteria Description

Presentation of Content

 

5. Target

8 points

The 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. Acceptable

7.36 points

The 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. Approaching

7.04 points

The presentation slides are generally competent, but ideas may show some inconsistency in organization or in their relationships to each other.

 

2. Insufficient

6.4 points

The content is vague in conveying a point of view and does not create a strong sense of purpose. Includes some persuasive information.

 

1. Unsatisfactory

0 points

The content lacks a clear point of view and logical sequence of information. Includes little persuasive information. Sequencing of ideas is unclear.

 

 

Layout

8 points

Criteria Description

Layout

 

5. Target

8 points

The 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. Acceptable

7.36 points

The 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. Approaching

7.04 points

The 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. Insufficient

6.4 points

The 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. Unsatisfactory

0 points

The 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 points

Criteria Description

Language Use and Audience Awareness (includes sentence construction, word choice, etc.)

 

5. Target

8 points

The 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. Acceptable

7.36 points

The 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. Approaching

7.04 points

Language is appropriate to the targeted audience for the most part.

 

2. Insufficient

6.4 points

Some 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. Unsatisfactory

0 points

Inappropriate 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 points

Criteria Description

Mechanics of Writing (includes spelling, punctuation, grammar, language use)

 

5. Target

4 points

Writer is clearly in control of standard, written, academic English.

 

4. Acceptable

3.68 points

Slides are largely free of mechanical errors, although a few may be present.

 

3. Approaching

3.52 points

Some mechanical errors or typos are present, but they are not overly distracting to the reader.

 

2. Insufficient

3.2 points

Frequent and repetitive mechanical errors distract the reader.

 

1. Unsatisfactory

0 points

Slide errors are pervasive enough that they impede communication of meaning.

 

 

Documentation of Sources

4 points

Criteria Description

Documentation of Sources (citations, footnotes, references, bibliography, etc., as appropriate to assignment and style)

 

5. Target

4 points

Sources are completely and correctly documented, as appropriate to assignment and style, and format is free of error.

 

4. Acceptable

3.68 points

Sources are documented, as appropriate to assignment and style, and format is mostly correct.

 

3. Approaching

3.52 points

Sources are documented, as appropriate to assignment and style, although some formatting errors may be present.

 

2. Insufficient

3.2 points

Documentation of sources is inconsistent or incorrect, as appropriate to assignment and style, with numerous formatting errors.

 

1. Unsatisfactory

0 points

Sources are not documented.