| Course | HLTH 2110 Behavioral and Cultural Issues in Healthcare |
|---|---|
| Week | Week 8 |
| Paper type | Health literacy communication analysis |
| Length | About 1,300 words, 7 pages |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | Walden University |
| Program | BS in Public Health |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for HLTH 2110 Week 8
A Medicaid Renewal Notice Rewritten for the Reader Who Has to Act on It: The Original, the Plain-Language Version and the Difference Measured by Flesch Reading Ease and by Page Structure
Student Name
Walden University
HLTH 2110: Behavioral and Cultural Issues in Healthcare
Instructor Name
Month Day, Year
A Medicaid Renewal Notice Rewritten for the Reader Who Has to Act on It: The Original, the Plain-Language Version and the Difference Measured by Flesch Reading Ease and by Page Structure
The Document and Its Reader
Medicaid agencies send renewal notices every year, and a household that does not respond can lose coverage even when it still qualifies. The notice analyzed here is a composite, written to resemble the style of real agency notices; it is not copied from any state. Its reader is an adult enrollee who may be working, caring for children, reading in a second language or reading with limited skill. In the 2003 National Assessment of Adult Literacy, roughly 36% of U.S. adults scored basic or below basic in health literacy, able to handle only short, simple health texts (Kutner et al., 2006). Berkman et al. (2011), reviewing the research, connected limited health literacy with more emergency visits, less preventive care and poorer outcomes. A renewal notice that such a reader cannot act on is not a neutral document; it decides who keeps coverage.
The Original Notice
IMPORTANT NOTICE REGARDING YOUR MEDICAID ELIGIBILITY REDETERMINATION. In accordance with federal and state regulations, your household's eligibility for continued Medicaid coverage must be redetermined on an annual basis. Our records indicate that the information necessary to complete the redetermination of your eligibility has not been received by this agency. Failure to submit the enclosed Renewal Form, together with all required verification documentation, including but not limited to documentation of household income, residency, and household composition, on or before the date specified below will result in the termination of benefits for all household members. Individuals whose coverage is terminated may reapply; however, a lapse in coverage may occur. If you believe this determination is in error, you have the right to request a fair hearing within ninety (90) days of the date of this notice. Return completed documentation to the address indicated on the reverse. Due date: June 14.
What Makes the Original Hard to Act On
The problems fall into three groups: language, order and missing information.
Language. The notice uses words a reader must translate before acting: "redetermination," "verification documentation," "household composition," "termination of benefits," "lapse." It describes the reader in the third person ("individuals whose coverage is terminated") and uses the passive voice for the agency's own actions ("must be redetermined," "has not been received"), so it is never clear who does what. The key sentence, telling the reader what to send and when, runs to 44 words.
Order. The action the reader must take appears in the middle of the fourth sentence, after a sentence about regulations and a sentence about the agency's records. The due date, the single most important fact, is the last line of the notice. Someone who reads only the opening two sentences learns only that something is being redetermined.
Missing information. The notice does not say when coverage would end, only that it would be terminated. It names "all required verification documentation, including but not limited to" three categories, which tells the reader that the list is incomplete without saying what else is required. It gives no phone number for help and no mention of language assistance.
The Plain-Language Version
Action needed by June 14 to keep your Medicaid.
Your Medicaid ends on June 30 unless you send us your renewal form by June 14.
We check every year to see if you still qualify. We need some papers from you to do this.
What to do: (1) Fill out the renewal form in this envelope. (2) Add a copy of a recent pay stub or other proof of what your household earns. (3) Mail both in the envelope we sent. You do not need a stamp.
If you miss the date, your coverage and your family's coverage will stop. You can apply again, but you may go without coverage for a while.
Questions? Call us free at 1-800-555-0142. We can help in Spanish and other languages.
If you think we made a mistake, you can ask for a hearing. You have 90 days to ask.
The Difference Measured
I measured both versions with the Flesch Reading Ease formula, which scores text from 0 to 100 based on average sentence length and average syllables per word, with higher scores meaning easier text (Flesch, 1948). I also calculated the Flesch-Kincaid grade level, which converts the same two inputs into an approximate school grade. Syllables were counted by a simple rule-based method, so the figures are approximate.
On Flesch's scale, a score near 20 is very difficult, typical of academic writing, while a score in the 80s is easy. The rewrite is about the same length as the original; it is easier because its sentences are half as long and its words are shorter.
Readability scores measure only words and sentences. They do not measure whether a reader can find the action and the deadline, and that is where the larger difference lies.
Table 1
Readability of the Two Versions
| Measure | Original | Plain-language version | |
|---|---|---|
| Words | 146 | 138 | |
| Average words per sentence | 16.2 | 8.6 | |
| Average syllables per word | 2.02 | 1.32 | |
| Words of three or more syllables | 43 | 14 | |
| Flesch Reading Ease | 19.4 | 86.5 | |
| Flesch-Kincaid grade level | 14.6 | 3.3 | |
The heading, due date and numbered steps were counted as separate sentences in both versions, which lowers the grade estimate for the rewrite more than for the original, so the true gap is somewhat smaller than the table shows.
The Difference in Structure
The rewrite follows the order of the reader's questions: what is happening, what do I do, by when, what happens if I do not and where can I get help. The agency's reason for the notice, which the original placed first, moves to a single short sentence after the action.
Table 2
Where the Reader Finds What They Need
| What the reader needs | Original | Plain-language version | |
|---|---|---|
| What to do | Middle of sentence 4 | Headline and numbered steps | |
| The deadline | Last line | Headline and first sentence | |
| When coverage ends | Not stated | First sentence | |
| Which papers to send | "Including but not limited to" three categories | One named example and a general category | |
| How to get help | Not stated | Phone number and language help | |
| Right to a hearing | Sentence 6 | Last lines, in plain words | |
The rewrite moves the deadline and the action from the end of the notice to its first two lines.
Limits of the Rewrite
The plain-language version makes choices an agency would have to check. It names a pay stub as an example of proof of income; if the agency needs other documents, the list must say so in plain words rather than with "including but not limited to." It promises a free return envelope and language help, which the agency must actually provide. And no rewrite can substitute for testing with real readers. Federal agencies have been required since the Plain Writing Act of 2010 (Pub. L. No. 111-274) to write documents the public can understand, but the law does not tell a writer whether a particular reader can act on a particular page. Only asking readers to use the notice, and watching where they hesitate, can do that.
Conclusion
The original notice is accurate and nearly unreadable for the people most likely to receive it. The rewrite says the same things in shorter sentences and shorter words, which raised its Flesch Reading Ease score from about 19 to about 87. More important, it moves the deadline and the action to the top of the page and adds the information a reader needs to act. A renewal notice is a test the household must pass to keep its coverage; the agency decides how hard that test is.
References
Berkman, N. D., Sheridan, S. L., Donahue, K. E., Halpern, D. J., & Crotty, K. (2011). Low health literacy and health outcomes: An updated systematic review. Annals of Internal Medicine, 155(2), 97-107. https://doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-155-2-201107190-00005
Flesch, R. (1948). A new readability yardstick. Journal of Applied Psychology, 32(3), 221-233. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0057532
Kutner, M., Greenberg, E., Jin, Y., & Paulsen, C. (2006). The health literacy of America's adults: Results from the 2003 National Assessment of Adult Literacy (NCES 2006-483). U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. https://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=2006483
Plain Writing Act of 2010, Pub. L. No. 111-274, 124 Stat. 2861 (2010).
HLTH 2110 Week 8 instructions, in plain terms
Communication analyses in this course ask you to show why a health document is hard to act on and how to fix it. Choose or construct a patient-facing document. Analyze what makes it difficult, grouping problems into language, order and missing information. Rewrite it in plain language. Measure both versions with a named readability formula and report the inputs, but do not rely on the score alone; also compare structure, such as where the reader finds the action and the deadline. Cite evidence on health literacy to explain why this matters. Close by naming the limits of your rewrite, including the need to test it with real readers.
How this HLTH 2110 Week 8 example is built
The analysis opens with the document's purpose and readers, citing Kutner and colleagues on adult health literacy and Berkman and colleagues on outcomes. It reproduces the original notice and explains its problems with language, order and missing information. It presents the rewrite. Table 1 compares readability measures using Flesch's formula, with a note on how headings and steps were counted. Table 2 compares where the reader finds key information in each version. A limits section notes choices the agency would have to confirm and the role of the Plain Writing Act. The conclusion summarizes the difference.
HLTH 2110 Week 8 rubric: what earns full marks
Faculty assess a communication analysis on the quality of the diagnosis and the rewrite. Problems should be identified specifically, with examples from the text. The rewrite should address each problem, not only shorten sentences. Using a named readability measure, and explaining its inputs and limits, earns credit. Comparing structure as well as readability is often what separates strong analyses from routine ones. Evidence on health literacy should support the argument. A limits section that acknowledges the need for testing shows realism. Analyses that report only a readability score, or that rewrite without explaining why, earn less. Faculty also check that the original is reproduced faithfully, so the reader can judge the diagnosis. A rewrite that keeps every required fact, including appeal rights, is valued over one that simply cuts.
HLTH 2110 Week 8 help from the desk
Find a real document type that patients must act on, such as a renewal notice, a prep instruction sheet or a discharge summary. Read it as someone with little time and limited reading skill. Mark where you would stop, what you would not understand and what you would need to do. Rewrite it starting with the action and the deadline. Measure both versions with the same formula, and note its limits. Then compare where key information appears. We can help you analyze and rewrite a document for your course. Ask someone outside your field to read your rewrite and tell you what they would do next. Keep the original text exactly as it was, so your reader can see every problem you describe.
Get a HLTH 2110 Week 8 example written to your instructions
Attach the document to be rewritten, the prompt and the rubric; a finished analysis with both versions returns in 24-48 hours, free the first time. Clinical content is carried across unchanged and mapped element by element, and any patient material an employer owns is replaced with a described equivalent before anything is drafted.
More HLTH 2110 papers and BS in Public Health samples
- HLTH 2110 Week 1: Discussion Post
- HLTH 2110 Week 2: Concept Paper
- HLTH 2110 Week 3: Disparity Analysis
- HLTH 2110 Week 4: Case Study
- HLTH 2110 Week 5: Evidence Critique
- HLTH 2110 Week 6: Midterm Discussion Post
- HLTH 2110 Week 7: Community Profile
- HLTH 2110 Week 9: Intervention Critique
- HLTH 2110 Week 10: Practice Proposal
- HLTH 2110 Week 11: Course Reflection
- HLTH 1000 Week 8: Program Proposal
HLTH 2110 Week 8 questions, answered
Where can I find a free HLTH 2110 Week 8 sample paper?
The analysis and plain-language rewrite of a Medicaid renewal notice, with readability and structure tables, is free to read here.
What document does the HLTH 2110 Week 8 example analyze?
A composite Medicaid renewal notice written in the style of agency notices.
How did the readability scores change?
Flesch Reading Ease rose from about 19 for the original to about 87 for the rewrite.
What structural change matters most?
Moving the deadline and the required action from the end of the notice to its first two lines.
What limits does the analysis name?
The agency must confirm the document list and services promised, and the rewrite must be tested with real readers.