| Course | HLTH 3110 Current Issues in Healthcare Policy and Practice |
|---|---|
| Week | Week 3 |
| Paper type | Stakeholder analysis paper |
| Length | About 1,100 words, 6 pages |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | Walden University |
| Program | BS in Healthcare Administration |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for HLTH 3110 Week 3
Who Can Move, Slow or Block Twelve-Month Postpartum Coverage in Practice: A Stakeholder Analysis Organized by Power Over Implementation
Student Name
Walden University
HLTH 3110: Current Issues in Healthcare Policy and Practice
Instructor Name
Month Day, Year
Who Can Move, Slow or Block Twelve-Month Postpartum Coverage in Practice: A Stakeholder Analysis Organized by Power Over Implementation
Scope of the Analysis
The Week 2 brief made the case that a year of postpartum Medicaid on the statute books can still leave people uninsured after a few months, and it called for an eligibility audit plus outreach. This analysis asks who can make that recommendation happen, slow it or block it. It is organized like a map, not an essay. For each party, it records what the party wants, what it can do and how much power it has over implementation specifically, which is different from power over whether the law exists. Stakeholder analysis in health policy commonly assesses each party's interest, influence and position toward a proposal, so that strategies can be matched to the parties that matter most (Brugha & Varvasovszky, 2000). The setting is a composite state that has adopted the extension.
The Map
Table 1 lists the parties.
Table 1
Stakeholders in Implementing Twelve-Month Postpartum Coverage
| Stakeholder | Interest in the audit and outreach | What it can do | Power over implementation |
|---|---|---|---|
| State Medicaid agency leadership | Supportive if costs are modest and findings are not embarrassing | Order the audit, assign staff, approve outreach | High: can start or stop |
| Eligibility system vendor | Neutral; paid per change request | Schedule or delay system fixes; estimate costs | High in practice: controls timing |
| County eligibility workers | Mixed; more work, but fewer wrongful closures to correct later | Apply the rule correctly or not; flag cases | Moderate: shape daily outcomes |
| Medicaid managed care plans | Supportive; continuity lowers costs of uncoordinated care | Contact members, share address updates | Moderate |
| Maternity clinics and hospitals | Supportive; fewer uncompensated visits | Tell patients the correct rule; help with address updates | Moderate on information gaps |
| Postpartum enrollees | Strongly supportive, but often unaware of the issue | Update addresses, use care | Low formal power; high stake |
| State legislators | Varies; attention to budget | Fund outreach; ask for audit results | Moderate: budget and oversight |
| Maternal health advocacy groups | Strongly supportive | Publicize problems, testify, partner on outreach | Low to moderate: agenda-setting |
Note. Positions and power are assessed for a composite state and will differ by state.
Where Blocking Power Actually Sits
The parties with the most visible interest, enrollees and advocacy groups, have the least power to make the audit happen. The parties with the most power over implementation are less visible: agency leadership, which can start or stop the work, and the eligibility system vendor, which controls how quickly any fix is made. Neither is likely to oppose the audit openly. The realistic risk is slowing rather than blocking. A vendor with a long queue of change requests can schedule a fix for many months later. Agency leadership, worried that an audit might reveal wrongful closures and invite criticism, can defer it without ever refusing.
This is why the power to block a measure is not the same as the power to delay it. In implementation, delay often does the work of blocking, and the parties with that power rarely appear in public debate. A strategy that focuses only on persuading legislators or building public support would miss the two parties that most decide whether the audit happens this year.
The Middle of the Map
County eligibility workers, managed care plans and clinics sit in the middle. Each has moderate power over a specific mechanism identified in the issue brief. Eligibility workers decide, case by case, whether the correct rule is applied, especially where systems require manual overrides. Managed care plans hold more current contact information for many members than the state does, because members call them, so they can reduce closures caused by returned mail. Clinics shape what patients believe: a front-desk worker who says coverage ends at two months can undo any outreach the state sends. Research on how policies are carried out emphasizes that front-line workers exercise real discretion and shape what a policy becomes in practice (Lipsky, 2010). These parties are allies whose support must be organized rather than assumed.
A Party Often Left Off the Map
One party rarely appears in stakeholder lists for postpartum coverage: the federal Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, which approves state plan amendments and oversees how states carry out renewals. Its formal power over this specific audit is limited, because the state can run the audit on its own. But federal attention can change a state's priorities quickly. If federal officials ask states to report how many postpartum enrollees lost coverage before 12 months, agency leadership will want the audit done before the report is due. For that reason, advocates and legislators in the composite state may find it useful to cite federal expectations when asking for the audit, even if federal officials never act directly.
The same logic applies to the state's own auditor or inspector general. An office that reviews program integrity could treat early closures as an error in benefit administration. That possibility, rather than any direct order, may be the most effective lever on a reluctant agency.
Strategy by Stakeholder
Agency leadership. Frame the audit as a way to confirm the extension is working and to protect the agency from future surprises, not as an investigation of failures. Offer to start with a small sample of cases.
System vendor. Ask agency leadership to place the audit and any fix on the priority list, with a date. Without a date, the queue decides.
Eligibility workers. Provide a one-page summary of the 12-month rule and a simple way to report cases that the system closes early.
Managed care plans. Ask them to share address updates with the state monthly and to include coverage reminders in member communications.
Clinics. Distribute a front-desk fact sheet and a contact for questions.
Legislators and advocates. Ask legislators to request the audit results in a budget hearing, which gives agency leadership a reason to complete it, and ask advocates to help test outreach materials with postpartum parents.
Limits of the Analysis
Stakeholder positions shift. A new agency director, a vendor contract renewal or a budget shortfall could change the map quickly. The analysis also cannot measure power precisely; the ratings in Table 1 are judgments based on each party's formal role and practical control, not on data. And it focuses on implementation, so it leaves out parties that matter mainly to whether the law itself changes, such as federal agencies. Policy process theory reminds us that windows for action open and close as problems, policies and politics line up (Kingdon, 2011), and a stakeholder map is a snapshot of one moment within that process.
References
Brugha, R., & Varvasovszky, Z. (2000). Stakeholder analysis: A review. Health Policy and Planning, 15(3), 239-246. https://doi.org/10.1093/heapol/15.3.239
Kingdon, J. W. (2011). Agendas, alternatives, and public policies (Updated 2nd ed.). Longman.
Lipsky, M. (2010). Street-level bureaucracy: Dilemmas of the individual in public services (30th anniversary expanded ed.). Russell Sage Foundation.
What the HLTH 3110 Week 3 instructions ask for
A stakeholder analysis this week usually asks you to identify the parties attached to a policy and assess their positions and power. Define the scope first, for example power over implementation rather than over passing a law. Present the parties in a table with consistent columns, such as interest, what they can do and how much power they hold. Then analyze the table: where does blocking or delaying power actually sit, and how does that compare with who is most visible in public debate? Consider parties that are often left off such maps. Match a strategy to each important party. State the limits of your assessments, which are judgments, and note that positions shift over time.
How the HLTH 3110 Week 3 example is put together
The scope section ties the analysis to the Week 2 recommendation and cites Brugha and Varvasovszky. Table 1 lists eight parties with interest, capacity and power, from agency leadership to advocacy groups. The blocking section argues that leadership and the vendor can delay without refusing and that delay works like blocking. The middle section links eligibility workers, managed care plans and clinics to the specific mechanisms they control, citing Lipsky. A section adds federal officials and the state auditor as indirect levers. The strategy section gives each party a matched approach. The limits section acknowledges judgment-based ratings and cites Kingdon on shifting windows for action.
Where the marks sit in the HLTH 3110 Week 3 rubric
Faculty generally reward stakeholder analyses that assess power carefully rather than listing everyone who cares about an issue. A clear scope, consistent table columns and a finding about where power actually sits earn credit. Faculty value recognition that delay can block a measure and that the most powerful parties may be invisible in public debate. Credit increases when strategies are matched to each party's interest and power. Adding overlooked parties shows careful thinking. Honest limits, especially that ratings are judgments, are expected. Grounding the map in a named stakeholder framework, cited correctly, also counts. Graders also look at whether the table and the prose agree, since a party rated high in the table but ignored in the strategy section suggests the ratings were not used.
HLTH 3110 Week 3 help from the desk
Stakeholder papers often list every group with an opinion and describe them in paragraphs, without assessing power. Others treat the loudest groups as the most powerful. Some propose one strategy for everyone. Decide first what kind of power you are measuring. Build a table with the same columns for every party. Then ask who could quietly delay the change and why. Write one strategy line for each party that matters. Our writers can prepare a stakeholder analysis for this course that maps parties by power over implementation and matches a strategy to each. A quick test: name the one party whose silence would stall everything.
Get a HLTH 3110 Week 3 example written to your instructions
Send the Week 3 prompt, the rubric your classroom posted and the measure you are mapping, and the desk returns a stakeholder analysis with the table filled in, free for a first sample, inside 24-48h. Where the assignment points at an organization you work for, the desk leaves that organization to you and maps public parties instead.
More HLTH 3110 papers and BS in Healthcare Administration samples
- HLTH 3110 Week 1: Policy Choice Discussion Post
- HLTH 3110 Week 2: Health Policy Issue Brief
- HLTH 3110 Week 4: Policy Evidence Review
- HLTH 3110 Week 5: Policy Cost Analysis
- HLTH 3110 Week 6: Policy Debate Discussion Post
- HLTH 3110 Week 7: Policy Position Paper
- HLTH 3110 Week 8: Comparative Health Policy Paper
- HLTH 3110 Week 9: Policy Implementation Analysis
- HLTH 3110 Week 10: State Legislative Policy Brief
- HLTH 3110 Week 11: Health Policy Course Reflection
- HLTH 3105 Week 3: Clinical Handover Rewrite
- HLTH 3100 Week 3: Ethics Case Analysis
- HLTH 2120 Week 3: Patient Weight Data Flow Map
- HLTH 1015 Week 3: Health Information Role Profile
HLTH 3110 Week 3 questions, answered
Where can I find a free HLTH 3110 Week 3 sample paper?
The stakeholder map, its table and the strategies are published above in full and can be read freely.
Who has the most power over implementation in the HLTH 3110 Week 3 map?
The state Medicaid agency's leadership and its eligibility system vendor, who can start or schedule the audit and any fixes.
Why does the map say delay can block a measure?
Because a vendor's queue or a cautious agency can postpone an audit indefinitely without ever refusing it, which has the same effect.
Which middle parties matter and why?
Eligibility workers, managed care plans and clinics, because each controls one way coverage can end early, from case decisions to address updates to what patients are told.
Which overlooked parties does the map add?
Federal Medicaid officials and the state auditor, whose attention can push a reluctant agency to act even without direct orders.