| Course | HLTH 6840 Health Policy and Management |
|---|---|
| Week | Week 2 |
| Paper type | Discussion post with peer replies |
| Length | About 500 words, 3 pages |
| Format | Discussion post, APA 7 citations |
| School | Walden University |
| Program | graduate health administration program |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for HLTH 6840 Week 2
Week 2 Discussion: Initial Post
Support a Phased Medical-Surgical Ratio, and Be Honest About What It Costs the Managers Who Run It
I support the pending bill in our composite state to set a minimum nurse-to-patient ratio on medical-surgical units, phased to one nurse for every five patients in the first year and one for every four by the third. My reason is that the evidence linking nurse workload to patient deaths is consistent across states and countries, and the phased design gives hospitals time to hire.
The evidence a reader can check is strong. Pennsylvania hospital data from the late 1990s showed surgical deaths within a month rising about 7% in relative odds with each added patient in a nurse's load, and to markedly more burnout among the nurses themselves (Aiken et al., 2002). Two decades later, Illinois medical-surgical units carried anywhere from about four to more than seven patients per nurse, and heavier assignments again tracked with more deaths within 30 days (Lasater et al., 2021). And when Queensland, Australia, legislated minimum ratios, mortality, readmissions and length of stay improved in the hospitals covered, with costs avoided exceeding the cost of the added staffing (McHugh et al., 2021).
Now the cost to the people who deliver the service. Hospital managers in our state would have to hire registered nurses in a tight labor market, and in the short term that means paying for agency nurses at premium rates. Some rural hospitals may not find enough nurses and could have to close beds or divert patients to meet the ratio, which would shift work to larger hospitals. Managers would also carry new reporting duties, and nurse leaders would spend time on compliance rather than on care. I support the bill because the patient evidence is strong, but a fair argument for it has to say that managers will pay much of the price in the first three years, and that rural hospitals need a defined variance process.
Reply to Danielle K.
Danielle, thank you for taking the opposing side so carefully. You oppose the bill on the ground that ratios do not address the nursing shortage and may worsen it by locking hospitals into staffing levels they cannot fill. That is the strongest objection, and I share part of it. One piece of evidence pushes the other way: California's experience after its mandate suggests nurses there cared for fewer patients than in comparison states without large exits from the workforce (Aiken et al., 2010). Would your view change if the bill included a funded variance process for hospitals that document good-faith recruitment and still fall short?
Reply to Omar S.
Omar, I agree with your support for the bill, and your point about failure to rescue is well taken. The operational question your post leaves open is how compliance would be measured. A ratio averaged across a shift could hide hours at seven patients per nurse during admissions. Would you favor reporting by shift or by hour, and who in the hospital would collect it?
References
Aiken, L. H., Clarke, S. P., Sloane, D. M., Sochalski, J., & Silber, J. H. (2002). Hospital nurse staffing and patient mortality, nurse burnout, and job dissatisfaction. JAMA, 288(16), 1987-1993. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.288.16.1987
Aiken, L. H., Sloane, D. M., Cimiotti, J. P., Clarke, S. P., Flynn, L., Seago, J. A., Spetz, J., & Smith, H. L. (2010). Implications of the California nurse staffing mandate for other states. Health Services Research, 45(4), 904-921. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-6773.2010.01114.x
Lasater, K. B., Aiken, L. H., Sloane, D. M., French, R., Martin, B., Alexander, M., & McHugh, M. D. (2021). Patient outcomes and cost savings associated with hospital safe nurse staffing legislation: An observational study. BMJ Open, 11(12), Article e052899. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2021-052899
McHugh, M. D., Aiken, L. H., Sloane, D. M., Windsor, C., Douglas, C., & Yates, P. (2021). Effects of nurse-to-patient ratio legislation on nurse staffing and patient mortality, readmissions, and length of stay: A prospective study in a panel of hospitals. The Lancet, 397(10288), 1905-1913. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(21)00768-6
What the HLTH 6840 Week 2 instructions ask for
Policy stance threads at this stage usually want a position, not a summary. State your stance on a live policy in the first two sentences, including the main reason. Support it with evidence a reader could check, ideally peer-reviewed studies from settings comparable to yours. Then state plainly what implementing the policy would cost the people who deliver the service, such as managers, staff or smaller organizations, rather than leaving costs to opponents to raise. Acknowledge where the burden would fall hardest. Stay within discussion length. When replying, engage classmates who disagree on their evidence rather than their conclusion, and ask supporters operational questions their posts leave open, such as how compliance would be counted.
How this HLTH 6840 Week 2 example is built
The opening states support for a phased medical-surgical ratio and gives the reason in the second sentence. The evidence paragraph cites Aiken and colleagues on Pennsylvania mortality and burnout, Lasater and colleagues on Illinois workloads and McHugh and colleagues on Queensland's legislated ratios. The cost paragraph names recruitment in a tight market, agency premiums, possible rural bed closures and reporting duties, and asks for a rural variance. The reply to Danielle engages her shortage objection with California evidence from Aiken and colleagues and asks whether a funded variance would change her view. The reply to Omar asks whether compliance should be measured by shift or by hour.
Where the marks sit in the HLTH 6840 Week 2 rubric
Graders look for a clear stance in the opening two sentences, evidence a reader could verify and an honest account of cost to those who deliver the service. Posts that bury their position, or that cite advocacy material instead of studies, earn less. Naming who bears the cost, especially smaller or rural organizations, shows realism and often earns explicit credit. Replies are judged on whether they engage opposing evidence fairly and whether they push supporters on operational details. Discussion length, accurate citations and a respectful tone also matter. A post that only lists benefits reads as advocacy rather than analysis, which the course discourages.
HLTH 6840 Week 2 help from the desk
Policy posts often open with background on the issue and reach a stance only at the end, or state a stance without evidence. Others describe only benefits and leave costs to classmates. Some cite news stories rather than studies. Write your stance and reason as the first two sentences, then find two or three studies that a skeptical classmate could check. Finally, write as the manager who would have to carry out the policy, and set down what that person would worry about first. A useful check is to imagine the hospital association's lobbyist reading your post and to ask whether you have already answered the objection they would raise first. We can draft a policy stance post for your course that pairs a clear position with checkable evidence and an honest cost account.
Get a HLTH 6840 Week 2 example written to your instructions
A custom Week 2 post can be written for you against the exact discussion prompt and rubric your classroom uses. Send both, and a draft with its position, its sourcing and its feasibility turn intact arrives in 24 to 48 hours. The first one is free. Material belonging to your employer stays in your hands.
More HLTH 6840 papers and graduate health administration program samples
- HLTH 6840 Week 1: Health Policy Scan Brief
- HLTH 6840 Week 3: Policy Problem Definition
- HLTH 6840 Week 4: Policy Criteria Memo
- HLTH 6840 Week 5: Policy Alternatives Analysis
- HLTH 6840 Week 6: Policy Stakeholder Map
- HLTH 6840 Week 7: Policy Implementation Plan
- HLTH 6840 Week 8: Health Policy Executive Brief
- HLTH 6840 Week 9: Policy Peer Reply Post
- HLTH 6840 Week 10: Policy Budget Impact Paper
- HLTH 6840 Week 11: Complete Policy Analysis
- HLTH 6771 Week 2: Readiness Claim Discussion Post
- HLTH 6740 Week 2: Research Finding Discussion Post
- HLTH 6100 Week 2: Credentialing Discussion Post
- HLTH 6510 Week 2: Health Financing Discussion Post
HLTH 6840 Week 2 questions, answered
Where can I find a free HLTH 6840 Week 2 sample paper?
The stance post on nurse staffing and both replies appear on this page, free to read.
What position does the HLTH 6840 Week 2 post take?
Support for a phased minimum ratio on medical-surgical units, five patients per nurse in year one and four by year three.
What evidence supports it?
Studies from Pennsylvania and Illinois linking heavier nurse workloads to higher mortality and burnout, and an evaluation of Queensland's legislated ratios.
What does the post say the policy would cost managers?
Hiring in a tight labor market, premium agency costs, possible rural bed closures and new reporting duties.
What operational question does the reply to Omar raise?
Whether compliance should be measured by shift or by hour, since a shift average could hide hours of heavy workload.