| Course | MMHA 6530 Disease Prevention and Care Management |
|---|---|
| Week | Week 4 |
| Paper type | Care model comparison memo |
| Length | About 830 words, 5 pages |
| Format | Memo, APA 7 citations |
| School | Walden University |
| Program | Master of Healthcare Administration (MHA) |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for MMHA 6530 Week 4
Memorandum
To: Chief Medical Officer and Director of Nursing, Bluestem Health Network
From: Population Health Manager (MMHA student)
Date: Month Day, Year
Re: Which care model fits which group of patients, and a recommendation for the hypertension program
Purpose
Bluestem Health Network is planning a program for adults with hypertension, and staff have proposed three different care models, often using the names interchangeably. This memo compares transitional care, disease management and complex case management on the same questions, then matches each model to a segment of the network's patients. The comparison is meant to prevent a common mistake: choosing a model because it is familiar or well funded rather than because it fits the patients it will serve.
The Three Models Compared
Table 1 asks the same questions of each model.
Table 1
Comparison of Three Care Models
| Question | Transitional care | Disease management | Complex case management |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whom it enrolls | Patients leaving the hospital, often with a specific condition | Many patients with one chronic condition | Few patients with several conditions and social needs |
| When enrollment starts and ends | At discharge; ends after about 30 to 90 days | When identified; continues indefinitely at low intensity | When identified; continues until goals are met, often months |
| Who delivers it | Mainly nurses, with physician backup | Mix of nurses, pharmacists and community health workers | Nurse or social worker case managers with a team |
| Typical caseload | Moderate, turning over quickly | Large | Small |
| What it measures | Readmissions, follow-up visits, medication problems | Control of the condition, process measures | Utilization, goals met, patient-reported outcomes |
| How it is usually paid for | Hospital budget, transitional care codes, readmission incentives | Quality incentives, care management codes, operating budget | Operating budget, value-based contracts |
Transitional Care
Transitional care is a short, intense window after a hospital discharge. A nurse, often an advanced practice nurse, sees the patient before discharge and then at home and by phone over the following weeks, reviewing medications, teaching warning signs and coordinating follow-up. The model has strong evidence among older adults hospitalized with heart failure, where nurse-led transitional care reduced readmissions in a randomized trial (Naylor et al., 2004). Its strength is focus; its limit is that it begins only after a hospitalization and ends within weeks.
Disease Management
Disease management is a long, low-intensity relationship with many patients who share one condition. Staff monitor a registry, reach out when patients are overdue or uncontrolled, adjust treatment under protocols and support self-management. Team-based models in which pharmacists or nurses share hypertension management with physicians have improved blood pressure control (Carter et al., 2009). Its strength is reach; its limit is that it does little for patients whose problems go well beyond one condition.
Complex Case Management
Complex case management serves a small number of patients with multiple chronic conditions, frequent hospital use and significant social needs. A case manager builds a relationship, coordinates many providers and addresses barriers such as housing or transportation. Caseloads are small and staffing heavy. Its strength is depth; its limit is cost and reach. It also draws on the same elements of chronic care that the other models do, such as decision support, community resources and clinical information systems (Wagner et al., 2001), but applies them intensively to a few patients, and evaluations of programs selecting the highest users have often found smaller effects than before-and-after comparisons suggested.
Matching Models to Segments
The three models are not rivals. Each fits a different segment of Bluestem's patients:
Heart failure discharges: transitional care. Patients leaving the hospital after a heart failure admission face a high risk of readmission in the following weeks. The hospital's heart failure clinic already sees some of them; extending a nurse-led transitional program to every heart failure discharge fits the evidence and the window of risk.
Hypertension: disease management. The Week 3 burden brief found thousands of adults with hypertension, about three in ten uncontrolled and one in five unseen. That is a large population with one main condition, needing regular contact rather than intensive management. Disease management, delivered by community health workers and pharmacists under protocols, fits that segment.
Patients with several conditions and frequent admissions: complex case management. A small group of patients, perhaps one or two hundred, account for many admissions and have needs beyond any single disease. A case manager with a small caseload fits them, but the program should be evaluated carefully before it grows.
Recommendation
I recommend that the hypertension program be designed as disease management, with community health workers handling outreach and home monitoring, a pharmacist adjusting medications under physician-approved protocols and a nurse lead supervising. Transitional care for heart failure and complex case management for the highest-need patients should be considered separately, so that the hypertension program is not stretched to serve patients it was not designed for. I would like to review this matching with you before the Week 5 enrollment analysis defines exactly whom the hypertension program will serve. If you see a segment I have missed, such as adults with both diabetes and hypertension, it would help to decide now which program would own them, so that no patient is counted twice and none falls between programs.
References
Carter, B. L., Rogers, M., Daly, J., Zheng, S., & James, P. A. (2009). The potency of team-based care interventions for hypertension: A meta-analysis. Archives of Internal Medicine, 169(19), 1748-1755. https://doi.org/10.1001/archinternmed.2009.316
Naylor, M. D., Brooten, D. A., Campbell, R. L., Maislin, G., McCauley, K. M., & Schwartz, J. S. (2004). Transitional care of older adults hospitalized with heart failure: A randomized, controlled trial. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society, 52(5), 675-684. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1532-5415.2004.52202.x
Wagner, E. H., Austin, B. T., Davis, C., Hindmarsh, M., Schaefer, J., & Bonomi, A. (2001). Improving chronic illness care: Translating evidence into action. Health Affairs, 20(6), 64-78. https://doi.org/10.1377/hlthaff.20.6.64
MMHA 6530 Week 4 instructions, in plain terms
Care model comparisons ask you to choose the right approach for a population. Compare the candidate models on the same questions, in a table, so differences are visible: who is enrolled, for how long, by whom, at what caseload, measured how and paid for how. Describe each model briefly in its own terms, citing evidence where it exists, and name its main strength and limit. Then match models to segments of your patients rather than declaring one model best. Explain each match by the segment's size, needs and timing. Recommend a model for the program you are designing, and say which other segments belong elsewhere so the program is not stretched. End by inviting review of any segment you may have missed.
How the MMHA 6530 Week 4 example is put together
The purpose section explains why models must be compared before one is built. Table 1 asks six questions of each model. Short sections describe transitional care, citing Naylor and colleagues; disease management, citing Carter and colleagues; and complex case management, citing Wagner and colleagues on shared chronic care elements. A matching section assigns heart failure discharges to transitional care, the large hypertension population to disease management and a small group with many conditions to complex case management. The recommendation designs the hypertension program as disease management with community health workers, a pharmacist and a nurse lead, and asks about overlapping segments such as patients with both diabetes and hypertension.
Reading the MMHA 6530 Week 4 rubric
Comparison memos are graded on structure and matching. A table that asks the same questions of each model earns the first share. Accurate, evidence-based descriptions of each model earn the next. The matching section carries the most weight, since the assignment's purpose is to fit models to patients; memos that pick a single favorite for everyone lose credit. A recommendation that follows from the matching, and that protects the program from scope creep, shows judgment. Attention to overlapping segments is credited. Memo format, concise writing, accurate sources and APA references complete the grade. A short note on patients who might fit two segments, and which program would own them, distinguishes careful work.
MMHA 6530 Week 4 help: mistakes that cost marks
Students often present care models as competitors and pick the one with the best evidence. Instead, ask which patients each model was built for. Use the same questions for every model, so the table does the comparing. Keep descriptions short and accurate. Match each model to a segment you can describe in your own population. Say which patients your program will not serve and where they will go instead. Think about patients who fit two segments. We can write a care model comparison memo for the populations your organization serves. Draw your population as segments on one page before you compare models. Then the matching section almost writes itself.
Get a MMHA 6530 Week 4 example written to your instructions
Send the Week 4 memo prompt and rubric along with the models or conditions your section names; a comparison table and matched recommendation arrive in 24-48h, the first carrying no fee. The medical director, finance lead and nursing pool here are fictional, drawn for a network that exists only in this example.
More MMHA 6530 papers and MHA samples
- MMHA 6530 Week 1: Prevention Tier Map
- MMHA 6530 Week 2: Lung Screening Trade-Off Post
- MMHA 6530 Week 3: Hypertension Burden Brief
- MMHA 6530 Week 5: Enrollment Criteria Analysis
- MMHA 6530 Week 6: CHW Funding Post
- MMHA 6530 Week 7: Care Team Staffing Design
- MMHA 6530 Week 8: Scale-Up Evidence Critique
- MMHA 6530 Week 9: HEDIS Measure Plan
- MMHA 6530 Week 10: Care Management Proposal Draft
- MMHA 6530 Week 11: Hypertension Program Proposal
- MMHA 6520 Week 4: Denominator Specification
- MMHA 6501 Week 4: Change Management Memo
- MMHA 6475 Week 4: Program Logic Diagram
- MMHA 6452 Week 4: Board Policy Draft
MMHA 6530 Week 4 questions, answered
Where can I find a free MMHA 6530 Week 4 sample paper?
Read the full care model comparison memo, table and recommendation included, right here.
Which models does the MMHA 6530 Week 4 memo compare?
Transitional care, disease management and complex case management.
Why match models to segments instead of choosing one?
Each model was built for different patients, timing and intensity, so one model cannot fit everyone.
Which model fits the hypertension program?
Disease management, because the population is large, shares one main condition and needs regular low-intensity contact.
Where do heart failure discharges go?
To nurse-led transitional care, which fits the high-risk weeks after a hospital stay.