| Course | MMHA 6530 Disease Prevention and Care Management |
|---|---|
| Week | Week 9 |
| Paper type | HEDIS-based measure plan |
| Length | About 1,030 words, 6 pages |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | Walden University |
| Program | Master of Healthcare Administration (MHA) |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for MMHA 6530 Week 9
Measuring the Hypertension Program Without Letting It Pick Easy Cases: A HEDIS-Anchored Measure Plan for Bluestem
Student Name
Walden University
MMHA 6530: Disease Prevention and Care Management
Instructor Name
Month Day, Year
Measuring the Hypertension Program Without Letting It Pick Easy Cases: A HEDIS-Anchored Measure Plan for Bluestem
Purpose
This plan sets the measures Bluestem Health Network will use to judge its hypertension program. It has three jobs: to show whether pressure comes down, whether the unseen patients the program exists for are actually being found, and whether the work strains anything else in the network. It must also guard against a common risk: a program that reports results only for its own enrollees can look successful by enrolling patients who were easiest to help. The plan answers that risk by reporting the main outcome twice, once for enrolled patients and once for the network's whole hypertension population. All baselines and targets are illustrative.
Measures Table
Table 1 lists every measure with its type, definition, source, frequency, baseline and target.
Table 1
Hypertension Program Measures (Illustrative Values)
| Measure | Type | Numerator / denominator | Source | Frequency | Baseline | Target |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Blood pressure control, enrolled | Outcome | Enrolled patients with latest reading below 140/90 / all enrolled patients, including those lost to follow-up | Registry and home readings | Quarterly | Not applicable at start | 60% at 12 months |
| Blood pressure control, network | Outcome | HEDIS Controlling High Blood Pressure specification for all attributed adults | Registry | Quarterly | 51% | 56% at 24 months |
| Tier 1 reach within 30 days | Process | Tier 1 patients contacted within 30 days of appearing on the list / Tier 1 patients listed | Worker contact log | Monthly | 0% | 70% |
| Home readings submitted | Process | Enrolled patients submitting at least six readings in a month / enrolled patients | Monitoring platform | Monthly | 0% | 75% |
| Days from high reading to pharmacist review | Process | Median days from an average above target to documented review | Platform and record | Monthly | Not applicable | 3 days or fewer |
| Primary care wait time | Balancing | Median days to third next available appointment, network clinics | Scheduling system | Monthly | 12 days | No increase above 15 days |
The Outcome Measures
The network outcome adopts the HEDIS Controlling High Blood Pressure specification (National Committee for Quality Assurance, 2024), which the network already reports to payers, so the program's effect will appear in the measure that matters to Bluestem's contracts. Because the program enrolls only part of the hypertensive population in its first year, the network measure will move slowly, and its target is set at 24 months.
The enrolled outcome measures control among patients the program has actually worked with. It counts everyone enrolled, including patients who stopped responding or moved, so that the program cannot improve its rate by losing difficult patients. Reporting both measures together protects against two misreadings. A strong enrolled rate with a flat network rate would suggest the program is working for those it reaches but reaching too few. A weak enrolled rate would suggest the model itself needs change. Self-measured readings from home are included in both outcome measures where the HEDIS specification allows, since home monitoring with clinical support improves control (Uhlig et al., 2013).
The Process Measures
Three process measures follow the program's workflow. Tier 1 reach within 30 days shows whether community health workers are finding the unseen patients the program was designed for. Home readings submitted shows whether patients are using the monitors, which is the step that makes remote management possible. Days from a high reading to pharmacist review shows whether high readings lead to action quickly. If the outcome does not improve, these measures show where the chain broke. Team-based care improves control mainly when medication adjustments actually happen (Carter et al., 2009), so delays in pharmacist review are a likely early warning.
The Balancing Measure
A balancing measure watches for unintended consequences (Provost & Murray, 2011). The program will send many previously unseen patients back to primary care clinics for examinations and laboratory work, which could lengthen waits for everyone else. Days to the third next available appointment, a standard access measure, will be tracked monthly across network clinics. If it rises above 15 days, the program and clinic managers will review scheduling together before enrolling more patients.
Baselines and Data Quality
Baselines will be taken from the quarter before launch. The network control rate is already reported and can be used as is. Process baselines start at zero, since the activities do not yet exist. Before launch, the analyst will confirm that home readings can be imported into the registry with a source flag, that every worker contact lands in a coded field the analyst can count, and that the scheduling system can report third next available appointments by clinic. Each check should be done before the first patient enrolls; measures that depend on a data field that does not exist will produce nothing to report.
Targets and How They Were Set
The targets in Table 1 are illustrative, but the reasoning behind them is not. The enrolled control target of 60% at twelve months assumes the program brings a substantial share of previously uncontrolled or unseen patients under control, but stays well below the improvements reported in trials with richer staffing, in line with the cautions raised in the Week 8 critique. The network target of 56% at 24 months assumes that the program reaches about a fifth of the eligible population each year and that clinic-based care holds steady for everyone else. The reach target of 70% within 30 days allows for patients who cannot be found or decline contact. Home readings at 75% reflects experience that some patients stop using monitors after the first weeks. Each target will be revisited after two quarters of actual data, and the quality committee will be told when and why any target changes, so that moving a target cannot quietly turn a shortfall into a success.
Reporting
Process measures will be reported monthly to the program team and the nurse lead, who can act on them quickly. Outcome measures and the balancing measure will be reported quarterly to the chief medical officer and the network's quality committee, with the enrolled and network rates always shown together. The quality committee will use the process measures to apply the expansion rule from the Week 8 critique: new counties are added only when Tier 1 reach and home readings meet their targets for two consecutive quarters.
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
National Committee for Quality Assurance. (2024). HEDIS measurement year 2024: Volume 2, technical specifications for health plans. National Committee for Quality Assurance.
Provost, L. P., & Murray, S. K. (2011). The health care data guide: Learning from data for improvement. Jossey-Bass.
Uhlig, K., Patel, K., Ip, S., Kitsios, G. D., & Balk, E. M. (2013). Self-measured blood pressure monitoring in the management of hypertension: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Annals of Internal Medicine, 159(3), 185-194. https://doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-159-3-201308060-00008
Reading the MMHA 6530 Week 9 instructions
Measure plans ask you to define exactly how a program will be judged. Put every measure in one table with its type, numerator and denominator, data source, frequency, baseline and target. Anchor the main outcome to a standard measure your organization already reports. Guard against selective enrollment by reporting the outcome for the whole eligible population as well as for participants, and count everyone enrolled, including dropouts. Add a process measure for every link in the program's logic, so that if the outcome stalls you can see which link gave way. Include a balancing measure for possible harm elsewhere. Explain how targets were set, how baselines will be taken and which data fields must exist before launch.
How this MMHA 6530 Week 9 example is built
The purpose section names the risk of cherry-picking. Table 1 lists six measures with values marked illustrative. The outcome section explains the HEDIS-based network rate and the enrolled rate counting everyone, citing NCQA and Uhlig and colleagues. The process section ties each measure to a workflow step and cites Carter and colleagues on medication adjustment. The balancing section explains appointment wait times, citing Provost and Murray. A baselines section lists data checks before launch. A targets section explains the reasoning behind each target and how changes will be reported. The reporting section sets monthly process review and quarterly outcome review linked to the expansion rule.
Where the marks sit in the MMHA 6530 Week 9 rubric
Measure plans are graded on completeness and integrity. A single table with full definitions earns the first share. An outcome anchored to a standard measure and reported for both participants and the whole population earns the largest share, because it guards against misleading results. Process measures tied to the program's logic, and a balancing measure, show sophistication. Counting dropouts in the participant outcome is a specific criterion. Explaining how targets were set, and how changes will be disclosed, demonstrates integrity. Data readiness checks are credited.Table design and APA references are expected but weigh little. Plans that explain in advance what would happen if a target were missed show mature thinking about accountability.
MMHA 6530 Week 9 help from the desk
Measure plans often report outcomes only for participants who finished, which flatters any program. Count everyone you enrolled, and report the whole population too. Use a standard measure for the main outcome. Add one process measure for each step in your workflow. Think about what your program could make worse, and measure it. Write down why each target was chosen. Check that every data field you need actually exists before launch. We can write a measure plan for your program anchored to the quality measures your organization reports. Walk the table past the clerks and analysts who will pull each number, and confirm every field exists today. Fix the gaps before launch rather than after.
Get a MMHA 6530 Week 9 example written to your instructions
What condition and program does your Week 9 plan measure? Share that, the prompt and the rubric; a measures table with outcome, process, balancing and equity rows, plus governance, is written and sent in 24-48h, and a first order is free. Baselines and targets here are illustrative figures for an invented network.
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 4: Care Model Comparison Memo
- 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 10: Care Management Proposal Draft
- MMHA 6530 Week 11: Hypertension Program Proposal
- MMHA 6520 Week 9: Analytics Program Evaluation
- MMHA 6501 Week 9: Leadership Development Plan
- MMHA 6475 Week 9: Comparison Group Design
- MMHA 6452 Week 9: Volunteer Orientation Outline
MMHA 6530 Week 9 questions, answered
Where can I find a free MMHA 6530 Week 9 sample paper?
The measure plan and its full table are posted on this page for free.
Why is control reported twice in the MMHA 6530 Week 9 plan?
Once for everyone enrolled and once for the whole network, so the program cannot look good by enrolling easy cases.
Which standard measure anchors the outcome?
The HEDIS Controlling High Blood Pressure specification.
What do the process measures track?
Reach to unseen patients within 30 days, home readings submitted and days from a high reading to pharmacist review.
What is the balancing measure?
Primary care appointment wait times, in case the program crowds clinic schedules.