| Course | NRNP 6547 The Aging Experience |
|---|---|
| Week | Week 6 |
| Paper type | Policy brief |
| Length | About 820 words, 5 pages |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | Walden University |
| Program | Master of Science in Nursing (MSN) |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for NRNP 6547 Week 6
Policy Brief: Ending Medicare's Exclusion of Hearing Aids for Older Adults With Hearing Loss
Student Name
College of Nursing, Walden University
NRNP 6547: The Aging Experience
Instructor Name
Month Day, Year
Policy Brief: Ending Medicare's Exclusion of Hearing Aids for Older Adults With Hearing Loss
Bottom Line
Problem: traditional Medicare does not pay for hearing aids or the examinations to fit them, although hearing loss affects a majority of adults over 70. Recommendation: Congress should add a basic hearing aid benefit to Medicare Part B, covering one pair of hearing aids every five years and the fitting visit, with standard cost sharing. Cost: new Medicare spending, partly offset by lower device prices since the creation of an over-the-counter market and by potential reductions in costs associated with untreated hearing loss.
Issue Statement
The rule, in plain terms: the Medicare statute excludes hearing aids and examinations for prescribing or fitting them from coverage, so beneficiaries in traditional Medicare pay the full cost, which for a pair of prescription hearing aids has commonly run several thousand dollars. The rule excludes most older adults with hearing loss from treatment. In a nationally representative sample, about two thirds of adults aged 70 and older had measurable hearing loss (Lin et al., 2011), yet only about one in seven adults aged 50 and older with hearing loss used hearing aids (Chien & Lin, 2012). Cost is one of the main reasons. Untreated hearing loss is linked to social isolation, depression, and cognitive decline, which fall hardest on people with low incomes, who are least able to pay out of pocket.
Background
The exclusion was written into Medicare in 1965, when hearing aids were considered routine and low-cost personal devices, like eyeglasses, rather than medical treatment. Since then, the evidence on the consequences of untreated hearing loss has grown, and technology has improved. In 2022 the Food and Drug Administration created a category of over-the-counter hearing aids for adults with perceived mild to moderate hearing loss, which can be bought without a prescription or fitting (Medical Devices; Ear, Nose, and Throat Devices; Establishing Over-the-Counter Hearing Aids, 87 Fed. Reg. 50698, 2022). Many Medicare Advantage plans offer some hearing aid benefit as a supplemental feature, but benefits vary widely and many enrollees in traditional Medicare have none.
Options
Option 1: Add a hearing aid benefit to Part B. What it changes: all Medicare beneficiaries would have coverage for hearing aids and fitting, subject to standard cost sharing and a replacement interval. What it costs: new federal spending, with the size depending on the benefit design. Who objects: budget analysts concerned about spending, and some device manufacturers concerned about price negotiation.
Option 2: Rely on the over-the-counter market with a means-tested subsidy. What it changes: low-income beneficiaries would receive a voucher toward over-the-counter or prescription devices. What it costs: less than a universal benefit. Who objects: audiologists and advocates concerned that people with more severe or complex loss need professional fitting, which over-the-counter devices do not provide.
Option 3: Keep the exclusion and rely on Medicare Advantage supplemental benefits. What it changes: nothing for traditional Medicare. What it costs: no new federal spending. Who objects: beneficiary advocates, who note that coverage would continue to depend on plan choice rather than need.
Recommendation
Option 1: a basic Part B hearing aid benefit. It treats hearing loss as the medical condition it is, reaches beneficiaries in both traditional Medicare and Medicare Advantage, and includes the professional fitting that people with moderate to severe loss need.
Objection: "The over-the-counter market has already solved the price problem." Answer: over-the-counter devices help adults with mild to moderate loss who can fit them independently, but many older adults have more severe loss or dexterity and vision limitations that make self-fitting difficult; the benefit would cover what the market cannot.
Objection: "The benefit will be expensive." Answer: its cost can be controlled through a replacement interval, cost sharing, and competitive pricing, and it addresses a condition whose untreated consequences also carry costs.
Implementation Notes
If adopted, three design choices will decide whether the benefit reaches the people it is meant for. First, the fitting visit must be covered along with the device, since a hearing aid that is poorly fitted is often abandoned in a drawer. Second, the benefit should allow either a prescription or an over-the-counter device, so that beneficiaries with mild loss can choose the less expensive route. Third, cost sharing should be low enough for people with limited incomes, or paired with existing low-income subsidies, since those are the beneficiaries least able to buy devices now. A simple outcome measure, the share of beneficiaries with documented hearing loss who use hearing aids, should be tracked from the first year so that the benefit can be judged against the problem it was created to solve.
Illustration
A composite example: a 78-year-old retired mail carrier with moderate hearing loss stops attending his church's Bible study because he cannot follow the discussion. A pair of fitted hearing aids would cost more than two months of his Social Security income. He buys nothing, and the group loses a member.
References
Chien, W., & Lin, F. R. (2012). Prevalence of hearing aid use among older adults in the United States. Archives of Internal Medicine, 172(3), 292-293. https://doi.org/10.1001/archinternmed.2011.1408
Lin, F. R., Thorpe, R., Gordon-Salant, S., & Ferrucci, L. (2011). Hearing loss prevalence and risk factors among older adults in the United States. The Journals of Gerontology: Series A, 66(5), 582-590. https://doi.org/10.1093/gerona/glr002
Medical Devices; Ear, Nose, and Throat Devices; Establishing Over-the-Counter Hearing Aids, 87 Fed. Reg. 50698 (August 17, 2022) (to be codified at 21 C.F.R. pts. 800, 801, 808, & 874).
The Walden NRNP 6547 Week 6 instructions
The sixth week of NRNP 6547 commonly asks for a policy brief on an issue affecting older adults. You state the problem and recommendation up front, provide background, compare options, recommend one and address implementation, all for a policy audience. Faculty grade audience discipline before content. Cite reports, rules and studies in APA 7, usually in a short list. Briefs are short, often two pages. Plain language and clear headings are expected. A brief illustration can humanize the issue. NRNP 6547 faculty want the recommendation stated in the first lines and the audience named. Compare at least two options. Address cost and implementation briefly. Keep the brief to about two pages. Use headings so a busy reader can scan it.
How the NRNP 6547 Week 6 example is put together
The brief opens with a bottom line box of three sentences: what the problem is, what the writer recommends, and what it would cost. Below it, an issue statement gives the rule in plain terms and names who it excludes, with a figure and its source rather than a general claim about need. A short background block explains how the rule came to be written that way. Three options follow in identical format, each setting out its effect, its price and its opponents. The recommendation returns at the end with its two strongest objections answered in a sentence each. A person appears once, briefly, as an illustration rather than as the argument, and that person is composite.
NRNP 6547 Week 6 rubric: what earns full marks
Briefs are graded on audience discipline before content, and the fastest way to lose those points is a course paper wearing a policy title on its front page. Clinical vocabulary, long paragraphs and a conclusion that arrives last all signal the wrong reader. The example fails none of those tests. A content row usually asks for feasibility, which means costs, timelines and named objections rather than a proposal that only its author could love. Points are lost where the recommendation is hedged into invisibility, where options are described but never costed, and where the affected population appears only as a statistic. Some rubrics carry a formatting row for length or for headings, and briefs that overrun by two pages forfeit it before anyone reads a word.
NRNP 6547 Week 6 help from the desk
Briefs lose points fastest when they read like a course paper with a policy title. Lead with the bottom line. Another common gap is offering one option instead of comparing several. Show alternatives and why yours is best. Writers also skip implementation, such as cost or who administers the benefit. Address it. Avoid long background sections. Keep the illustration brief and composite. Check the status of the over-the-counter rule. Close with a clear ask. Writers also forget that Medicare Advantage plans may already offer some hearing coverage, which affects the options. Mention it. Another frequent slip is citing outdated prevalence figures. Use current data. Keep the illustration to a short paragraph. Close with what Congress or the agency should do.
Get a NRNP 6547 Week 6 example written to your instructions
Send the Week 6 prompt, the rubric, and the policy your section assigned. What comes back is a brief written to that policy at the length your prompt sets, options costed and recommendation defended. The first one is free and lands within 24-48 hours, formatted as a decision document rather than as an essay.
More NRNP 6547 papers and MSN samples
- NRNP 6547 Week 1: Discussion Post
- NRNP 6547 Week 2: Life-History Interview
- NRNP 6547 Week 3: Functional Assessment
- NRNP 6547 Week 4: Discussion Post
- NRNP 6547 Week 5: Literature Matrix
- NRNP 6547 Week 7: Case Analysis
- NRNP 6547 Week 8: Discussion Post
- NRNP 6547 Week 9: Caregiver Support Plan
- NRNP 6547 Week 10: Position Paper
- NRNP 6547 Week 11: Reflection
- NRNP 6549 Week 6: Respiratory Differential
- NRNP 6540 Week 6: Incontinence Visit Note
- NRNP 6557 Week 6: Complex Case Analysis
- NRNP 6539 Week 6: Knee Imaging Discussion
NRNP 6547 Week 6 questions, answered
How is a policy brief different from a paper on policy?
Audience and order. A paper builds toward a conclusion for a reader who will finish it; a brief leads with the conclusion for a reader who might not. That single change moves the recommendation to the top, compresses background, forces options into a comparable format and strips out the vocabulary a legislative staffer would have to look up.
Does the brief need citations?
Yes, and the example carries them, though placed to support the figures rather than to decorate the argument. Most rubrics in this area expect the issue statement and the cost estimates to be sourced. Formatting varies: some sections want author date in text, others prefer numbered notes so the body reads cleanly. Your prompt decides, and the desk follows it.
Should a real person appear in the brief?
One brief illustration usually helps, and the example includes a short composite. What it does not do is rest the argument on that person, because a brief that argues from a single story invites the objection that the story is unusual. The figure carries the case; the illustration makes it land. Nothing in the passage is drawn from an actual person.
Where can I find a free NRNP 6547 Week 6 sample paper?
The Medicare hearing aid brief is printed here with the bottom line, options, recommendation, implementation notes and illustration.
What does the NRNP 6547 Week 6 brief recommend?
That Congress add a basic hearing aid benefit to Medicare Part B, ending the exclusion in traditional Medicare.