In grid form with a fact sheet attached, this presidential agenda comparison example for NURS 6050 Week 2 weighs two administrations on drug prices by instrument, reach and durability. Searches like "nurs 6050 week 2 assignment example", "nurs6050 week 2 sample" and "nurs 6050 week 2 example" land here.
The NURS 6050 Week 2 example, in full
Prescription Drug Prices on Two Presidential Agendas: A Comparison Grid and Fact Sheet
Student Name
College of Nursing, Walden University
NURS 6050: Policy and Advocacy for Improving Population Health
Instructor Name
Month Day, Year
Prescription Drug Prices on Two Presidential Agendas: A Comparison Grid and Fact Sheet
Population Health Issue
The issue is the cost of prescription drugs to patients, and in particular to older adults on Medicare, who take more medications than any other group and often pay a share of list prices. When cost keeps people from filling or taking prescriptions, chronic conditions such as diabetes, heart failure, and hypertension become harder to control. Both the Trump administration (2017 to 2021) and the Biden administration (2021 to 2025) placed drug prices on their agendas, using different instruments. The grid below records each administration's approach in parallel rows, in neutral terms, followed by a one-page fact sheet for a legislator's staff.
Comparison Grid
Row 1: How the issue was framed
Trump administration: framed high prices as the product of foreign countries paying less than Americans for the same drugs and of a supply chain with too many intermediaries; the 2018 blueprint described the goal as putting American patients first (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services [HHS], 2018).
Biden administration: framed high prices as the product of Medicare's inability to negotiate and of price increases above inflation; the goal was described as lowering costs for seniors and people with disabilities.
Row 2: Instruments used
Trump administration: executive action and rulemaking. The FDA finalized a rule creating a pathway for states to propose programs importing certain drugs from Canada (Importation of Prescription Drugs, 85 Fed. Reg. 62094, 2020). CMS issued an interim final rule for a Most Favored Nation model tying Medicare Part B payment for some drugs to prices in other wealthy countries (Most Favored Nation Model, 85 Fed. Reg. 76180, 2020).
Biden administration: legislation. The Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 (Pub. L. No. 117-169) authorized Medicare to negotiate prices for selected high-spending drugs, required manufacturers to pay rebates when prices rise faster than inflation, capped insulin cost sharing for Medicare enrollees, and capped annual out-of-pocket spending in Part D (Cubanski et al., 2023).
Row 3: Agency carrying the work
Trump administration: the Food and Drug Administration for importation, which reviews and authorizes state programs; the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services for the Most Favored Nation model.
Biden administration: the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, which selects drugs for negotiation, conducts the negotiation, and administers the Part D changes.
Row 4: Evidence of effect so far
Trump administration: the importation pathway produced state proposals, and the FDA authorized the first state program in 2024, several years after the rule; no measurable effect on patient prices had been documented at the time of writing. The Most Favored Nation model was blocked by federal courts before taking effect and was later rescinded.
Biden administration: the insulin cap and Part D changes took effect on the statute's schedule for Medicare enrollees. Negotiated prices for the first group of selected drugs were announced in 2024 and apply beginning in 2026, so their effect on patients cannot yet be measured.
Row 5: Durability
Trump administration: instruments created by executive action and rulemaking can be withdrawn or revised by a later administration through new rulemaking, as happened with the Most Favored Nation model.
Biden administration: provisions enacted by statute can be changed only by Congress, although their implementation can be shaped by the agency and challenged in court.
What the Comparison Shows
Read row against row, the grid shows two administrations that agreed on the problem and differed on the lever. Both accepted that Americans pay more for many brand-name drugs than patients in other wealthy countries and that Medicare's purchasing power was underused. The Trump administration reached for tools available to the executive branch alone: rules that could be issued without Congress, aimed at importing lower foreign prices or referencing them in Medicare payment. The Biden administration, with a narrow congressional majority, pursued a statute that gave Medicare a new power it had been barred from using since Part D was created.
The choice of instrument shaped both speed and durability. Rules can be issued quickly, but they are exposed to legal challenge and to reversal by the next administration, and the Most Favored Nation model did not survive either. Legislation takes longer to pass and longer to implement, which is why the first negotiated prices take effect years after enactment, but it is harder to undo. For nurses who advocate on this issue, the practical lesson is that a policy's route matters as much as its content: a promising executive action may not outlast an election, and a statute's benefits may arrive on a schedule that patients rationing their medicines today will find slow.
Neither approach addresses every driver of cost. Commercially insured patients with high deductibles, and uninsured patients, were largely outside both administrations' Medicare-focused instruments, and pharmacy benefit manager practices received attention in proposals from both parties without being resolved in this period. Those gaps are where the next round of agenda setting is likely to occur. A nurse writing to a legislator about drug costs today would do well to ask which patients those remaining gaps leave behind.
Fact Sheet: Prescription Drug Costs and Medicare Enrollees
The issue. Many Americans cannot afford the drugs they are prescribed. In a national survey, about three in ten adults reported not taking a medicine as prescribed in the past year because of cost, including skipping doses, cutting pills, or not filling prescriptions (Kirzinger et al., 2019). Older adults, who take more medications, are especially exposed.
Finding 1. Cost-related nonadherence worsens control of chronic diseases. Patients who ration insulin, antihypertensives, or heart failure medications are more likely to need emergency and hospital care, which raises total costs.
Finding 2. Federal policy has moved through two routes. Executive rules created a pathway for state importation from Canada and proposed tying Medicare payments to international prices; legislation authorized Medicare to negotiate prices for selected drugs and capped out-of-pocket costs for enrollees (Cubanski et al., 2023).
Finding 3. Durability depends on the route. Statutory provisions persist across administrations unless Congress changes them; provisions created by rule can be withdrawn by a later administration.
Why it matters to your constituents. Every patient who splits pills to make a prescription last is a patient whose blood pressure, blood sugar, or heart failure is less controlled than it should be. Policies that reduce what patients pay at the pharmacy counter are among the most direct tools available to reduce that rationing.
References
Cubanski, J., Neuman, T., & Freed, M. (2023). Explaining the prescription drug provisions in the Inflation Reduction Act. KFF. https://www.kff.org/medicare/issue-brief/explaining-the-prescription-drug-provisions-in-the-inflation-reduction-act/
Importation of Prescription Drugs, 85 Fed. Reg. 62094 (October 1, 2020) (to be codified at 21 C.F.R. pts. 1 & 251).
Inflation Reduction Act of 2022, Pub. L. No. 117-169, 136 Stat. 1818 (2022).
Kirzinger, A., Lopes, L., Wu, B., & Brodie, M. (2019). KFF health tracking poll, February 2019: Prescription drugs. KFF. https://www.kff.org/health-costs/poll-finding/kff-health-tracking-poll-february-2019-prescription-drugs/
Most Favored Nation (MFN) Model, 85 Fed. Reg. 76180 (November 27, 2020) (to be codified at 42 C.F.R. pt. 513).
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (2018). American patients first: The Trump administration blueprint to lower drug prices and reduce out-of-pocket costs. https://www.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/AmericanPatientsFirst.pdf
What a finished NURS 6050 Week 2 presidential agenda comparison looks like
A three-column grid across two pages, then the fact sheet. Rows name the population health issue, how each administration framed it, the instruments each used, the federal agency carrying the work, and what evidence of effect exists so far. One column describes an executive approach that opened a federal pathway for state importation programs and proposed tying some Medicare payments to prices abroad; the other describes legislation, the Inflation Reduction Act, that authorized Medicare to negotiate prices for selected drugs. The agency row names CMS for negotiation and payment and the FDA for importation. A durability row notes that a successor can withdraw a rule but not a statute. The fact sheet restates the issue plainly, with three findings and a line on patients who ration pills.
How a NURS 6050 Week 2 example is structured
Framing, instruments, agency, evidence, durability, then the handout. Framing leads the grid because each administration described the issue differently, one around what other wealthy countries pay and the other around Medicare's bargaining power, and those framings explain why the chosen tools differ. Instruments come next and are described by type, rule or statute, so the comparison rests on mechanics rather than party. The agency row is short but required, since the prompt asks which federal body would carry the work. Evidence is placed after instruments and labeled as early wherever outcomes are still unfolding. Durability closes the grid and carries its analytic point. The fact sheet is written last, for a generalist, and each of its three findings traces back to a named row above, so the handout never claims more than the grid supports.
Framing recorded, not adopted
Each administration's description of the problem appears in neutral terms, prices abroad in one column and Medicare bargaining in the other, so the grid reports framings without taking one up.
Instruments named by type
Rule, proposed rule or statute is stated for every action. Classifying tools this way keeps the comparison on mechanics.
Two agencies, two jobs
CMS carries negotiation and payment rules, and the FDA carries importation. Naming the operating agency satisfies the row the prompt sets.
A durability row
A rule can be rescinded by a successor; a statute needs a vote. This single row holds most of the comparison's analytic weight.
A handout for a generalist
Three findings, one nursing observation about patients splitting doses, and a source line fit on one page for a legislative aide.
Where marks go in NURS 6050 Week 2
Allegiance is the easiest way to lose points in this comparison, and it rarely looks like open praise. It shows up as uneven cells, one column in the administration's own language and the other in its critics' terms. Rubrics in many sections look for parallel treatment and evidence over assertion, so the grid is read row against row. The agency row is small but often carries its own criterion, and naming a cabinet department instead of its agency tends to cost that row. Evidence of effect is scored for honesty; claiming a policy lowered prices while its provisions still phase in overstates the record. The fact sheet usually counts separately for audience fit, and one that repeats the grid in full sentences misses its reader, who needed three findings and a reason to care.
Get a NURS 6050 Week 2 example written to your instructions
Attach the Week 2 grid template, the rubric, and the issue your section assigned or allowed. A NURS 6050 presidential agenda comparison comes back with parallel columns and a one-page fact sheet, the first one free, within 24 to 48 hours. Administrations your prompt names replace the two used here, and no column is written to flatter either one.
NURS 6050 Week 2 questions, answered
Will comparing two administrations read as political?
It reads as political when the cells are uneven. The example keeps both columns in the same register, describes each approach by its instrument and agency, and labels outcomes as early where the evidence is still arriving. Your own view can appear in the fact sheet's final line if the prompt invites it, stated as an evidence-based position rather than a party preference.
Which agency belongs in the agency row?
The federal body that would carry out the policy day to day, which is usually narrower than a cabinet department. For drug pricing that means the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services inside the Department of Health and Human Services, with the Food and Drug Administration handling importation. Naming only the department tends to cost you the row, since the operating agency is what the prompt asks for.
Does the fact sheet repeat the grid?
No. The grid is the analysis and the fact sheet is the delivery. The example's handout keeps three findings, each traceable to a grid row, and adds one observation from practice, patients who stretch prescriptions because of cost, described without figures. A fact sheet that reproduces every cell asks a busy aide to do the compression that the week assigned to you.