NURS 6050 Week 9 Global Policy Matrix Example

Course	NURS 6050 Policy and Advocacy for Improving Population Health
Week	Week 9
Paper type	Global comparison matrix
Length	About 860 words, 6 pages
Format	APA 7 student paper
School	Walden University
Program	Master of Science in Nursing (MSN)
Updated	October 2026

Free sample paper for NURS 6050 Week 9

Long-Term Care for Older Adults in the United States and Japan: A Policy Comparison Matrix and One Transferable Idea

Student Name

College of Nursing, Walden University

NURS 6050: Policy and Advocacy for Improving Population Health

Instructor Name

Month Day, Year

What this page is doingThe title names the population, the two countries, and the deliverable, and it promises one transferable idea rather than a general verdict. That scope keeps the narrative focused on a single borrowable feature, which is how transferability is usually scored.

Long-Term Care for Older Adults in the United States and Japan: A Policy Comparison Matrix and One Transferable Idea

Global Health Comparison Matrix

Population health concern: long-term services and supports for older adults who need help with daily activities because of frailty, dementia, or chronic illness.

Row 1, financing. United States: there is no universal public long-term care program; Medicaid is the largest payer for long-term services and supports, funded jointly by the federal government and the states, and Medicare does not pay for ongoing custodial care (Reaves & Musumeci, 2015). Japan: long-term care insurance, begun in 2000, is mandatory for everyone aged 40 and older, who pay premiums; about half of the program's cost comes from those premiums and half from national, prefectural, and municipal taxes (Campbell et al., 2010).

Row 2, eligibility. United States: Medicaid eligibility depends on low income and limited assets, and many older adults qualify only after spending down their savings on care; for home and community-based services, most states also require that the person need a nursing-home level of care. Japan: eligibility for adults aged 65 and older depends on assessed need, not income or assets; a standardized assessment and a municipal committee assign each applicant to one of several support or care levels, which set the value of services available. Adults aged 40 to 64 qualify only for age-related conditions (Tamiya et al., 2011).

Row 3, benefits. United States: Medicaid covers nursing facility care in every state; home and community-based services vary widely by state, are often provided through waivers with enrollment caps, and may have waiting lists. Japan: benefits are services only, not cash, and include home help, visiting nursing, day services, short-stay respite, equipment, home modification, and institutional care, with a copayment of 10 percent for most users and higher for those with higher incomes.

Row 4, delivery. United States: services are delivered by a mix of for-profit, nonprofit, and public providers; a large share of care is provided unpaid by family members. Japan: services are delivered by competing private and nonprofit providers within the insurance framework, with municipalities acting as insurers.

Row 5, care management. United States: care coordination varies by state program; some waivers include case management, often by social workers or nurses. Japan: certified care managers develop a care plan for each beneficiary within the value of the assigned care level and arrange services.

Row 6, nursing role. United States: registered nurses conduct level-of-care assessments in many states, supervise home health aides, and direct care in nursing facilities. Japan: nurses serve in the needs assessment process, make up a significant share of certified care managers, and provide visiting nursing as a covered benefit.

Row 7, evidence on effects. United States: reliance on means testing requires people to exhaust their resources before receiving help, and a continuing institutional bias in Medicaid has been only partly corrected by the growth of home and community-based services. Japan: evaluations found that the program increased the use of formal services, reduced reliance on family caregivers, and shifted care toward the community, while program costs rose faster than expected, leading to later adjustments to benefits and copayments (Tamiya et al., 2011; Campbell et al., 2010).

Row 8, transferability. United States: the financing base, a mandatory national premium on all adults over 40, would require federal legislation and is unlikely at present. Japan's needs-based eligibility assessment, which determines service levels by function rather than income, is the most transferable component for a single US state.

What this page is doingBoth columns are filled with the same depth in every row, which is what the parallel-treatment criterion checks. The Japan column is accurate about what the program is: social insurance with copayments and service-only benefits, not free care or single-payer medical coverage. The nursing row places nurses in both systems, and the evidence row reports findings without inventing figures.

Narrative: One Idea a State Could Borrow

The idea I would borrow is Japan's standardized, needs-based eligibility assessment for home and community-based services. In Japan, an older adult's access to services depends on a structured assessment of function and cognition, which assigns a care level with a defined budget of services. In most US states, access to home and community-based services depends first on passing Medicaid's income and asset tests, and then on meeting a nursing-home level of care, a threshold set so high that people often receive help only after a crisis.

A state could adopt a needs-based assessment within its Medicaid program to assign tiered levels of home and community-based services, starting before a person reaches nursing-home level need. Several states already use standardized functional assessment tools, so the method is not foreign to US practice. The change would direct lower-cost help, such as a few hours of home help or adult day services, to people earlier, which could delay or avoid more expensive institutional care, the pattern Japan's program aimed for.

The barrier is money. Japan pays for universal eligibility through a dedicated premium on every adult over 40; a single US state has no equivalent financing base. A state could adopt the assessment and tiering without adopting universal eligibility, keeping Medicaid's income rules while changing how service levels are set among those who qualify. That is a smaller reform than Japan's, but it borrows the part of the system that is most about good practice, matching services to need, rather than the part that depends on national financing. Nurses, who already perform level-of-care assessments in many states, would be central to designing and conducting the new assessment.

References

Campbell, J. C., Ikegami, N., & Gibson, M. J. (2010). Lessons from public long-term care insurance in Germany and Japan. Health Affairs, 29(1), 87-95. https://doi.org/10.1377/hlthaff.2009.0548

Reaves, E. L., & Musumeci, M. (2015). Medicaid and long-term services and supports: A primer. Kaiser Family Foundation. https://www.kff.org/medicaid/report/medicaid-and-long-term-services-and-supports-a-primer/

Tamiya, N., Noguchi, H., Nishi, A., Reich, M. R., Ikegami, N., Hashimoto, H., Shibuya, K., Kawachi, I., & Campbell, J. C. (2011). Population ageing and wellbeing: Lessons from Japan's long-term care insurance policy. The Lancet, 378(9797), 1183-1192. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(11)61176-8

The Walden NURS 6050 Week 9 instructions

Week 9 of NURS 6050 commonly asks for a comparison of a health policy in the United States and another country, with a narrative. You fill a matrix on parallel criteria, then argue for one idea that could transfer to the United States. Faculty penalize uneven cells, so both countries need equal detail. Cite international and US sources in APA 7. A country with a well-documented system makes a good comparison. The narrative need not recommend wholesale adoption; one transferable idea is enough. Data should be current and credible. NURS 6050 faculty want each row filled for both countries with comparable detail and the transferable idea argued with evidence of fit.

Inside the NURS 6050 Week 9 example

A two-page matrix followed by a narrative of about 400 words. The matrix has three columns, the element compared, the US approach and Japan's, across eight rows. Financing contrasts mandatory premiums paid from age forty plus tax revenue in Japan with Medicaid's joint federal and state funding in the US. Eligibility contrasts an assessed level of need with income and asset tests after spend-down. Benefits, delivery and the care manager role follow, and a nursing row notes where nurses assess, plan and supervise in each system. An evidence row reports what published comparisons say without adding figures. A final row judges transferability. The narrative argues for one borrowable idea, needs-based eligibility assessment for home and community services, and names its barrier, the financing base a single US state lacks.

NURS 6050 Week 9 rubric: what earns full marks

Comparison matrices lose points first to cells that describe one country thoroughly and the other thinly. Rubrics in many sections read the grid for parallel treatment, so a US column full of detail beside a Japan column of single phrases shows the research stopped halfway. Accuracy about the foreign system is checked; calling Japan's program single-payer medical coverage, or implying long-term care there is free at the point of use, is a factual slip reviewers note. Transferability often appears as its own criterion, and the most analytic one, and a narrative claiming the US should simply adopt another country's model skips the question of what would have to change first. Sources should include at least one peer-reviewed comparison or an international agency report. The nursing row, often overlooked, is where this course's own focus gets tested.

Common NURS 6050 Week 9 mistakes, and how to avoid them

Matrices lose the most when one country's cells are detailed and the other's thin. Write parallel cells. Another common gap is recommending a whole system without considering fit. Choose one transferable idea. Writers also use old data. Check recent OECD figures. Avoid overstating the other country's success. Name its challenges too. Explain how a state could pilot the idea. Close with the first step a state agency would take. Writers also forget workforce challenges in the other country, such as care worker shortages in Japan. Include them. Another frequent slip is a narrative longer than the matrix. Balance them. Keep figures current and cited.

Get a NURS 6050 Week 9 example written to your instructions

Paste the Week 9 matrix template and the rubric into a request, and name the country and issue if your section fixed them. What returns is a NURS 6050 global policy matrix with its transfer narrative, the first one free, within 24 to 48 hours. When a section lets you choose, the desk can suggest a country pairing that suits your issue.

More NURS 6050 papers and MSN samples

NURS 6050 Week 9 questions, answered

Which country makes a good comparison for a US policy?

One whose approach differs meaningfully on the issue and is documented in English-language sources. Japan works for long-term care because its social insurance design contrasts sharply with means-tested Medicaid coverage. Canada, Germany and the Netherlands are common choices for other topics. Some sections assign countries or supply a list, so your prompt may settle the question before the matrix begins.

Does the narrative need to recommend adopting the other country's policy?

It needs to judge what could transfer, which is different. The example borrows one feature, needs-based eligibility assessment, and names the financing obstacle a US state would face. Recommending wholesale adoption usually ignores differences in constitutional structure, funding and politics. A narrow, defensible borrowing reads as analysis in your narrative, while a call to copy an entire system reads as enthusiasm.

How much data should the matrix include?

Only what can be cited. The example describes financing and eligibility structurally and reports outcome comparisons from published work, without adding figures of its own. Where your section expects numbers, international agency reports and peer-reviewed comparisons provide them with dates attached. A matrix that mixes sourced and unsourced figures invites doubt about every cell in it.

Where can I find a free NURS 6050 Week 9 sample paper?

The US and Japan long-term care matrix is reproduced here with parallel rows and the narrative on one transferable idea.

Which countries are compared in NURS 6050 Week 9?

The United States and Japan, whose mandatory Long-Term Care Insurance is funded by premiums from everyone over 40.