| Course | HA 610 Health Policy and Management |
|---|---|
| Unit | Unit 7 |
| Paper type | Advocacy plan |
| Length | About 1,060 words, 6 pages |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | Herzing University |
| Program | MS in Healthcare Administration |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for HA 610 Unit 7
Out of Committee by April 30: An Advocacy Plan to Move a State Price Transparency Bill With a Two-Year Phase-In Amendment
Student Name
Health Care Administration, Herzing University
HA 610: Health Policy and Management
Instructor Name
February 27, 2026
Out of Committee by April 30: An Advocacy Plan to Move a State Price Transparency Bill With a Two-Year Phase-In Amendment
Goal
The State Senate Health Committee votes Senate Bill 214 out of committee, with an amendment giving hospitals two years to convert percentage-based contracts to dollar prices, by April 30, 2026. The bill, used as a composite throughout this unit, would require hospitals to post negotiated prices as dollar amounts, authorize the state health department to check compliance, and require written good-faith estimates for planned services within two business days. The plan is run by the government affairs office of the composite 180-bed community hospital, with one staff lead, the vice president of finance as the organization's public voice, and a budget of $18,000 for the session.
Power Analysis
Decision makers: the seven members of the Senate Health Committee. The chair controls whether the bill gets a vote and has said publicly that health costs are her priority this session; she is a likely supporter if the bill does not pit her against the state hospital association. Of the other six, two cosponsored the bill; two represent districts with large employers that have asked for price data and are leaning yes; one is undecided and focused on rural hospital finances; one has opposed transparency mandates before and is unlikely to move.
Influencers: the state hospital association, which has not taken a position and whose members are divided between large systems that are ready and small hospitals worried about cost; the state employer health coalition, which supports the bill; the insurers' association, which opposes disclosure of negotiated rates as competitive information; patient advocacy groups, which support the bill but have not prioritized it; and the state health department, which would enforce it and has asked for funding.
Blockers: the insurers' association, openly; and, quietly, the rural hospital caucus within the hospital association, whose concerns could lead the undecided senator to vote no.
Allies, and What Each Brings and Wants
The employer health coalition brings data from members' claims and credibility with business-minded legislators; it wants the bill as strong as possible and may resist our amendment. Patient advocacy groups bring stories and constituent calls; they want the good-faith estimate provision protected. Two other hospitals in our region that have already moved most contracts to fixed prices bring evidence that conversion is feasible; they want the phase-in so as not to be disadvantaged. We bring the hospital perspective in support, which is unusual and gives the chair cover.
Messages by Audience
For the chair: this bill can pass with hospital support if the timeline is realistic. For the undecided rural senator: the two-year phase-in and the state's compliance checks, which begin with correction rather than penalty, protect small hospitals; we will share what conversion cost us. For the hospital association: supporting a bill with a phase-in is better than opposing one that may pass without it. For employers and patient groups: the amendment changes timing, not substance; dollar prices and written estimates remain. Evidence for all audiences: posted prices today often do not match what patients are told or billed (Thomas et al., 2023), and compliance with the federal rule has lagged, particularly among smaller hospitals (Jiang et al., 2022).
Tactics and Timeline
Weeks 1 to 2: meet the chair's health aide; share the one-page case and the amendment text. Meet the employer coalition to agree that we will not oppose each other's testimony. Weeks 3 to 4: meet the undecided senator with the administrator of a rural partner hospital that has converted contracts. Ask the hospital association board to take a neutral-to-supportive position with the amendment. In the fifth week: testify at the hearing, using the three-minute statement prepared in Unit 6. Weeks 6 to 8: follow up with each committee member's office; coordinate constituent calls from patient groups to the undecided senator's district. Final week before April 30: confirm vote counts with the chair's office.
Policy change often depends on a problem, a politically favorable moment, and a workable solution arriving together (Kingdon, 2011). This session has the problem, public frustration with surprise costs, and the moment, a chair who has named costs as her priority. The amendment is designed to make the solution workable for the actors who could otherwise block it.
Resources and Who Does What
The $18,000 budget covers three items: preparation of a one-page case and a short cost analysis showing what contract conversion cost our hospital ($6,000 in staff time and design); travel and time for the vice president of finance and a rural partner administrator to attend meetings and the hearing ($4,000); and a modest share of a patient-story video produced with the employer coalition ($8,000), which both organizations will use. Staff time is the larger hidden cost: the government affairs lead estimates 12 hours a week for eight weeks.
Roles are fixed at the start. The government affairs lead schedules meetings, tracks positions, and keeps a weekly vote count shared with the chief executive. The vice president of finance speaks for the hospital at meetings and the hearing and owns the cost figures. The chief executive makes one call, to the hospital association board chair, at the point where the association's position is decided. No one else speaks for the hospital on the bill, so that the message stays consistent.
Two risks to our own organization are named in advance. Insurers with whom we negotiate may view our support as hostile; the managed care team will brief each of our payers before the hearing so that no one learns our position from the news. And if the bill passes without the phase-in, we will be held to a one-year conversion; the finance team has a fallback calculation plan ready so that advocacy does not become a compliance risk.
Measures and Exit
Success: a committee vote by April 30 with the amendment. Partial success: a vote without the amendment, which we would still support publicly while seeking the phase-in on the floor. Failure: no vote this session. Early warning signs: the hospital association opposing, or the insurers persuading the chair to hold the bill for study. If the association opposes by week 4, the plan shifts to securing a study commission with a report date, which keeps the issue alive for next session. The state and the bill are composite; the evidence cited is published.
References
Jiang, J. X., Polsky, D., Littlejohn, J., Wang, Y., Zare, H., & Bai, G. (2022). Factors associated with compliance to the hospital price transparency final rule: A national landscape study. Journal of General Internal Medicine, 37(14), 3577-3584. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11606-021-07237-y
Kingdon, J. W. (2011). Agendas, alternatives, and public policies (Updated 2nd ed.). Longman.
Thomas, M., Flaherty, J., Wang, J., Henderson, M., Ho, V., Cuban, M., & Cram, P. (2023). Comparison of hospital online price and telephone price for shoppable services. JAMA Internal Medicine, 183(11), 1214-1219. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamainternmed.2023.4753
HA 610 Unit 7 instructions, in plain terms
Unit 7 asks you to write an advocacy plan for a health policy goal. Expect to state a specific goal, analyze power, identify allies with what each brings and wants, tailor messages by audience, set tactics on a timeline, assign resources and roles and define measures and an exit point. Students often ask how specific the goal should be and how to analyze power. A goal tied to a decision and a date, such as a committee vote by April 30, is measurable. Power analysis identifies who decides and who influences them. Allies have their own interests, so say what each wants. Messages differ for each audience. Define partial success and when to stop, so effort is not wasted.
How the HA 610 Unit 7 example is put together
The plan opens with the goal in one sentence: a committee vote by April 30 with the phase-in amendment. The power section maps decision makers, influencers such as committee staff and the hospital association, and likely opponents. The allies table lists each partner with what it brings and what it wants in return. The messages section gives one line per audience, from the chair to rural members worried about small hospitals. The timeline runs week by week with tactics and owners, from staff meetings to a coalition letter and hearing testimony. The resources section breaks down the $18,000 budget and assigns roles. The measures section defines success, partial success and the point at which to stop. The plan reads like a project charter a government relations team could run.
Where the points sit in the HA 610 Unit 7 rubric
Herzing's rubric for an advocacy plan usually covers the goal, power analysis, allies, messages, tactics and timeline, resources and measures. Power analysis and the tactic timeline carry the most weight, because advocacy succeeds by reaching the right people at the right moment in the legislative calendar. Goal points reward a specific, dated outcome. Ally criteria look for what each partner brings and what it wants. Message points go to tailoring by audience rather than one slogan. Resources earn credit for a budget broken into items and named roles. Measures should include partial success and an exit point. Awareness of opponents and their arguments is often credited. The Community Tool Box advocacy chapters support the plan.
HA 610 Unit 7 help: mistakes that cost points
Advocacy plans in HA 610 Unit 7 commonly lose points through goals that are too broad, such as pass transparency laws. Another frequent problem is no power analysis, so tactics target the wrong people. Students often list allies without their interests. Messages are the same for every audience. Timelines lack dates tied to the legislative calendar. Budgets are missing or given as one number. Exit criteria are absent, so effort continues after the window closes. Opponents are not named. Committee staff, who shape what members see, are ignored. Finally, name who decides and when, because graders reward a plan that a team could run week by week.
Get a HA 610 Unit 7 example written to your instructions
Send the Unit 7 instructions and the rubric from your HA 610 classroom, plus the policy goal and the decision making body the plan must move. We write a custom example with targets scaled, allies named, messages split by audience and progress indicators defined, and return it in 24 to 48 hours. The first custom sample is free.
More HA 610 papers and healthcare administration samples
- HA 610 Unit 1: Policy brief
- HA 610 Unit 2: Legislative analysis
- HA 610 Unit 3: Regulatory impact memo
- HA 610 Unit 4: Stakeholder position paper
- HA 610 Unit 5: Public comment letter
- HA 610 Unit 6: Testimony statement
- HA 610 Unit 8: Policy recommendation memo
- HA 695 Unit 7: Executive summary
- HA 620 Unit 7: Resource allocation memo
- HA 625 Unit 7: Ethics committee memo
- HA 630 Unit 7: Service line growth plan
HA 610 Unit 7 questions, answered
How narrow should the policy goal be?
Narrow enough that one named body could grant it in one action. A state committee advancing a specific bill, a board adopting a policy, an agency changing a payment rule: each of those has a moment where you can say the goal was met. Broad goals such as improving access spread the plan across so many decisions that no sequence can be built.
Does an advocacy plan need a budget?
Most rubrics ask for resources in some form, even if not in dollars. Staff time, volunteer hours, travel, materials and any contracted help are the usual categories, and naming them tells a reader the plan could actually be run. Where the instructions want figures, keep them at the level of categories and hours rather than inventing precise costs you cannot support.
What if the opposition is much stronger?
Say so and plan around it. A realistic reading of an unfavorable position produces a better document than an optimistic one, because it forces the plan toward interim goals: a committee hearing, a study requirement, a pilot, a changed vote count. Rubrics reading for strategy credit that honesty, and a plan predicting an easy win invites the question of why it needed a plan.
Where can I find a free HA 610 Unit 7 sample paper?
The full HA 610 Unit 7 advocacy plan is free on this page, a week-by-week path to a committee vote with allies, messages and measures. A plan for a different policy goal can be prepared on request.
What goes in a health policy advocacy plan?
A specific goal with a date, a power analysis, allies and their interests, messages by audience, a tactic timeline, resources and roles, and measures including when to stop. This sample covers each for a state price transparency bill.