| Course | HCD-7030 Healthcare Delivery |
|---|---|
| Module | Module 3 |
| Paper type | Written assignment 3 (short paper): potential solutions to U.S. health care operations |
| Length | About 852 words, 6 pages |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | Thomas Edison State University |
| Program | MBA in Healthcare Management |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for HCD 7030 Module 3
Three Popular Fixes, Three Different Results: What the Evidence Says About ACOs, Price Tools and Retail Clinics
Student Name
MBA in Healthcare Management, Thomas Edison State University
HCD-7030: Healthcare Delivery
Mentor Name
Month Day, Year
Three Popular Fixes, Three Different Results: What the Evidence Says About ACOs, Price Tools and Retail Clinics
Proposals to fix American health care operations are plentiful; evidence on which ones work is scarcer. The course text argues that reform should change incentives so that the system rewards health and value rather than volume (Margolis, 2011). This short paper tests three widely promoted solutions against peer-reviewed research, choosing them because each has been evaluated with a comparison group, which makes the verdicts more trustworthy than before-and-after impressions: accountable care organizations, which change how providers are paid; price transparency tools, which aim to make patients better shoppers; and retail clinics, which offer convenient care for minor illness. For each it asks what the solution promised, what the evidence shows and why.
Accountable Care Organizations
Accountable care organizations (ACOs) are provider groups that agree to answer for both the spending and the outcomes of an assigned population. In Medicare's Shared Savings Program, created under the Affordable Care Act, an ACO whose patients cost less than a target, and whose quality scores clear the bar, keeps part of the difference. The promise was that rewarding total cost, rather than each service, would encourage coordination and prevention.
The results are modest but real. McWilliams et al. (2016) compared ACOs with similar providers outside the program and found that the cohort entering in 2012 reduced spending by about $144 per beneficiary in 2013, a savings of about 1.4 percent, while the 2013 cohort showed no savings in its first year. Physician-led groups without hospital ownership saved more than ACOs tied to hospitals, and some quality measures improved. The design explains the pattern: physician groups gain from reducing hospital use, while hospital-led ACOs lose revenue when admissions fall, so their incentives are mixed.
Price Transparency Tools
Price transparency tools let patients compare what different providers charge for a service. The promise was that informed patients would choose lower-priced providers, saving money for themselves and their employers. Desai et al. (2016) studied employees at two large companies that offered such a tool and compared their outpatient spending with that of similar employees whose employers did not. Spending among those offered the tool rose by an adjusted $59 more than in the comparison group, and their out-of-pocket spending rose by $18 more, rather than falling.
The explanation lies in how care is actually chosen. Many services are not shoppable, because they are urgent or ordered by a physician during a visit; most spending is concentrated among sick patients who have already reached their out-of-pocket maximums; and patients may read a higher price as a sign of higher quality. Transparency has other values, such as accountability, but as a tool for reducing spending through patient choice it has not delivered.
Retail Clinics
Retail clinics, staffed mainly by nurse practitioners in pharmacies and stores, treat minor illnesses with walk-in convenience and posted prices. Their promise was to substitute cheaper visits for more expensive ones in physician offices and emergency departments. Ashwood et al. (2016) analyzed visits for low-acuity conditions and estimated that nearly six in ten retail clinic visits for minor conditions, 58 percent, were new use of care, care that would not otherwise have occurred, and that people who used retail clinics cost their plans about $14 more a year.
Retail clinics improve convenience and access, which have value, but convenience creates demand. A cheaper visit that adds to, rather than replaces, other care raises total spending.
What Separates Solutions That Work
Comparing the three suggests a principle. The solution with measurable savings, the ACO, changed the incentives of the people who make most decisions about care, physicians, by rewarding them for total cost. The two that failed to reduce spending relied on patients to change behavior in situations where patients have little information, little time or little financial reason to choose differently. Margolis (2011) emphasizes consumer engagement as part of reform, but this evidence suggests that engagement works best alongside payment changes that make providers responsible for value.
A second principle concerns substitution. Any new form of care will reduce costs only if it replaces more expensive care rather than adding to it. Retail clinics and telehealth both face this test, and their designers should measure total use, not just the cost of each visit.
Recommendation
Of the three, accountable care deserves continued support, with design improvements that strengthen incentives for hospital-led organizations and move more ACOs into arrangements that share losses as well as savings. Price transparency should be pursued for accountability and fairness rather than counted on for savings, and paired with insurance designs that reward patients for choosing high-value providers. Retail clinics should be integrated with primary care practices so that their visits replace, rather than add to, other care.
Conclusion
Testing popular solutions against evidence yields different verdicts: accountable care organizations produced modest savings, especially among physician-led groups; price transparency tools did not reduce spending; and retail clinics increased it slightly by creating new visits. Solutions that change providers' incentives have done more than those that depend on patients' choices, a lesson that should guide future reform.
References
Ashwood, J. S., Gaynor, M., Setodji, C. M., Reid, R. O., Weber, E., & Mehrotra, A. (2016). Retail clinic visits for low-acuity conditions increase utilization and spending. Health Affairs, 35(3), 449-455. https://doi.org/10.1377/hlthaff.2015.0995
Desai, S., Hatfield, L. A., Hicks, A. L., Chernew, M. E., & Mehrotra, A. (2016). Association between availability of a price transparency tool and outpatient spending. JAMA, 315(17), 1874-1881. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2016.4288
Margolis, J. (2011). The health care cure: How to fix health care in America. Prometheus Books.
McWilliams, J. M., Hatfield, L. A., Chernew, M. E., Landon, B. E., & Schwartz, A. L. (2016). Early performance of accountable care organizations in Medicare. New England Journal of Medicine, 374(24), 2357-2366. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMsa1600142
What the HCD 7030 Module 3 instructions ask for
Module 3 of HCD-7030 examines potential solutions to the operating problems of U.S. health care and connects to the objective on identifying problems with specific modes of delivery and devising and defending solutions. The written assignment is the last of the three short papers. Expect to evaluate one or more proposed reforms or operational changes with evidence and to defend a recommendation. Choose solutions with published evaluations, and explain the mechanism behind each result, since mentors reward reasoning about why something worked. Look for evaluations that compare participants with similar non-participants, since those give the most credible answers. Check that each study is recent enough to matter.
How this HCD 7030 Module 3 example is built
The paper states its question and method in the opening paragraph, then evaluates three solutions with the same structure: what was promised, what a peer-reviewed study found, with figures, and why. A comparison section draws two principles from the pattern, linking them to the course text's argument. The recommendation section takes a position on each solution with specific design changes, and the conclusion summarizes the verdicts in one paragraph. Disappointing findings are reported as plainly as positive ones, which strengthens the paper's credibility. Each study's design is described briefly, so the reader knows why its comparison is credible. The figures are reported exactly as the studies give them, with no rounding that would change their meaning, and the paper's own judgment is kept separate from the studies' findings.
HCD 7030 Module 3 rubric: what earns full marks
Out of 100 points, the mentor expects proposed solutions to be evaluated with credible evidence, results reported accurately, and conclusions that follow from the evidence rather than from preference. Explaining mechanisms and drawing principles across cases shows graduate-level analysis, and a defended recommendation meets the course objective directly. Scholarly sources, APA citations and concise, professional writing are expected. Drawing a principle from several cases, rather than judging each alone, is the kind of synthesis that graduate mentors reward. A recommendation that names specific design changes, such as stronger incentives for hospital-led ACOs, shows more insight than general support for a reform. Mentors look for conclusions that follow from the evidence presented.
HCD 7030 Module 3 help from the desk
Papers on solutions often describe a reform's promise and assume it works. Look for evaluations with comparison groups and report what they actually found, including disappointing results. Another weakness is evaluating each solution in isolation; comparing them reveals why some succeed. End with a position you can defend. Our writers can prepare an HCD 7030 short paper evaluating the solutions your module assigns. Report the size of each effect with its figure, not just its direction, so the reader can judge whether it matters. Avoid choosing solutions only because they are popular in the news; choose ones with published evaluations you can cite and explain.
Write yours, or have the desk draft it
This paper is an original model document written by our desk, not a submitted student paper and not an official Thomas Edison State University document. Read it for the moves, then write your own to the instructions in your classroom. If you want one built to your exact prompt and rubric, the first custom sample is free and arrives in 24 to 48 hours.
More HCD 7030 and MBA in Healthcare Management sample papers
- HCD 7030 Module 1: Delivery Evolution Short Paper
- HCD 7030 Module 2: Legal and Financial Short Paper
- HCD 7030 Module 4: Global Delivery Case Analysis
- HCL 7040 Module 2: Reporting Requirements Written Assignment
- HCF 7010 Module 4: Final Project Organization Analysis
- HCO 7020 Module 1: Strategic Management Written Assignment
HCD 7030 Module 3 questions, answered
Where can I find a free HCD 7030 Module 3 sample paper?
The third Healthcare Delivery short paper is shown above in full: accountable care organizations, price transparency tools and retail clinics evaluated against peer-reviewed evidence, with recommendations.
Do accountable care organizations save money?
Early Medicare results showed modest savings, about 1.4 percent for the 2012 cohort, with greater savings among independent physician groups than hospital-integrated ones.
Did price transparency tools lower spending?
In one study of employees offered a price comparison tool, outpatient spending rose slightly compared with similar employees, rather than falling.
Do retail clinics reduce health care costs?
Research found that most retail clinic visits for minor conditions were new care rather than substitutes, increasing spending slightly.
What makes a delivery reform effective?
Evidence suggests reforms that change providers' incentives, such as accountable care, do more than those that rely on patients to choose differently.