‘ Based on your comparison in the Module 3 Discussion and your Evidence Synthesi

‘
Based on your comparison in the Module 3 Discussion and your Evidence Synthesis Based Position Paper, create and propose a revision plan for your bill that aligns with the evidence and solves the problem the bill is meant to solve. 
This was module 3:Apply Stone’s conceptualization of policy problems to your area of policy interest. 
Consider all five (5) aspects of policy problems as you present your material. How are symbols, numbers, causes,interests and decisions seen in the new policy you have selected?
Succinctly compare this approach to that of Longest’s
This is my module 3 post/bill: 
Formal Name and Bill Number
Bill Name: Medicare for Patients and Providers Strengthening Act.
Bill Number: The White House Office of National Drug Control.
Link-https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/2474#:~:text=Strengthening%20Medicare%20for%20Patients%20and%20Providers%20Act,-This%20bill%20modifies&text=The%20bill%20replaces%20the%20separate,Economic%20Index%2C%20beginning%20in%202024Links to an external site.
Sponsors
Primary Sponsor- Rep. Ami Bera (D-CA-7) came to this conclusion after thoroughly investigating the ongoing COVID-19 outbreak in the United States.
Co-Sponsor-Larry Bucshon, U.S. Representative, Indiana’s 8th District.
Dr. Ami Bera is currently a U.S. Congress representative elected in 2013 from the seventh congressional district of California. He also has direct experience with the problems healthcare providers encounter when working in the Medicare system as a medical doctor. Bucshon is also an Indiana-based physician who has served in the U.S(Longest, 2020). House of Representatives since 2011 as the representative for Indiana’s 8th district. The difference between these two physiciansborders on politics as one is a Democrat and the other a Republican. However, their partnership is an excellent example of unity in healthcare reform as they both have a shared goal of providing adequate healthcare policies.
Stone’s solutions perspective and Longest’s text approach offer the lens through which the solutions presented in the Medicare for Patients and Providers Strengthening Act can be properly understood. Stone emphasizes five critical mechanisms for addressing policy problems: incentives, regulations, norms, rights, and authorities. However, Longest pays much of his attention to the policy formulation process and the needs and activities of various stakeholders (Longest, 2020).
Some of the proposed solutions in the Act might benefit from the applicability of both angles. Adjustments made to provider reimbursement rates reflect an inducement plan to encourage the continued care of Medicare beneficiaries through guaranteed reasonable payment for services provided to such patients. This is key since Longest states that critical planning must involve assessing the stakeholders to identify their needs. Enhancements of patient access, especially in a time of telehealth increase, can also be categorized under rule-governed alongside Longest’s systems approach to stress adaptation of policies to certain conditions like the emergence of the COVID-19 virus.
Payment model reforms of the last decade fit into Stone’s inducement mechanism by altering the incentive structure to encourage value-based purchasing. It also reflects Longest’s focus on using research to inform policies, as the development of these models is targeted toward enhancing healthcare for individuals who require the services (Huberfeld, 2020). Delay reforms are the rule-based solution, which means that the processes are made as easy as possible to minimize the impact on providers. This aligns with Longest’s argument about factors that may impede or facilitate policy implementation.
According to Stone, the bill brings incentives into play through adaptations in the provider remunerations and new forms of payment that aim to ensure quality care delivery. It also enshrines rules, making telehealth provisions permanent and easy to administer. The bill enlists information about the current condition of Medicare as leaned on to spearhead reforms. Concerning rights, it enhances patients’ granting of rights through expanding access to healthcare and increases the provider’s capacity to right-give through delivering care. Lastly, it transforms the balance of power since it changes the financial flows between Medicare, providers, and patients. In summary, analyzing the interventions contained in the Act, one can determine that they reflect approaches from Stone’s view in terms of the number of mechanisms proposed; at the same time, Longest’s principles of engaging stakeholders, evidence-based policymaking, and learning from the changes in the environment within which the healthcare policy is to be implemented have been followed.
Inducements, Rules, Facts, Rights, and Power in the Policy Solutions 
When examining the Medicare for Patients and Providers Strengthening Act, it is crucial to evaluate it in terms of the policy tools that it utilizes, as described by Stone. It must be pointed out that the use of inducements is a core feature of the proposed solutions. The provider reimbursement adjustments act as a financial incentive that helps keep the participation of the healthcare providers in the Medicare system intact by giving a reasonable amount for the services provided (Congress, 2024). Similarly, the gradual transition towards value-based purchasing has been the most recent example of an inducement strategy, encouraging the providers to shift to an emphasis on quality over quantity.
As mentioned above, the availability of rules is apparent in the following areas of the legislation. Codifying telehealthprovisions effectively sets the game’s new rules and enhances patients’ coverage of services. Other administrative simplifications can include changes to rules governing procedures for delivering care and lightening the bureaucratic requirements placed on providers. Such a regulation change enhances operating effectiveness and patient outcomes.
Ideas, facts, and information are vital in forming a policy solution. To draft this bill, Congress must have had information about Medicare reimbursement rates, costs of delivering health care, and barriers to patients’ accessibility to healthcare services, among other things (Dreyer & Joynt Maddox, 2023). These theoretical perspectives underpin the specific changes and innovations in the legislation.
Under the bill, entitlements are handled by expanding patient care areas, such as access to new means of care, such as telehealth. It is possible to regard this as an attempt to advance patients’ rights in healthcare and access to qualified assistance, particularly in regions with limited opportunities. These attempts to achieve equitable positioning relative to providers, patients, and the Medicare system often distort comparative power probabilities (Wadhera, 2020). Regarding power dynamicswithin the healthcare system, the bill at least shifts some playing field by addressing concerns about provider compensation and specific administrative issues.
References
Longest, B. B. (2020). Health Policymaking in the United States. AUPHA/HAP Book. ISBN: 9781640552135.
Congress.gov. (2024). H.R.2474 – Strengthening Medicare for Patients and Providers Act. https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/2474#:~:text=Strengthening%20Medicare%20for%20Patients%20and%20Providers%20Act,-This%20bill%20modifies&text=The%20bill%20replaces%20the%20separate,Economic%20Index%2C%20beginning%20in%202024 Links to an external site.
Dreyer, T., & Joynt Maddox, K. (2023). What’s the Value in Value-Based Care. Research and Action Institute: American Association of Medical Colleges.https://www.aamcresearchinstitute.org/our-work/issue-brief/whats-value-value-based-care Links to an external site.
Wadhera, R. K., Figueroa, J. F., Maddox, K. E. J., Rosenbaum, L. S., Kazi, D. S., & Yeh, R. W. (2020). Quality measure development and associated spending by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. JAMA, 323(16), 1614-1616.https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/articlepdf/2764986/jama_wadhera_2020_ld_200009.pdf 
Huberfeld, N. (2020). Is Medicare for All the Answer? Assessing the Health Reform Gestalt as the ACA Turns 10. Hous. J. Health L. & Pol’y, 20, 69.https://scholarship.law.bu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2173&context=faculty_scholarship
Include in your plan the best approach to advocate given your comparison of Stone’s versus Longest’s approaches. Which is a better fit for you to pursued decision makers to support the side you want to support? How will you use it to advocate?  
Use the framework presented in Stone’s Policy Paradox and the expertise you have developed in your previous assignments (Evidence Synthesis Based Position Paper, Discussion Boards, Web exploration, and Readings) to consider your policy issue, understand the politics surrounding it, analyze and critique the arguments on both (or all) sides of the issue, and finally, argue persuasively for what you believe.  In other words, in your analysis, show how both the main proponents and opponents of the issue think, what they believe, and what their strategies are.
By doing this you will in effect deconstruct both positions—yours and the others—to then argue for what you believe.
Policy Analysis 
Your 1st aim is to produce a clear, compelling evidence-based policy analysis report that could be presented to legislators or policy organizations. Ground your paper in policy research, your analysis, published analyses, and other credible sources.
Policy Revision
Your 2nd aim is to create and present a clear and concise revision plan for the bill/policy to present to the bill’s authors (if you support the bill) or a credible organization that opposes the bill (if you oppose) that will solve the problem the bill is intended to solve.
What should be revised, based on factual evidence?
How should it be revised, based on evidence?
How could you advocate for the change using Stone’s or Longest’s approaches.
Include the following in your Policy Analysis and Revision Plan:
Introduction (1 1/2 pages maximum)
Provide a brief introduction, including the proper citation of the legislation and its sponsors
Describe how the issue evolved (context, legislation, political history, persons and groups involved)
Describe your interest in the issue (briefly)
Position Statement (1 page maximum)
Clearly state your position on the issue
Specify who or what organizations or groups support your position
Specify who or what organizations or groups oppose your position  
Analysis (2 pages maximum)
Discuss factually, from the perspective of your position and those in opposition, how the following are used in your policy:            
Goals
Equity, efficiency, security, liberty as applicable
Problems
Symbols, numbers, causes, interests, decisions as applicable
Solutions
Inducements, rules, facts, rights, power as applicable
Recommendation a feasible change to the bill to solve the original problem the bill is meant to solve  (1 1/2 page maximum)
Present:
The recommended change, through a revison plan supported by factual evidence
Persuasively present your conclusion as to the most appropriate, evidence-based best solution using Stone’s or Longest’s approach
State the intended outcomes of your recommendations.
Advocacy Plan (1 page maximum)
Describe the strategies you would use to advocate for this revised policy a) to legislators, b) to the organization(s) that authored or influenced the language of the bill , and c) to voters
Use the most recent APA style, include a title page and abstract. Include supporting evidence from the literature or credible websites in each of the above listed areas.  The paper should be absolutely no more than 7 pages in length excluding references, title page and abstract. Two points will be deducted for every page over the maximum.
Rubric
Some Rubric
Some Rubric
Criteria Ratings Pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeScholarship is in-depth and sufficient in scope and complexity
10 pts
Full Marks
0 pts
No Marks
10 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeTopic is timely, relevant, meaningful and useful
5 pts
Full Marks
0 pts
No Marks
5 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeSystematic and logical development of ideas in each section
5 pts
Full Marks
0 pts
No Marks
5 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeAppropriate application of Stone’s policy analysis model and Longest’s approach
10 pts
Full Marks
0 pts
No Marks
10 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeClear and coherent position statement, conclusions and advocacy plan
5 pts
Full Marks
0 pts
No Marks
5 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeProper grammar, spelling, sentence structure and use of APA style
5 pts
Full Marks
0 pts
No Marks
5 pts
Total Points: 40