| Course | HCD 332 Population Health Policy and Legislation |
|---|---|
| Module | Module 2 |
| Paper type | Health policy analysis memo |
| Length | About 618 words, 5 pages |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | Arizona State University |
| Program | BS in Health Care Administration and Policy |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for HCD 332 Module 2
Naloxone Within Reach: A Health Policy Analysis for the State Health Director on Expanding No-Cost Distribution to Likely Overdose Witnesses
Student Name
BS in Health Care Administration and Policy, Arizona State University
HCD 332: Population Health Policy and Legislation
Instructor Name
Month Day, Year
Naloxone Within Reach: A Health Policy Analysis for the State Health Director on Expanding No-Cost Distribution to Likely Overdose Witnesses
To: State Health Director
From: Health Policy Analyst
Re: Expanding No-Cost Naloxone Distribution
Problem Statement
Should the state health director widen free, prescription-free naloxone distribution to the people most likely to be present when someone overdoses?
Background
Opioid overdose deaths, now driven mainly by illicitly manufactured fentanyl, remain one of the leading causes of preventable death among younger adults. Naloxone is an opioid antagonist that reverses respiratory depression within minutes, and the nasal spray can be used safely by laypeople. Because most overdoses occur in private settings, the people most able to respond are friends, family and peers rather than clinicians. Since 2023, one naloxone nasal spray has been sold over the counter after FDA approval, removing the prescription barrier but not the cost barrier. Evidence supports distributing naloxone directly to likely witnesses: in Massachusetts, towns that rolled out overdose education with naloxone kits recorded fewer opioid deaths per capita than towns without such programs (Walley et al., 2013), and applying the Bradford Hill causation criteria, McDonald and Strang (2016) found the evidence for take-home kits strong enough to treat them as lifesaving.
Stakeholders and Positions
| Stakeholder | Position | Interest |
|---|---|---|
| People who use drugs and their families | Strongly supportive | Survival of loved ones |
| Harm reduction organizations | Supportive | Expanded funding and supply |
| Pharmacists | Generally supportive | Clear standing orders and reimbursement |
| Law enforcement | Mixed | Officer safety; some concern about enabling drug use |
| County health departments | Supportive | Resources for distribution |
| State legislators | Divided | Budget priorities and public opinion |
| Insurers and Medicaid | Mixed | Cost of covering over-the-counter products |
Options
Option 1: Expand community distribution. Fund county health departments and harm reduction programs to distribute free naloxone kits with brief training in high-burden areas. Effectiveness: strongest evidence base. Cost: moderate, mainly kits and staff. Feasibility: builds on existing programs. Equity: reaches people outside the health care system.
Option 2: Statewide standing order with no-cost pharmacy access. Allow any pharmacy to dispense naloxone at no charge to the customer, with the state reimbursing pharmacies. Effectiveness: likely good for people who use pharmacies. Cost: higher per kit than bulk purchasing. Feasibility: requires reimbursement systems. Equity: misses people who avoid pharmacies because of stigma.
Option 3: Naloxone at release. Require that people leaving jails, prisons and residential treatment receive naloxone and training. Effectiveness: targets a group at very high overdose risk in the weeks after release. Cost: low, since the population is defined. Feasibility: requires agreements with correctional and treatment facilities. Equity: reaches a population often missed.
Analysis of Options
| Criterion | Option 1 | Option 2 | Option 3 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Effectiveness | High | Moderate | High for target group |
| Cost | Moderate | Higher | Low |
| Feasibility | High | Moderate | Moderate |
| Equity | High | Moderate | High |
Recommendation
Adopt Option 1 and Option 3 together. Community distribution has the strongest evidence and reaches people outside the health care system, and naloxone at release closes a known high-risk gap at low cost. Option 2 can follow if funding allows, since the over-the-counter approval already improves pharmacy access for those who can pay.
Implementation and Evaluation
Use opioid settlement funds to purchase naloxone in bulk; distribute through county health departments to harm reduction programs, clinics and community organizations in the highest-burden counties first; sign agreements with corrections and treatment facilities within six months. Evaluate by tracking kits distributed, reported reversals and county overdose death rates over two years, as the Massachusetts evaluation did (Walley et al., 2013).
Conclusion
Naloxone saves lives when it is in the hands of the person who finds someone overdosing. A combined approach targeting communities and people leaving custody puts it there fastest, consistent with the analytic framework of the course text (Teitelbaum & Wilensky, 2020).
References
McDonald, R., & Strang, J. (2016). Are take-home naloxone programmes effective? Systematic review utilizing application of the Bradford Hill criteria. Addiction, 111(7), 1177-1187. https://doi.org/10.1111/add.13326
Teitelbaum, J. B., & Wilensky, S. E. (2020). Essentials of health policy and law (4th ed.). Jones & Bartlett Learning.
Walley, A. Y., Xuan, Z., Hackman, H. H., Quinn, E., Doe-Simkins, M., Sorensen-Alawad, A., Ruiz, S., & Ozonoff, A. (2013). Opioid overdose rates and implementation of overdose education and nasal naloxone distribution in Massachusetts: Interrupted time series analysis. BMJ, 346, Article f174. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.f174
What the HCD 332 Module 2 instructions ask for
The final Health Policy Analysis is worth 75 points, the largest single assignment in HCD 332, and it is due in Week 6 with the recorded presentation. It follows a sequence: the problem statement in Week 3, then a rough draft reviewed by two classmates, with each student reviewing two drafts, then revision and final submission. The syllabus asks for an analysis developed using the textbook guidelines, which in Teitelbaum and Wilensky's text means a memo-style analysis addressed to a decision maker with a problem statement, background, stakeholder map, options and a recommendation. Because peers review the draft, the final version should show changes made in response to their comments. Use the Week 6 module on health policy analysis alongside the textbook chapter when you revise.
How the HCD 332 Module 2 example is put together
Written as a memo to the decision maker, the analysis follows the textbook's structure in order. The problem statement repeats the neutral question from Week 3. The background explains the problem, the intervention and the evidence, with two cited studies. A stakeholder map table sets out seven stakeholders with their positions and interests. Three options are each described and assessed on effectiveness, cost, feasibility and equity, and a comparison table summarizes them. The recommendation combines two options and explains why the third waits. Implementation and evaluation steps name funding, sequence and measures, and a short conclusion closes the memo. One yardstick with four marks is applied to all three options, so the recommendation can be traced back to it.
HCD 332 Module 2 rubric: what earns full marks
The final analysis carries 75 points under the Canvas rubric. Policy analyses are generally credited for a neutral, well-framed problem statement, accurate and evidence-based background, a stakeholder map that identifies stakeholders and their interests, realistic options assessed against explicit criteria, a recommendation that follows logically from the analysis, implementation and evaluation steps and professional memo writing with citations. Analyses lose credit when options are straw men, when criteria are applied inconsistently, when the recommendation ignores feasibility and when peer feedback is not reflected in the revision. Late work loses 10% within a day and 20% after. Memos that a busy official could act on, with a clear recommendation in the first page, show the professional skill the course aims to build.
HCD 332 Module 2 help: mistakes that cost marks
The weakest part of most student analyses is the options section, where one strong option is surrounded by weak ones. Make each option a real choice a decision maker might take. Apply the same criteria to every option, and show the comparison in a table. Let the recommendation follow from the table. Keep the background focused on what the decision maker needs to know. Use the stakeholder stakeholder map to anticipate opposition. Revise visibly in response to peer review. The desk can review your draft against the textbook's structure if you send it. Use the stakeholder stakeholder map to predict who would oppose your recommendation and address it in the implementation plan.
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 Arizona 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 332 and BS in Health Care Administration and Policy sample papers
- HCD 332 Module 1: Health Policy Analysis Problem Statement
- HCD 332 Module 3: Health Policy Analysis Presentation
- HCD 400 Module 3: Module 3 Assignment: Evaluating Methodological Rigor and Credibility
- HCD 330 Module 2: Payment Model Assignment
- HCD 404 Module 2: Evaluating Wearables Scenario Paper
- HCD 420 Module 4: Writing Workshop 4: Public Health and Health Care Collaboration
HCD 332 Module 2 questions, answered
Where can I find a free HCD 332 Module 2 sample paper?
A full HCD 332 Module 2 sample is above: a health policy analysis memo on expanding no-cost naloxone distribution, with stakeholder map, options and a recommendation.
What are the sections of a health policy analysis?
Following Teitelbaum and Wilensky, a problem statement, background, stakeholder map, options and a recommendation, written as a memo to a decision maker.
How should policy options be compared?
Hold every option to one yardstick, for instance how well it works, what it costs, whether it can be done and who benefits, and lay the results side by side.
How much is the HCD 332 policy analysis worth?
The final analysis is worth 75 points, with the problem statement, draft and peer reviews and presentation adding 55 more.
Is the HCD 332 policy analysis peer reviewed?
Yes. Each student's rough draft is reviewed by two classmates, and each student reviews two drafts before revising.