| Course | HCD 420 Population Health Management |
|---|---|
| Module | Module 4 |
| Paper type | Writing workshop draft |
| Length | About 422 words, 4 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 420 Module 4
Who Pays for an Outbreak? Economics and Collaboration in Measles Prevention
Student Name
BS in Health Care Administration and Policy, Arizona State University
HCD 420: Population Health Management
Instructor Name
Month Day, Year
Who Pays for an Outbreak? Economics and Collaboration in Measles Prevention
Purpose of This Section
Measles prevention depends on two systems that are financed differently. Public health departments run surveillance and outbreak response with government budgets, while most vaccine doses are given in private practices paid by insurers and public programs. This section examines the economics that shape how the two collaborate and proposes policies to strengthen that collaboration.
The Cost of Outbreaks
Outbreaks are expensive for public budgets. Sixteen measles outbreaks in 2011, with 107 confirmed cases, cost local and state health departments an estimated $2.7 million to $5.3 million, largely in staff time to trace thousands of contacts (Ortega-Sanchez et al., 2014). The 2018-2019 New York City outbreak alone cost the health department $8.4 million, apart from the costs borne by hospitals, families and schools (Zucker et al., 2020).
Economic Considerations That Shape Collaboration
Misaligned incentives. A pediatric practice that improves its measles vaccination rate bears the cost of outreach, while most of the savings from avoided outbreaks accrue to health departments and the wider community. Practices therefore underinvest in reminders and follow-up for hesitant families.
Fragmented funding. Public health funding for immunization tends to arrive as categorical grants that rise during emergencies and fall afterward, which makes it hard to sustain partnerships between outbreaks.
Private sector interests. Health systems and insurers benefit from fewer hospitalizations, and some private plans pay for quality measures tied to childhood immunization, which gives them reasons to partner.
Proposed Collaborations Through Policy
| Collaboration | Policy lever | Who benefits |
|---|---|---|
| Registry-linked reminder and recall for children overdue for measles vaccine | State law requiring practices to report doses to the immunization registry and funding health department reminders | Practices, families, health department |
| Shared vaccination clinics in counties with high exemption rates | Medicaid and state grants paying for clinics staffed by health systems and hosted by schools and community groups | Families without regular care, health systems |
| Joint outbreak preparedness drills | Hospital preparedness requirements that include health department participation | Hospitals, health department |
Why These Collaborations Make Economic Sense
Targeting is feasible because exemption data are published: fourteen states and territories reported exemption rates above five percent among kindergartners in 2023-24 (Seither et al., 2024). Each proposal shifts some prevention cost to the party that saves most from it, or pools resources so that neither sector carries the full cost alone. Given the size of outbreak response costs, modest investments in reminders and community clinics are likely to be worthwhile if they prevent even one large outbreak, although each would need evaluation.
References
Ortega-Sanchez, I. R., Vijayaraghavan, M., Barskey, A. E., & Wallace, G. S. (2014). The economic burden of sixteen measles outbreaks on United States public health departments in 2011. Vaccine, 32(11), 1311-1317. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vaccine.2013.10.012
Seither, R., Yusuf, O. B., Dramann, D., Calhoun, K., Mugerwa-Kasujja, A., Knighton, C. L., Kriss, J. L., Miller, R., & Peacock, G. (2024). Coverage with selected vaccines and exemption rates among children in kindergarten: United States, 2023-24 school year. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, 73(41), 925-932. https://doi.org/10.15585/mmwr.mm7341a3
Zucker, J. R., Rosen, J. B., Iwamoto, M., Arciuolo, R. J., Langdon-Embry, M., Vora, N. M., Rakeman, J. L., Isaac, B. M., Jean, A., Asfaw, M., Hawkins, S. C., Merrill, T. G., Kennelly, M. O., Maldin Morgenthau, B., Daskalakis, D. C., & Barbot, O. (2020). Consequences of undervaccination: Measles outbreak, New York City, 2018-2019. New England Journal of Medicine, 382(11), 1009-1017. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1912514
HCD 420 Module 4 instructions, in plain terms
Writing Workshop #4 sits in Module 12, which covers coordination between public health and health care systems. Two objectives attach to it: analyze the economic considerations that influence public health collaborations in both the public and private sectors, and propose potential collaborations via policy between public health and health care systems. The prompt therefore has an analytic half and a proposal half, and both should connect to the condition you have followed since the first workshop. Cost data from outbreak studies, budget reports or cost-effectiveness analyses give the economic half substance.
Inside the HCD 420 Module 4 example
Following the two halves of the objective, the sample first explains how the two systems are financed and then reports what outbreaks cost, with figures from a national study and a city outbreak. A section on economic considerations names three: misaligned incentives, fragmented funding and private sector interests. The proposal half sets out three collaborations in a table, each with a policy lever and its beneficiaries, and a closing paragraph explains why the proposals make economic sense while noting that they would need evaluation. The section cites the cost and coverage sources used earlier, which keeps the paper consistent, and the clinic proposal is aimed at counties with high exemption rates because those are where the second workshop located the risk. Every figure is attributed, so a grader can trace each cost to its study.
HCD 420 Module 4 rubric: what earns full marks
Graded on its Canvas rubric with an 80% target, the workshop is generally credited for accurate economic reasoning about who bears costs and who gains, credible cost data, collaborations that involve both public health and health care, a specific policy lever for each proposal and realistic expectations about effects. Drafts lose credit when proposals have no policy mechanism, when economics is reduced to "prevention saves money" without showing for whom and when the draft ignores private sector incentives. Credit also tends to follow drafts that connect their proposals to the policy ideas from the first workshop rather than starting fresh, since the paper is meant to build.
HCD 420 Module 4 help: mistakes that cost marks
Ask two questions for every cost you report: who pays it, and who would save if it were avoided. The gap between those parties is usually where collaboration helps. Make each proposal name a policy tool, such as a law, a payment rule or a grant condition. Avoid promising savings you cannot support; "likely" and "would need evaluation" are honest. If you need cost data for your condition, the desk can suggest where to look. A table like the one in the sample is an efficient way to show the policy lever and the beneficiaries side by side, and it gives your instructor a quick view of whether each proposal involves both sectors.
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 420 and BS in Health Care Administration and Policy sample papers
- HCD 420 Module 1: Writing Workshop 1: Policies for Improving Health Outcomes
- HCD 420 Module 2: Writing Workshop 2: Person, Place and Time
- HCD 420 Module 3: Writing Workshop 3: Laws That Enhance and Limit Outbreak Investigation
- HCD 420 Module 5: Writing Workshop 5: Population Health, Population Health Management and Public Health
- HCD 420 Module 6: Cumulative Final Paper: Measles Through a Systems Lens
- HCD 332 Module 2: Health Policy Analysis: Naloxone Access
- HCD 400 Module 2: Module 2 Assignment: Navigating Scholarly Databases
- HCD 303 Module 1: Team Charter for the Comparative Health System Project
- HCD 330 Module 2: Payment Model Assignment
HCD 420 Module 4 questions, answered
Where can I find a free HCD 420 Module 4 sample paper?
This page holds a full HCD 420 Module 4 sample: a writing workshop on the economics of measles outbreaks and collaborations between public health and health care.
How much do measles outbreaks cost?
Sixteen outbreaks in 2011 cost U.S. health departments an estimated $2.7 million to $5.3 million; New York City's 2018-2019 response cost $8.4 million.
Why do public health and health care need to collaborate?
Health departments run surveillance and response, while most vaccines and care are delivered by private practices and hospitals, so neither can prevent outbreaks alone.
What module covers the fourth HCD 420 workshop?
Module 12, the module on coordination between public health and health care systems.
What is a policy lever?
A tool such as a law, payment rule or grant condition that a government uses to change how organizations behave.