## Explain how the law of diminishing marginal returns is relevant when developing policies aimed at reducing the growth rate of healthcare expenditures.

1. Explain how the law of diminishing marginal returns is relevant when developing policies aimed at reducing the growth rate of healthcare expenditures.
2. Take a minute to think about the total expenditures of each patient at a hospital.  What do you think the cost distribution will look like (large or small standard deviation; will there be a skew)? Will the median expenditures be larger than the mean? Why? Provide a 4-5 sentence explanation.
3. Imagine that our health status (measured by our overall utility level) was only determined by the amount of money that we spent on healthcare.  At first, each additional dollar that we spend will increase our overall health.  However, after we reach a certain amount of spending, our utility would actually start to decrease as we spend more and more.  As an example, getting bloodwork is painful, and there is a chance I could get an infection or cold every time I go to the doctor’s office. Suppose that the health status can be calculated with the following

## week 4 Assignment.

Total 6 questions in assignment section. Each questions should be answered in 100-125 words and draw the graph where it is needed.
Total 5 questions in discussion assignment. Each questions should be answered in 100-125 words and draw the graph where it is needed.
In last question, there is multiple sub parts, answer each part in at least 75-100 words each.

## week 4 Assignment.

Total 6 questions in assignment section. Each questions should be answered in 100-125 words and draw the graph where it is needed.
Total 5 questions in discussion assignment. Each questions should be answered in 100-125 words and draw the graph where it is needed.
In last question, there is multiple sub parts, answer each part in at least 75-100 words each.

## Part 1

After rating your skills, write a short response to the following questions (max 500 words)

• What are your strongest and weakest skills?
• How do you think this class will help you improve or  build upon your current communication skill set?

How often does this describe me during a conversation/communication? Usually Sometimes Seldom     Writing Skills I know the parts of a proper email, memo, and business letter formatting.      I know the basic parts of formal or informal reports.      I can evaluate a document to determine if it might be successful.      Reading Skills I am familiar with specialized vocabulary in the retail field.      I am willing to look up the meanings of words or concepts I don’t fully understand.      I can get the basic meaning of words I am unfamiliar with by using context clues in the text      I am comfortable reading a text in a variety of mediums (paper, tablet, computer screen, etc)      Listening Skills I do not react to distractions (phone, etc).      I listen to half of the conversation without taking it over.      I can provide proper verbal and nonverbal feedback (nodding).      I can summarize the speaker’s ideas by paraphrasing and asking questions.      Speaking Skills I find it easy and comfortable to talk with friends.      I find it easy and comfortable to talk with coworkers      I am confident when giving a presentation to different audiences      I am confident in pronouncing and using words correctly

## Part 2

Your task is to write an email to your instructor to introduce yourself. Put your first and last name and the assignment title in the subject line. For example: Maria Ruiz Assignment 1

1. Reasons for taking this class
2. Your career goals (short term/long term)
3. Familiarity with computer technology
4. A brief discussion of how you view your current communication skill levels. Were there any parts of the quiz that surprised you? What are your strongest and weakest skills?
5. Is there anything in the class/syllabus that worries you? Any topic you are excited about or have extensive experience with?

Criteria Not Evident Developing Proficient Exemplary Points     Organization and format  2 pts
Writing lacks logical organization. It may show some coherence but ideas lack unity. Serious errors and generally is an unorganized format and information.  3 pts
Writing is coherent and logically organized, using a format suitable for the material presented. Some points may be contextually misplaced and/or stray from the topic. Transitions may be evident but not used throughout the essay. Organization and format used may detract from understanding the material presented.  4 pts
Writing is coherent and logically organized, using a format suitable for the material presented. Transitions between ideas and paragraphs create coherence. Overall unity of ideas is supported by the format and organization of the material presented.  5 pts
Writing shows high degree of attention to details and presentation of points. Format used enhances understanding of material presented. Unity clearly leads the reader to the writer’s conclusion and the format and information could be used independently. 5 pts   Content  2 pts
Some but not all required questions are addressed. Content and/or terminology is not properly used or referenced. Little or no original thought is present in the writing. Concepts presented are merely restated from the source, or ideas presented do not follow the logic and reasoning presented throughout the writing.  3 pts
All required questions are addressed but may not be addressed with thoughtful consideration and/or may not reflect proper use of content terminology or additional original thought. Additional concepts may not be present and/or may not be properly cited sources.  4 pts
All required questions are addressed with thoughtful consideration reflecting both proper use of content terminology and additional original thought. Some additional concepts may be presented from other properly cited sources, or originated by the author following logic and reasoning they’ve clearly presented throughout the writing.  5 pts
All required questions are addressed with thoughtful in-depth consideration reflecting both proper use of content terminology and additional original thought. Additional concepts are clearly presented from properly cited sources, or originated by the author following logic and reasoning they’ve clearly presented throughout the writing. 5 pts   Development – Critical Thinking  4 pts
Shows some thinking and reasoning but most ideas are underdeveloped, unoriginal, and/or do not address the questions asked. Conclusions drawn may be unsupported, illogical or merely the author’s opinion with no supporting evidence presented.  6 pts
Content indicates thinking and reasoning applied with original thought on a few ideas, but may repeat information provided and/ or does not address all of the questions asked. The author presents no original ideas, or ideas do not follow clear logic and reasoning. The evidence presented may not support conclusions drawn.  8 pts
Content indicates original thinking, cohesive conclusions, and developed ideas with sufficient and firm evidence. Clearly addresses all of the questions or requirements asked. The evidence presented supports conclusions drawn.  10 pts
Content indicates synthesis of ideas, in-depth analysis and evidence beyond the questions or requirements asked. Original thought supports the topic, and is clearly a well-constructed response to the questions asked. The evidence presented makes a compelling case for any conclusions drawn. 10 pts   Grammar, Mechanics, Style  2 pts
Writing contains many spelling, punctuation, and grammatical errors, making it difficult for the reader to follow ideas clearly. There may be sentence fragments and run-ons. The style of writing, tone, and use of rhetorical devices disrupts the content. Additional information may be presented but in an unsuitable style, detracting from its understanding.  3 pts
Some spelling, punctuation, and grammatical errors are present, interrupting the reader from following the ideas presented clearly. There may be sentence fragments and run-ons. The style of writing, tone, and use of rhetorical devices may detract from the content. Additional information may be presented, but in a style of writing that does not support understanding of the content.  4 pts
Writing is free of most spelling, punctuation, and grammatical errors, allowing the reader to follow ideas clearly. There are no sentence fragments and run-ons. The style of writing, tone, and use of rhetorical devices enhance the content. Additional information is presented in a cohesive style that supports understanding of the content.  5 pts
Writing is free of all spelling, punctuation, and grammatical errors and written in a style that enhances the reader’s ability to follow ideas clearly. There are no sentence fragments and run-ons. The style of writing, tone, and use of rhetorical devices enhance the content. Additional information is presented to encourage and enhance understanding of the content.

## International Economic Problems

1. Create an account on Kiva if you don’t already have one
2. Click on Lend. You will be presented with a long list of potential microfinance loans to make. You can narrow your search by country, gender, sector, group/individual lending, etc.
3. Search for a loan in your country. If you cannot find one in your country that you think is worthy of funding, search for a loan either in a neighboring country or one that is at a similar level of development.
4. In making your decision, you should consider not only the needs and performance of the borrower, but also the field partner that will be managing this loan. Each loan page will have a link that gives you more information about the field partner. Kiva has ratings on these field partners in terms of subjective measures of social performance as well as quantitative financial information
5. You have the option of making a loan or not. If you want to make a loan, go ahead and lend \$25 (or more if you want). You will have the option of donating to Kiva’s operations, though this is optional (you will have to opt out). If you would rather not make a loan, that is fine. You will still complete this project as though you did make the loan (no extra points for actually lending money).

• Write a brief summary of the loan that explains how much is being borrowed and what the money will be used for. You will go into much more detail on this in the next assignment, so a very brief summary is fine here.
• Analyze the field partner (i.e. the microfinance institution that will actually administer the loan).
• On the right side of the loan page, the field partner is listed. Click on the arrow to expand the information and then click on the link that says “More about X” where X is the name of the field partner
• What is the stated mission of the field partner?
• How long has the field partner been in operation and has Kiva reported any notable status changes?
• What is their risk rating? What are their rates of delinquency and loans at risk? What is their default rate? Do they charge interest and fees? What is their average cost to borrowers? What is their average profitability?
• After collecting the data above, compare these numbers to other field partners on Kiva (scroll down and you should see a table with data for your field partner and aggregate figures for all field partners). Is your field partner safer or riskier than average? Do they charge borrowers more? Are they more profitable?

## International Economic Problems

1. Create an account on Kiva if you don’t already have one
2. Click on Lend. You will be presented with a long list of potential microfinance loans to make. You can narrow your search by country, gender, sector, group/individual lending, etc.
3. Search for a loan in your country. If you cannot find one in your country that you think is worthy of funding, search for a loan either in a neighboring country or one that is at a similar level of development.
4. In making your decision, you should consider not only the needs and performance of the borrower, but also the field partner that will be managing this loan. Each loan page will have a link that gives you more information about the field partner. Kiva has ratings on these field partners in terms of subjective measures of social performance as well as quantitative financial information
5. You have the option of making a loan or not. If you want to make a loan, go ahead and lend \$25 (or more if you want). You will have the option of donating to Kiva’s operations, though this is optional (you will have to opt out). If you would rather not make a loan, that is fine. You will still complete this project as though you did make the loan (no extra points for actually lending money).

• Write a brief summary of the loan that explains how much is being borrowed and what the money will be used for. You will go into much more detail on this in the next assignment, so a very brief summary is fine here.
• Analyze the field partner (i.e. the microfinance institution that will actually administer the loan).
• On the right side of the loan page, the field partner is listed. Click on the arrow to expand the information and then click on the link that says “More about X” where X is the name of the field partner
• What is the stated mission of the field partner?
• How long has the field partner been in operation and has Kiva reported any notable status changes?
• What is their risk rating? What are their rates of delinquency and loans at risk? What is their default rate? Do they charge interest and fees? What is their average cost to borrowers? What is their average profitability?
• After collecting the data above, compare these numbers to other field partners on Kiva (scroll down and you should see a table with data for your field partner and aggregate figures for all field partners). Is your field partner safer or riskier than average? Do they charge borrowers more? Are they more profitable?

## SUPPLY AND DEMAND

Supply and demand encompass the health care workforce, just as they do any other service providers. Describe the role that public policy plays when discussing physician shortages. INCLUDE IN TEXT CITATIONSupply and demand encompass the health care workforce, just as they do any other service providers. Describe the role that public policy plays when discussing physician shortages. INCLUDE IN TEXT CITATION

## Fiona Barnes did not feel well as the deputy commissioner’s office door closed behind her. She walked back to her office wondering why bad news seems to come on Friday afternoons. Sitting at her desk, she went over the events of the past several days and the decision that lay ahead of her. This was clearly the most difficult situation that she had encountered since her promotion to the position of Director of Evaluation in the Department of Human Services.

Fiona Barnes did not feel well as the deputy commissioner’s office door closed behind her. She walked back to her office wondering why bad news seems to come on Friday afternoons. Sitting at her desk, she went over the events of the past several days and the decision that lay ahead of her. This was clearly the most difficult situation that she had encountered since her promotion to the position of Director of Evaluation in the Department of Human Services.
Fiona’s predicament had begun the day before, when the new commissioner, Fran Atkin, had called a meeting with Fiona and the deputy commissioner. The governor was in a difficult position: In his recent election campaign, he had made potentially conflicting campaign promises. He had promised to reduce taxes and had also promised to maintain existing health and social programs, while balancing the state budget.
The week before, a loud and lengthy meeting of the commissioners in the state government had resulted in a course of action intended to resolve the issue of conflicting election promises. Fran Atkin had been persuaded by the governor that she should meet with the senior staff in her department, and after the meeting, a major evaluation of the department’s programs would be announced. The evaluation would provide the governor with some post-election breathing space. But the evaluation results were predetermined—they would be used to justify program cuts. In sum, a “compassionate” but substantial reduction in the department’s social programs would be made to ensure the department’s contribution to a balanced budget.
As the new commissioner, Fran Atkin relied on her deputy commissioner, Elinor Ames. Elinor had been one of several deputies to continue on under the new administration and had been heavily committed to developing and implementing key programs in the department, under the previous administration. Her success in doing that had been a principal reason why she had been promoted to deputy commissioner.
On Wednesday, the day before the meeting with Fiona, Fran Atkin had met with Elinor Ames to explain the decision reached by the governor, downplaying the contentiousness of the discussion. Fran had acknowledged some discomfort with her position, but she believed her department now had a mandate. Proceeding with it was in the public’s interest.
Elinor was upset with the governor’s decision. She had fought hard over the years to build the programs in question. Now she was being told to dismantle her legacy—programs she believed in that made up a considerable part of her budget and person-year allocations.
In her meeting with Fiona on Friday afternoon, Elinor had filled Fiona in on the political rationale for the decision to cut human service programs. She also made clear what Fiona had suspected when they had met with the commissioner earlier that week—the outcomes of the evaluation were predetermined: They would show that key programs where substantial resources were tied up were not effective and would be used to justify cuts to the department’s programs.
Fiona was upset with the commissioner’s intended use of her branch. Elinor, watching Fiona’s reactions closely, had expressed some regret over the situation. After some hesitation, she suggested that she and Fiona could work on the evaluation together, “to ensure that it meets our needs and is done according to our standards.” After pausing once more, Elinor added, “Of course, Fiona, if you do not feel that the branch has the capabilities needed to undertake this project, we can contract it out. I know some good people in this area.”
Fiona was shown to the door and asked to think about it over the weekend.
Fiona Barnes took pride in her growing reputation as a competent and serious director of a good evaluation shop. Her people did good work that was viewed as being honest, and they prided themselves on being able to handle any work that came their way. Elinor Ames had appointed Fiona to the job, and now this.
Analyze this case and offer a resolution to Fiona’s dilemma. Should Fiona undertake the evaluation project? Should she agree to have the work contracted out? Why?
A. In responding to this case, consider the issues on two levels: (1) look at the issues taking into account Fiona’s personal situation and the “benefits and costs” of the options available to her and (2) look at the issues from an organizational standpoint, again weighing the “benefits and the costs.” Ultimately, you will have to decide how to weigh the benefits and costs from both Fiona’s and the department’s standpoints.
B. Then look at this case and address this question: Is there an ethical “bottom line” such that, regardless of the costs and benefits involved, it should guide Fiona’s decision. If there is, what is the ethical bottom line? Again, what should Fiona do? Why?

## Fiona Barnes did not feel well as the deputy commissioner’s office door closed behind her. She walked back to her office wondering why bad news seems to come on Friday afternoons. Sitting at her desk, she went over the events of the past several days and the decision that lay ahead of her. This was clearly the most difficult situation that she had encountered since her promotion to the position of Director of Evaluation in the Department of Human Services.

Fiona Barnes did not feel well as the deputy commissioner’s office door closed behind her. She walked back to her office wondering why bad news seems to come on Friday afternoons. Sitting at her desk, she went over the events of the past several days and the decision that lay ahead of her. This was clearly the most difficult situation that she had encountered since her promotion to the position of Director of Evaluation in the Department of Human Services.
Fiona’s predicament had begun the day before, when the new commissioner, Fran Atkin, had called a meeting with Fiona and the deputy commissioner. The governor was in a difficult position: In his recent election campaign, he had made potentially conflicting campaign promises. He had promised to reduce taxes and had also promised to maintain existing health and social programs, while balancing the state budget.
The week before, a loud and lengthy meeting of the commissioners in the state government had resulted in a course of action intended to resolve the issue of conflicting election promises. Fran Atkin had been persuaded by the governor that she should meet with the senior staff in her department, and after the meeting, a major evaluation of the department’s programs would be announced. The evaluation would provide the governor with some post-election breathing space. But the evaluation results were predetermined—they would be used to justify program cuts. In sum, a “compassionate” but substantial reduction in the department’s social programs would be made to ensure the department’s contribution to a balanced budget.
As the new commissioner, Fran Atkin relied on her deputy commissioner, Elinor Ames. Elinor had been one of several deputies to continue on under the new administration and had been heavily committed to developing and implementing key programs in the department, under the previous administration. Her success in doing that had been a principal reason why she had been promoted to deputy commissioner.
On Wednesday, the day before the meeting with Fiona, Fran Atkin had met with Elinor Ames to explain the decision reached by the governor, downplaying the contentiousness of the discussion. Fran had acknowledged some discomfort with her position, but she believed her department now had a mandate. Proceeding with it was in the public’s interest.
Elinor was upset with the governor’s decision. She had fought hard over the years to build the programs in question. Now she was being told to dismantle her legacy—programs she believed in that made up a considerable part of her budget and person-year allocations.
In her meeting with Fiona on Friday afternoon, Elinor had filled Fiona in on the political rationale for the decision to cut human service programs. She also made clear what Fiona had suspected when they had met with the commissioner earlier that week—the outcomes of the evaluation were predetermined: They would show that key programs where substantial resources were tied up were not effective and would be used to justify cuts to the department’s programs.
Fiona was upset with the commissioner’s intended use of her branch. Elinor, watching Fiona’s reactions closely, had expressed some regret over the situation. After some hesitation, she suggested that she and Fiona could work on the evaluation together, “to ensure that it meets our needs and is done according to our standards.” After pausing once more, Elinor added, “Of course, Fiona, if you do not feel that the branch has the capabilities needed to undertake this project, we can contract it out. I know some good people in this area.”
Fiona was shown to the door and asked to think about it over the weekend.
Fiona Barnes took pride in her growing reputation as a competent and serious director of a good evaluation shop. Her people did good work that was viewed as being honest, and they prided themselves on being able to handle any work that came their way. Elinor Ames had appointed Fiona to the job, and now this.