ASSESSMENT 2 BRIEF
Subject Code and Title PUBH6003 Health Systems and Economics
Assessment Written Debate
Individual/Group Group of Three
Length 2,000 words total (+/–10%)
Learning Outcomes The Subject Learning Outcomes demonstrated by the successful completion of the task below include:
a) Critically examine the key characteristics of health systems and apply this knowledge to local and global contexts;
b) Investigate and inquire into the building blocks of health systems and interpret how they are translated globally;
c) Evaluate the principles of systems thinking and promote multisectoral collaboration for the successful implementation of public health programmes;
d) Analyse the key concepts and principles of health economics; and
e) Evaluate the factors that influence health service supply and demand with a focus on the equitable distribution of resources.
Submission Individual Position Statement (400 words +/–10%)
Available at the end of Module 7 (Week 7) on Sunday at 11.55 pm, and due for submission at the end of Module 10 (Week 10) as an appendix.
Part A: Submission to Discussion Forum—Group Position Statement (1,000 words +/–10%)
Due at the end of Module 8 (Week 8) on Sunday at 11.55 pm AEST/AEDT
Part B: Submission—Group Position Statement and Group Rebuttal Statement (2,000 words +/–10%), attaching individual position statements as an appendix. A single PDF-file submission.
Due at the end of Module 10 (Week 10) on Sunday at 11.55 pm AEST/AEDT
Weighting 40%
Total Marks 100 marks
Context
Healthcare financing incorporates how funds are mobilised (raising revenue), accumulated (pooling) and allocated (purchasing) to deliver health services to individuals and population groups.
Health systems cannot function without funding: reliable channels of funding are important to ensure that a health system is equitable, and that individual healthcare costs do not cause financial harm.
• Revenue raising ensures that there is money and ensures sustainability.
• Pooling spreads the financial risk across the population to ensure equity and efficacy.
• Allocation mechanisms used to pay for health services ensures services/medicines and technology.
Health financing also ensures the appropriate setting of financial incentives for the payment of health providers. Ultimately, health financing helps health systems to achieve their goals, such as health outcomes/gains, equity in the provision of health services, system efficacy and responsiveness. These key indicators are used to monitor and evaluate the health financing mechanisms adopted by different countries. Thus, knowledge of health financing will help you to understand the extent to which health system goals are achievable (or not) in a given context.
This assessment is designed to encourage teamwork and collaboration. The assessment requires you to engage in extensive research and undertake a critical analysis to craft clear and strategic evidence-based arguments to support your stance: a key skill in public health advocacy and policy development.
Assessment Task
Your group will be provided with a topic and the stance that you will be required to argue. Critically evaluate your topic for debate (in essence, writing a position paper), as assigned to you by your learning facilitator. Consider the pros and cons for the achievement of the health system’s goals: the health outcomes (health gain), equity in health and finance, financial protection and the responsiveness of the system.
Instructions
The table below summarises the schedule of activities and timelines for the assessment.
Allocation of Students to
Groups
Due: End of Module 5 (Week 5) Students will be assigned to groups (three students per group), depending on class size. Each group will be assigned a topic and team position by the learning facilitator.
Draft Individual Position
Statement
Due: End of Module 7 (Week 7) Each student is to write a 1-page position statement (at least 400 words +/–10%) representing their argument on the assigned topic before working with one another on the group position statement.
Individual position statements will be attached as an appendix to the final submission.
Part A: Submission—Group
Position Statement (Discussion
Forum)
Due: End of Module 8 (Week 8) Groups to submit their group statement on the discussion forum dedicated to this activity. Each group is to provide three clear, logical, convincing and evidence-based arguments that support their side (1,000 words +/–10%). This submission will be marked once the entire task is submitted in Week 10.
Draft Group rebuttal statement
Due: End of Module 10
(Week 10)
Provide three clear, logical, convincing and evidence-based arguments to demolish or argue against the main points of the opposing team (1000 words +/–10%).
Part B: Final Submission–Group
Position Statement and Group
Rebuttal, attaching Individual Position Statements as an appendix
Due: End of Module 10
(Week 10)
Group to submit their position statement, which should be the same as the one submitted to the discussion forum previously (1,000 words +/ 10%) and the group rebuttal (1,000 words +/–10%) and individual position statements (as an appendix). All documents to be submitted as a single PDF file.
Note: Each team member should fill out the evaluation form individually and confidentially and submit it using the ‘Team Member Evaluation Form Submission’ link. The Evaluation Form is available for download under the Assessment Information.
Details Individual Position Statement
You are required to initially work individually on the topic assigned to your group by the learning facilitator. As a group you need to establish three arguments and each argument needs to be allocated to an individual group member. You will conduct some preliminary research relevant to the argument you are allocated and synthesise and analyse the researched material to build arguments to support your viewpoint. You are also required to demonstrate your ability to integrate knowledge about aspects and perspectives, which you may need to argue against the opposition team’s main arguments. Your Individual Position Statement will be integrated in the overall group statement.
Group Position Statement
Address each of the below points clearly and concisely in your group position statement to successfully complete the task.
1. Present your overall argument in a clear statement.
2. Provide background information on the topic to explain its importance. Define the issue if required.
3. Provide the first supporting statement with evidence from credible/academic sources of information; paraphrase with parenthetical citations.
4. Provide second supporting statement with evidence from credible/academic sources; paraphrase with parenthetical citations.
5. Provide, the third supporting statement with evidence from credible/academic sources; paraphrase with parenthetical citations.
6. Conclusion. Restate the main argument and synthesise the main key points to explain the significance of the issue. Do not introduce new information.
Group Rebuttal Statement
Here are some rebuttal strategies that you can use:
1. Thesis statement. This statement should directly oppose the thesis statement of the original claim that you are countering.
2. Address and counter each of the three supporting arguments point-by-point by providing an evidence-based analysis, explanation and specific examples that support your overall point.
3. Write a conclusion synthesising the main points.
Assessment Components
By the end of Module 10 (Week 10), each group needs to submit the following as a single PDF file
• Group Position Statement—1,000 words (+/–10%) • Group Rebuttal Statement—1,000 words (+/–10%) • Individual Position Statements (as an appendix).
• Team Evaluation Form (Download from the Assessment 2 folder for this subject, complete individually and confidently, and submit using the submission link provided).
Refer to the table above for instructions on what these assessment components include.
Other Guidelines
Referencing
It is essential that you use appropriate APA style for citing and referencing research. For more information on referencing, visit https://library.torrens.edu.au/academicskills/apa/tool.
Submission Instructions
Group Position Statements are to be submitted via the main navigation menu for Assessments for PUBH6003 Health Systems and Economics under the link Assessment 2: Part A: Discussion Forum at the end of Module 8 (Week 8).
All components need to be submitted as a single PDF file under the Assessment 2: Part B link at the end of Module 10 (Week 10). There should only be ONE submission per group.
The learning facilitator will provide feedback via the Grade Centre in the LMS portal. Feedback can be viewed in My Grades.
Breach of academic integrity should be reported using the AI form for further investigation, and the prescribed action will be taken when a breach is identified.
Link to the AI form:
https://forms.office.com/Pages/ResponsePage.aspx?id=LHnjo3LvaES2Lae0hBR2mHZtqLr0sCZFtSJb7j Z7gOtURTlGOFQ4ODgzUDZOMk5FTDdGV0tUS1NGRSQlQCN0PWcu
Academic Integrity Declaration
We declare that except where referenced, the work we are submitting for this assessment task is our own. We have read and are aware of the Torrens University Australia Academic Integrity Policy and Procedure, viewable online at http://www.torrens.edu.au/policies-and-forms.
We are also aware that we need to keep a copy of all submitted material and their drafts, and we agree to do so.
Assessment Rubric
Assessment Attributes Fail
(Yet to achieve minimum standard) 0–49% Pass
(Functional) 50–64% Credit
(Proficient)
65–74% Distinction
(Advanced)
75–84% High Distinction
(Exceptional)
85–100%
Knowledge and understanding of health financing mechanisms; that is, raising revenue, pooling revenue and purchasing.
Ability to assess the quality of the mechanisms via their effects on health outcomes (health gain), equity in health and finance, financial protection and responsiveness.
30%
Fails to show or shows a partially developed understanding of health financing for health system’s goals (pros and cons).
Limited evaluation and analysis of the quality of mechanisms against their
effects on health outcomes, equity in health and finance, financial protection and responsiveness.
Confuses logic and emotion. Information taken from reliable sources but without coherent analysis or synthesis.
Demonstrates functional knowledge of health financing for health system’s goals (pros and cons).
Demonstrates some analysis and evaluation of the quality of mechanisms against their effects on health outcomes, equity in health and finance, financial protection and responsiveness.
Analysis and evaluation do not reflect expert judgement, intellectual independence, rigor and adaptability. Demonstrates proficient knowledge of health financing for health system’s goals (pros and cons).
Well-developed analysis and evaluation of the quality of mechanisms against their effects on health outcomes, equity in health and finance, financial
protection and responsiveness.
Identifies logical flaws. Analysis and evaluation reflect expert judgement, intellectual independence, rigor and adaptability. Demonstrates advanced knowledge of health financing for health system’s goals (pros and cons).
Thoroughly developed analysis and evaluation of the quality of mechanisms against their effects on health outcomes, equity in health and finance, financial
protection and responsiveness.
Analysis and evaluation reflect growing judgement, intellectual independence, rigor and adaptability. Demonstrates exceptional knowledge of health financing for health system’s goals (pros and cons).
Highly sophisticated evaluation and analysis of the quality of mechanisms against their effects on health outcomes, equity in health and finance, financial protection and responsiveness.
Identifies gaps in knowledge.
Exhibits intellectual independence, rigor, good
judgement and adaptability.
Assessment Attributes Fail
(Yet to achieve minimum standard) 0–49% Pass
(Functional) 50–64% Credit
(Proficient)
65–74% Distinction
(Advanced)
75–84% High Distinction
(Exceptional)
85–100%
Structure and presentation of group position statement.
20%
No clear position taken; reasons undeveloped; no supporting facts are used. Position statement was not supported. Position not clearly stated; development is brief; unrelated, unsupported general statements, reasons, and details; minimal facts used. Counter arguments are not acknowledged.
Position statement was well supported, but others were not. Clear position taken and defined; some reasons and some details are presented, but these are not fully developed. Counter arguments addressed. Position statement was supported with facts, statistics and/or examples, but the relevance of some was questionable.
Clear position taken and defined; uses at least three appropriate reasons with some development. Counter arguments addressed in detail. Position statement was adequately supported with relevant facts, statistics and/or examples. Takes a strong, well defined position; uses three appropriate reasons with at least two supporting details for each reason. Counter arguments effectively addressed, without undercutting the other team’s position. Position statement was well supported with several relevant facts, statistics and/or examples.
Structure and presentation of rebuttal arguments.
15% Counterarguments were not accurate and/or relevant.
Arguments were not tied to an idea at all. Absence of crossexamination or rebuttals, failure to point out problems in other team’s position; failure to defend its position statement.
Some counterarguments were weak and irrelevant. Arguments were not tied well to an idea.
Poor cross-examination or rebuttals; pointed out one or two problems in other team’s position; defended its position statement weakly.
Most counterarguments were accurate and relevant, but several were weak. All arguments were clearly tied to an idea (premise) but the organisation was sometimes not clear or logical.
Decent cross-examination and/or rebuttals, but some significant problems. Most counterarguments were accurate, relevant, and strong.
Most arguments were clearly tied to an idea (premise) and organised in a tight, logical fashion. Good cross-examination and rebuttals with only minor slip-ups. All counterarguments were accurate, relevant and strong.
All arguments were clearly tied to an idea (premise) and organised in a tight, logical fashion.
Excellent cross-examination and rebuttal against the other team’s arguments/position statement.
Assessment Attributes Fail
(Yet to achieve minimum standard) 0–49% Pass
(Functional) 50–64% Credit
(Proficient)
65–74% Distinction
(Advanced)
75–84% High Distinction
(Exceptional)
85–100%
Substantiation of information selected on health financing for health system’s goals to support the group’s
arguments
15% Limited understanding of key concepts required to support the case study.
Viewpoints of experts are taken as fact and subject to little questioning.
Resembles a recall or summary of key ideas. Often conflates/confuses the assertion of personal opinion with information substantiated by evidence from the research/course materials.
Demonstrates a capacity to explain and apply relevant concepts.
Supports personal opinion; information substantiated by evidence from the research/course materials. Questions viewpoints of experts.
Well-demonstrated capacity to explain and apply relevant concepts. Discriminates between the assertion of personal opinion and information substantiated by robust evidence from the research/course materials and extended reading. Viewpoints of experts are subject to questioning. Information is taken from sources with a high level of interpretation/evaluation to develop a comprehensive critical analysis or synthesis. Systematically and critically discriminates between the assertion of personal opinion and information substantiated by robust evidence from the research/course materials and extended reading.
Team work
10%
Does not participate effectively in a team environment.
Places individual goals ahead of group responsibilities.
Hinders the group process and upsets the schedule. Participates effectively in teams.
Identifies team and individual goals, tasks, responsibilities and schedules. Contributes to group processes.
Supports the team.
Contributes to small group discussions to reach agreement on issues. Works together with others towards shared goals. Renegotiates responsibilities as necessary. Understands group dynamics and team roles. Facilitates team development. Renegotiates responsibilities, tasks and schedules as necessary. Builds team’s identity and commitment.
Leads teams.
Evaluates team outcomes. Implements strategies to enhance team effectiveness.
Assessment Attributes Fail
(Yet to achieve minimum standard) 0–49% Pass
(Functional) 50–64% Credit
(Proficient)
65–74% Distinction
(Advanced)
75–84% High Distinction
(Exceptional)
85–100%
Correct citation of key
resources and evidence.
Health financing for
health system’s goals
10%
Demonstrates inconsistent use of good quality, credible and relevant resources to support and develop ideas.
Referencing is omitted or does not resemble APA. Uses credible and relevant resources to support and develop ideas, but these are not always explicit or well developed.
Referencing resembles APA but contains frequent or repeated errors. Uses credible resources to support and develop ideas.
Referencing resembles APA but contains occasional errors. Uses good quality, credible and relevant resources to support and develop arguments and statements.
Shows evidence of wide scope within the organisation for sourcing evidence.
APA referencing is free of errors. Uses high-quality, credible and relevant resources to support and develop arguments and position statements.
Shows evidence of wide scope within and without the organisation for sourcing evidence. APA referencing is free of errors.
The following Subject Learning Outcomes are addressed in this assessment
SLO a) Critically examine the key characteristics of health systems and apply this knowledge to local and global contexts.
SLO b) Investigate and inquire into the building blocks of health systems and interpret how they are translated globally.
SLO c) Evaluate the principles of systems thinking and promote multi-sectoral collaboration for the successful implementation of public health programmes.
SLO d) Analyse the key concepts and principles of health economics.
SLO e) Evaluate the factors that influence health service supply and demand with a focus on the equitable distribution of resources.
