| Course | PHE 610 Health Policy and Management |
|---|---|
| Module | Module 3 |
| Paper type | graduate policy evaluation proposal (final project milestone one) |
| Length | About 1,010 words, 6 pages |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | Southern New Hampshire University |
| Program | MPH |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for PHE 610 Module 3
Licensing Dental Therapists in a Northern Plains State: A Policy Evaluation Proposal
[Student Name]
Southern New Hampshire University
PHE 610: Health Policy and Management
Final Project Milestone One
[Instructor Name]
[Date]
The organization, setting and figures below are a composite written as a model document. No real employer, client, colleague or patient is described.
Licensing Dental Therapists in a Northern Plains State: A Policy Evaluation Proposal
The Policy Problem
Our state has about 900,000 residents and 61 counties, and 49 of those counties are federally designated dental health professional shortage areas. Fewer than a third of practicing dentists accept new Medicaid patients, and four counties have no dentist at all. On the three reservations in the state, tribal clinics report waits of four to six months for a routine filling. These numbers describe a problem that is both geographic and economic: dentists are concentrated in the two largest cities, and the people with the least money and the farthest drives are the least likely to receive care.
The consequences are measurable. Untreated decay is the most common chronic condition in childhood and among adults worldwide (Peres et al., 2019), and in our state it is concentrated in rural and American Indian children. Adults with untreated infections visit emergency departments that cannot treat the cause. In the state's Medicaid claims for the most recent full year, nontraumatic dental conditions accounted for roughly 6,000 emergency department visits, most of them ending with a prescription and a referral to a dentist the patient could not reach. School screening data tell the same story from the other end of life: third graders in rural and tribal schools are about twice as likely as those in the two cities to have untreated decay. The problem this proposal addresses is not a shortage of dentistry in general but a shortage of anyone authorized to provide basic restorative care where these patients live.
The Policy
The policy under evaluation is a bill that would create a license for dental therapists. As drafted in its last session, the bill would allow licensed therapists who complete an accredited program to provide preventive services, fillings, temporary crowns and simple extractions of primary and loose permanent teeth, under a collaborative agreement with a dentist who need not be on site. Therapists would be required to practice primarily in shortage areas, tribal clinics, community health centers or settings where at least half of patients are publicly insured or uninsured, and they could bill Medicaid directly.
The bill was introduced in two consecutive sessions and failed both times in the House health committee, after testimony from the state dental association that therapists lack the training to perform irreversible procedures safely. Tribal leaders, community health centers, the state primary care association and rural legislators supported it. A version is expected again next session.
Evaluation Question and Criteria
The evaluation question is: would licensing dental therapists, compared with other available options, improve access to basic dental care for underserved residents of the state at acceptable cost and quality? The criteria are set out now, before options are compared, as Bardach and Patashnik (2020) advise, so that the comparison in Milestone Two cannot be shaped to fit a preferred answer. Each criterion will be weighed equally at first; Milestone Three will test whether giving equity or feasibility more weight changes the result, since legislators and tribal governments are likely to weigh them differently.
Table 1. Evaluation Criteria
| Criterion | Question asked | Example measure |
|---|---|---|
| Effectiveness | Does the option increase basic dental care for underserved residents? | Visits and fillings per 1,000 Medicaid-enrolled children and adults |
| Quality and safety | Is care at least as safe and appropriate as current care? | Restoration quality reviews, adverse events |
| Cost | What does it cost the state, clinics and patients? | Start-up and annual costs, cost per visit |
| Equity | Does it reduce gaps for rural and American Indian residents? | Change in visits by county type and tribal status |
| Feasibility and acceptability | Can it be implemented and can it pass? | Training pipeline, legislative votes, stakeholder positions |
What the Evidence Says So Far
Dental therapists are not new. More than fifty countries use them, many in school-based programs that reach children a private practice model leaves out (Friedman & Mathu-Muju, 2014). In the United States, Alaska Native tribal health organizations have employed dental health aide therapists since 2005, and Minnesota became the first state to license dental therapists by statute, in 2009.
The strongest United States study comes from Alaska. Chi et al. (2018) compared communities in the Yukon-Kuskokwim Delta by the number of days dental therapists provided care. Communities with more therapist treatment days had lower rates of tooth extraction among children and adults and higher use of preventive care. The design was observational, so other differences between communities could explain part of the result, and Alaska's remote villages differ from a Plains state's farm towns. Evidence on cost and on effects outside tribal settings is thinner and will be examined in later milestones. Friedman and Mathu-Muju (2014) argue that the quality of therapist care has been studied repeatedly abroad and found comparable to dentists for the procedures therapists perform, which bears directly on the safety objection raised in committee. Whether those findings hold under a Plains state's supervision rules is one of the questions this evaluation must answer rather than assume.
Evaluation Plan
The evaluation will proceed in three steps that match the remaining milestones. Milestone Two will map stakeholders, including the dental association, tribal governments, community health centers, the Medicaid agency and legislators, by position, interest and influence, and will define three or four policy options alongside the bill, such as higher Medicaid fees combined with loan repayment, a tribal-only authorization and the status quo. Milestone Three will score each option against the criteria in Table 1 and recommend a course of action with an implementation and evaluation plan. Evidence will be drawn from peer-reviewed studies, state Medicaid and workforce data and testimony from the two prior sessions, following the principle that policy analysis should combine research evidence with an understanding of political context (Brownson et al., 2009).
Limitations
Three limits are expected. Most evidence comes from Alaska's tribal system and from Minnesota, which have different geographies and payment arrangements. State data on visits by county are two years old. And because the bill has not passed, any estimate of its effect is a projection. These limits will be stated wherever they affect a conclusion.
References
Bardach, E., & Patashnik, E. M. (2020). A practical guide for policy analysis: The eightfold path to more effective problem solving (6th ed.). CQ Press.
Brownson, R. C., Chriqui, J. F., & Stamatakis, K. A. (2009). Understanding evidence-based public health policy. American Journal of Public Health, 99(9), 1576-1583. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2008.156224
Chi, D. L., Lenaker, D., Mancl, L., Dunbar, M., & Babb, M. (2018). Dental therapists linked to improved dental outcomes for Alaska Native communities in the Yukon-Kuskokwim Delta. Journal of Public Health Dentistry, 78(2), 175-182. https://doi.org/10.1111/jphd.12263
Friedman, J. W., & Mathu-Muju, K. R. (2014). Dental therapists: Improving access to oral health care for underserved children. American Journal of Public Health, 104(6), 1005-1009. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2014.301895
Peres, M. A., Macpherson, L. M. D., Weyant, R. J., Daly, B., Venturelli, R., Mathur, M. R., Listl, S., Celeste, R. K., Guarnizo-Herreño, C. C., Kearns, C., Benzian, H., Allison, P., & Watt, R. G. (2019). Oral diseases: A global public health challenge. The Lancet, 394(10194), 249-260. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(19)31146-8
What the PHE 610 Module 3 instructions ask for
Milestone One of the PHE 610 final project asks you to propose the policy you will evaluate for the rest of the course. The guidelines typically want a short paper, about three to five pages in APA 7, that identifies a current health policy or proposed policy, describes the public health problem behind it with evidence, explains the policy's purpose, history and current status, and states how you will evaluate it. Many versions also ask you to name the population affected, the level of government involved and the criteria you will use to judge success. Pick a policy narrow enough to analyze in depth, with real evidence available, because Milestones Two and Three and the final analysis all build on this choice.
How this PHE 610 Module 3 milestone one example is built
The sample proposes evaluating a twice-defeated state bill that would license dental therapists. It defines the problem with figures on shortage counties, Medicaid participation and tribal waitlists, then describes the bill's scope of practice, supervision rules and history in two sessions. A section states one evaluation question and five criteria in a table: effectiveness, cost, equity, feasibility and political acceptability. The evidence review covers Alaska's dental health aide therapists and Minnesota's licensed therapists, including a study linking therapist treatment days to fewer extractions. The plan explains how Milestone Two will map stakeholders and options and Milestone Three will recommend a course of action. Limits of the evidence close the paper.
Where the PHE 610 Module 3 rubric puts the points
The PHE 610 rubric for Milestone One usually scores the problem statement, the description of the policy, the evaluation plan and the use of evidence, along with APA 7 and writing. The highest marks go to proposals that quantify the problem for a specific population, describe the policy precisely enough that a reader knows what it would change, and state evaluation criteria in advance rather than inventing them after the fact. Graders also look for awareness that evidence from one setting may not transfer to another. Proposals that choose a policy too broad to evaluate, or that already argue for a conclusion, tend to score lower. Clear headings that follow the guidelines make each criterion easy to find.
PHE 610 Module 3 help: the mistakes that cost points
The usual mistakes in this milestone are choosing a policy that is really a goal, such as improving rural oral health, rather than a specific law or program, and writing advocacy instead of a proposal to evaluate. Students also skip the policy's history, which is often where the political barriers show up, or leave criteria undefined until Milestone Three. If your policy is different, such as a sugary drink tax, a paid sick leave ordinance or a Medicaid waiver, send its name and status and we will build the proposal around it. Choose a policy with enough published evaluation to support three more assignments, because a thin evidence base makes later milestones much harder to write well.
Get PHE 610 Module 3 written to your instructions
Share the PHE 610 Milestone One guidelines and the policy you plan to evaluate. The proposal will define the problem with data, explain the policy and its history, pose the evaluation question, set criteria and plan the analysis ahead, ready in about two days. Your first custom sample is free of charge. The paper above is an original model document written by our desk, not a submitted student paper and not an official Southern New Hampshire University document.
More PHE 610 papers and related MPH samples
- PHE 610 Module 1 Discussion: How the System Leaves a County Without a Dentist
- PHE 610 Module 2 Financing Short Paper: Who Pays for Teeth and Who Goes Without
- PHE 610 Module 4 Discussion: How an Issue Reaches the Agenda
- PHE 610 Module 5 Milestone Two: Stakeholders and Policy Options
- PHE 610 Module 6 Reform Legislation Short Paper: What the ACA Did and Did Not Do for Teeth
- PHE 610 Module 7 Discussion: Managing a Program Through a Policy Change
- PHE 610 Module 8 Milestone Three: The Recommended Course of Action
- PHE 610 Module 9 Discussion: Communicating a Policy to People Who Decide
- PHE 610 Module 10 Final Project: The Policy Analysis and Recommendation
- PHE 505 Module 6 Milestone Three: The Research Question and Hypotheses
- PHE 500 Module 4 Discussion: Who Does What in the Public Health System
- PHE 540 Module 8 Milestone Three: Needs, Capacity and Assets for a Strategic Plan
- PHE 489 Module 1 Discussion: Choosing an Issue People Cannot See
PHE 610 Module 3 questions, answered
Where can I find a free PHE 610 Module 3 Milestone One sample?
This page shows a full PHE 610 Module 3 Milestone One proposal to evaluate a state bill licensing dental therapists, with problem data, criteria and an evidence review.
What goes in a policy evaluation proposal?
The policy problem and its evidence, the policy's purpose, history and status, the population affected, an evaluation question, the criteria you will use and a plan for the analysis.
What criteria are used to evaluate a health policy?
Common criteria are effectiveness, cost or efficiency, equity, administrative feasibility and political acceptability. State them before analyzing options so the comparison is fair.
What is a dental therapist allowed to do?
Scope varies by state, but dental therapists typically provide cleanings, sealants, fillings and simple extractions, often under a dentist's general supervision.
Can I change my policy after Milestone One in PHE 610?
Instructors sometimes allow it, but later milestones build on this one, so changing policies usually means rewriting earlier work. Choose carefully and ask your instructor first.