Economic Policies for Health Promotions, Wellness and Prevention Programs

Points:

Points Range: 18 (24%) – 20 (26.67%)

The comparison shows depth and breadth in critical thinking when addressing the key points related to the differences in the programs including, but not limited to, approaches in health promotion, wellness, and prevention.

Feedback:

Points:

Points Range: 16 (21.33%) – 17 (22.67%)

The comparison fully addresses the key points related to the differences in the programs including, but not limited to, approaches in health promotion, wellness, and prevention.

Feedback:

Points:

Points Range: 14 (18.67%) – 15 (20%)

The comparison lacks depth, breadth or clarity in addressing the key points related to the differences in the programs including, but not limited to, approaches in health promotion, wellness, and prevention.

Feedback:

Points:

Points Range: 0 (0%) – 13 (17.33%)

The comparison does not address (zero points) or poorly addresses key points related to the differences in the programs including, but not limited to, approaches in health promotion, wellness, and prevention.

Feedback:

Points:

Points Range: 18 (24%) – 20 (26.67%)

The analysis shows critical thinking, considers divergent and competing opinions, and displays creative problem solving in its analysis of the implications of policies and disparities for both the U.S. and another country.

Feedback:

Points:

Points Range: 16 (21.33%) – 17 (22.67%)

The analysis fully addresses the implications of policies and disparities for both the U.S. and another country.

Feedback:

Points:

Points Range: 14 (18.67%) – 15 (20%)

The analysis lacks depth or clarity in addressing the implications of policies and disparities for both the U.S. and another country.

Feedback:

Points:

Points Range: 0 (0%) – 13 (17.33%)

The analysis does not address (zero points) or poorly addresses the implications of policies and disparities for both the U.S. and another country.

Feedback:

Points:

Points Range: 9 (12%) – 10 (13.33%)

The analysis shows critical thinking, considers divergent and competing opinions, and displays creative problem solving in its analysis of the implementation of foreign policies in the U.S.

Feedback:

Points:

Points Range: 8 (10.67%) – 8 (10.67%)

The analysis fully addresses the implementation of foreign policies in the U.S.

Feedback:

Points:

Points Range: 7 (9.33%) – 7 (9.33%)

The analysis lacks depth or clarity in addressing the implementation of foreign policies in the U.S.

Feedback:

Points:

Points Range: 0 (0%) – 6 (8%)

The analysis does not address (zero points) or poorly addresses the implementation of foreign policies in the U.S.

Feedback:

Points:

Points Range: 9 (12%) – 10 (13.33%)

The evaluation shows critical thinking, considers divergent and competing opinions, and displays creative problem solving in its evaluation of U.S. market conditions on the provision of healthcare.

Feedback:

Points:

Points Range: 8 (10.67%) – 8 (10.67%)

The evaluation fully addresses the influence of U.S. market conditions on the provision of healthcare.

Feedback:

Points:

Points Range: 7 (9.33%) – 7 (9.33%)

The evaluation lacks depth or clarity in addressing the influence of U.S. market conditions on the provision of healthcare.

Feedback:

Points:

Points Range: 0 (0%) – 6 (8%)

The evaluation does not address (zero points) or poorly addresses the influence of U.S. market conditions on the provision of healthcare.

Feedback:

Points:

Points Range: 14 (18.67%) – 15 (20%)

The paper is well organized, uses scholarly tone, contains original writing and proper paraphrasing, follows APA style, contains very few or no writing and/or spelling errors, and is fully consistent with graduate-level writing style.

Feedback:

Points:

Points Range: 12 (16%) – 13 (17.33%)

The paper is mostly consistent with graduate-level writing style and may have some spelling, APA, and writing errors.

Feedback:

Points:

Points Range: 10 (13.33%) – 11 (14.67%)

The paper is somewhat consistent with graduate-level writing style and may have some spelling, APA, and writing errors.

Feedback:

Points:

Points Range: 0 (0%) – 9 (12%)

The paper is well below graduate-level writing style expectations for organization, scholarly tone, APA style, and writing, or shows heavy reliance on quoting.

Feedback: