| Course | MHA 516 Operating in Structure: Health Sector Policy and Governance (MHA/516) |
|---|---|
| Week | 3 |
| Paper type | Governance systems paper |
| Length | about 1,151 words, 4 double-spaced pages plus title page and references |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | University of Phoenix |
| Program | MHA |
| Updated | September 2026 |
Free sample paper for MHA 516 Week 3
Five Elected Commissioners and Forty Minutes on Quality: Redesigning Governance for a Public Hospital District Board
[Student Name]
University of Phoenix
MHA/516: Operating in Structure: Health Sector Policy and Governance
Week 3 Assignment
[Instructor Name]
[Date]
The public hospital district, its board, meetings and reforms are composites written for a model paper; research findings come from the sources cited.
After her first three meetings, a newly elected commissioner of the district (two hospitals, twelve clinics, one elected board) asked the board chair a question: why do we spend most of each meeting on money and hardly any on whether patients are safe? The chair asked the chief executive and the district's governance consultant to review how the board works. This paper describes what they found and the reforms the board adopted.
Governance and Management
A board and an executive team hold different responsibilities. The commissioners set the district's direction, approves major decisions such as budgets and capital projects, oversees quality, finances and compliance and hires, evaluates and holds the chief executive accountable. Management runs daily operations and implements the board's direction. Boards that manage operations weaken executives; boards that only approve management's proposals fail to govern.
The District's Structure
Public hospital districts in Washington are units of local government. Five commissioners are elected by district voters for six-year terms. The board meets in public under the state's open meetings law, levies a small property tax and is accountable to voters as well as to regulators and payers.
What the Minutes Showed
The consultant reviewed twelve months of agendas and minutes. On average, finance items took about 40 minutes of each two-hour meeting, capital projects and contracts another 35 and public comment 20. Quality and safety received under 10 minutes, usually a summary report accepted without discussion. No meeting discussed a serious safety event.
A National Pattern
The imbalance is common. A survey of board chairs at 1,000 US hospitals found that fewer than half rated quality of care among their board's two top priorities while few had received any quality training, and noted large differences in board activities between high-performing and low-performing hospitals (Jha & Epstein, 2010).
Boards Overestimate Their Quality
A follow-up survey comparing board chairs of English hospitals with their US counterparts found that English chairs had more quality expertise and spent more time on quality, but that chairs in both countries tended to greatly overestimate their hospitals' quality performance (Jha & Epstein, 2013). A board that believes its hospital is excellent has little reason to ask hard questions.
Why Board Attention Matters
Research connects board practices to care. A study of hospitals in the United States and England found that hospitals with more effective management practices delivered higher-quality care, that higher-rated boards had better management performance and that boards paying more attention to clinical quality had managers who monitored quality more closely (Tsai et al., 2015).
Assessing Structure
The board had no committees; every issue came to the full board. With only five members, this meant no time for depth on any topic.
Assessing Information
The quality report was twelve pages of tables with no benchmarks, trends or explanation. Commissioners could not tell whether performance was good or bad.
Assessing Expertise
None of the five commissioners had clinical or quality backgrounds. Two had business experience, one was a teacher, one a farmer and one a retired firefighter. As elected officials, they bring community knowledge that appointed boards often lack, but they need support to oversee clinical quality.
Assessing Accountability
The chief executive's annual goals were entirely financial and operational. Quality did not appear in the chief executive's evaluation or incentive.
Reform One: A Quality Committee
The board created a quality and safety committee of two commissioners, meeting monthly with the chief medical officer, chief nursing officer and quality director, and reporting to each board meeting.
Reform Two: Advisory Expertise
Because commissioners are elected, the board appointed three non-voting advisory members to the quality committee: a retired physician, a nurse executive from outside the region and a patient advocate.
Reform Three: A Better Dashboard
The quality report was replaced with a one-page dashboard showing a dozen measures with trends and benchmarks, and a short summary of any serious safety event and what was learned.
Reform Four: Quality First
Quality moved to the top of every agenda, with at least 25 minutes reserved. Each meeting begins with a patient story, told with consent or anonymized.
Reform Five: Education
Commissioners complete an annual education program on quality, safety and their oversight responsibilities, including a session on how to read quality data.
Reform Six: Accountability
The chief executive's goals now include quality and safety measures weighted equally with finance, and the evaluation includes the committee's assessment.
Committee Charters
The board also created a finance and audit committee and wrote charters for both committees stating their purpose, membership, meeting frequency, the information they receive and what they decide versus recommend. Clear charters prevent committees from drifting into management or duplicating the full board's work.
Resistance and Adjustment
Not every commissioner welcomed the changes. One argued that finance deserved the most time because the district's margin was thin. The chair answered that poor quality costs money too, through readmission penalties, liability and lost patients, and the board agreed to review the balance after six months.
Reform Seven: Self-Assessment
The board will complete an annual self-assessment of its performance, reviewed with the consultant, and set its own improvement goals for the coming year.
Serious Safety Events Reach the Board
The review found that the board had not been told of two serious safety events in the past year, including a delayed diagnosis that led to a patient's death. Management had handled both properly but treated them as operational matters. The board adopted a policy requiring the chief executive to inform the chair within 48 hours of any serious safety event and to present the findings and actions to the quality committee within 60 days. Hearing about harm is part of governing quality.
Open Meetings and Confidentiality
The state's open meetings law means most board discussion happens in public, while quality improvement and peer review information is protected from disclosure under state law. The district's attorney advised on how the quality committee can review protected information in executive session and report conclusions publicly without revealing protected details. Transparency and protection must both be respected.
Commissioners' Community Role
Elected commissioners know their communities in ways appointed boards may not. The reforms asked commissioners to bring that knowledge to quality oversight, for example by reporting what residents say about access, waiting times and communication, and by attending patient and family advisory council meetings once a year.
Measuring Governance
The board will track time spent on quality, the dashboard's trends, completion of education and the self-assessment results.
Conclusion
A year of minutes revealed a board that governed money closely and quality barely at all, a pattern research finds across many hospitals. Evidence linking board attention to management practice and care quality made the case for change. A quality committee, advisory expertise, a clearer dashboard, protected time, education, executive accountability and self-assessment give the elected board the tools to govern what matters most.
References
Jha, A. K., & Epstein, A. M. (2010). Hospital governance and the quality of care. Health Affairs, 29(1), 182-187. https://doi.org/10.1377/hlthaff.2009.0297
Jha, A. K., & Epstein, A. M. (2013). A survey of board chairs of English hospitals shows greater attention to quality of care than among their US counterparts. Health Affairs, 32(4), 677-685. https://doi.org/10.1377/hlthaff.2012.1060
Tsai, T. C., Jha, A. K., Gawande, A. A., Huckman, R. S., Bloom, N., & Sadun, R. (2015). Hospital board and management practices are strongly related to hospital performance on clinical quality metrics. Health Affairs, 34(8), 1304-1311. https://doi.org/10.1377/hlthaff.2014.1282
What the MHA 516 Week 3 instructions ask
In MHA 516 Week 3, the usual task is to show how health care organizations build governance that works. Prompts may ask students to describe the roles and responsibilities of governing boards, compare governance structures, identify characteristics of effective boards, assess a board's performance and recommend improvements. Some versions focus on a specific type of organization, such as a nonprofit or public hospital. Assignments vary, so follow your own prompt and rubric. Strong papers distinguish governance from management, use research linking board practices to performance, assess a specific board with evidence such as agendas or minutes and recommend concrete changes in structure, information, expertise and accountability.
How this MHA 516 Week 3 example is built
The paper opens with a newly elected commissioner asking why the board spends so little time on quality. A review of a year of minutes confirms the imbalance. The board's legal structure and duties as elected officials are described, along with the distinction between governing and managing. National surveys of board chairs and a study linking boards, management practices and quality provide evidence. The board's weaknesses are assessed in structure, information, expertise and accountability. Reforms follow: a quality committee, advisory members with clinical expertise, a one-page quality dashboard, education, chief executive goals and an annual self-assessment, with measures to show whether governance improves.
MHA 516 Week 3 grading rubric: where the points go
In the governance week, grades usually reflect how well a paper explains board roles, supports claims and proposes workable fixes. Graders look for a clear distinction between governance and management, board responsibilities such as strategy, oversight of quality and finance and executive accountability, research on what effective boards do, assessment of a specific board and concrete, feasible improvements. Evidence from a board's own agendas or minutes earns credit. Peer-reviewed governance research strengthens the analysis. Clear organization and APA style earn the last few points. Papers that describe ideal boards in general terms without assessing a real structure, or recommend that boards manage operations, usually lose points, and reforms that come with no measure of success tend to cost credit as well.
MHA 516 Week 3 help: mistakes to avoid
MHA 516 Week 3 papers often describe what good boards should do without examining how a real board spends its time. Look at evidence: agendas, minutes, reports and committee charters. Count time spent on each topic, since boards tend to spend it on finance. Distinguish governance, which sets direction and holds leaders accountable, from management, which runs operations. Use research linking board attention to quality with outcomes. Consider the board's legal form, since public, nonprofit and for-profit boards differ in how members are chosen and what laws apply. Finally, recommend specific changes in structure, information, expertise and accountability, with a way to measure whether governance improves over the following year.
Related MHA 516 sample papers
Other MHA 516 week samples
- MHA 516 Week 1: How Policy Shapes Health Systems
- MHA 516 Week 2: Interest Groups and Policy
- MHA 516 Week 4: Risk-Based Governance
- MHA 516 Week 5: Policies for Industry Trends
- MHA 516 Week 6: Policy and Governance Plan
More MHA sample papers
- MHA 506 Week 3: New Market Opportunity
- MHA 507 Week 3: Data Privacy and the EMR
- MHA 508 Week 3: Privacy Law in Health Care
- MHA 515 Week 3: Delivery and Outcomes Trends
MHA 516 Week 3 questions, answered
What does MHA/516 Week 3 usually ask for?
Prompts usually ask students to describe how health care organizations build effective governance systems, assess a board's performance and recommend improvements.
Where can I find a free MHA 516 Week 3 sample paper?
The hospital district governance paper above costs nothing to read, and notes explain each reform. Describe the board you are assessing, and your first paper costs nothing.
How much do hospital boards focus on quality?
A national survey of US hospital board chairs found that fewer than half rated quality of care among their two top priorities, while few had received training in quality.
Do hospital boards affect quality of care?
Research in US and English hospitals found that boards paying more attention to clinical quality had managers who monitored quality better, and more effective management practices were linked to higher-quality care.
What is the difference between governance and management?
Governance sets direction, approves major decisions and holds executives accountable, while management runs daily operations and implements the board's direction.
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 University of Phoenix 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.
Request this one custom, free · All MHA 516 week samples · All courses