Analyze a current or future public problem in a particular place or places and past and present policies from anywhere in relation to this type of problem.

Paper 1 Outline: Analysis of a Public Problem and Past/Present Policies
Analyze a current or future public problem in a particular place or places and past and present policies from anywhere in relation to this type of problem. U4-6 pages single-spaced. Use the short reference form in the body of the report e.g. (Bangs 2014).
IntroductionState the public problem to be analyzed the specific analysis that will be done why is this analysis needed and who could use the paper and how.
Problem AnalysisCurrent problem conditions and trendsCausesConsequences
Analysis of Past and Present PoliciesIdentify and describe 2-3 past or present policies that addressed this type of problemEach policy must be analyzed using each of the following criteria: Actual Financial Cost (specify measures or indicators of implementation costs)Effectiveness (specify measures or indicators)Cost-Effectiveness (specify measures or indicators)Side EffectsEquity Analyze each policy with all criteriaCompare policies and judge which policies were best (refer to your scorecard)
Conclusions [or Recommendations]
ReferencesInclude 10-20 up-to-date references and data sources. Alphabetize.
EXAMPLE OF ANALYSIS CRITERIAThe financial cost of care systems would give the French system an advantage over Cambridge. For the later the cost of running or managing the systems would range from $35000 $50000 per facility becomes poor as compared to France which sees a cost of $1000 $5000 per facility. For Cambridge the operational costs are very high as a result of diseconomies of scale and poor implementation designs.
As for effectiveness both France and Cambridge have performed relatively well with almost at par ratings. The effectiveness of the decreased wait time ranged from 30 minutes to 15 minutes (GOOD) for Cambridge as France noted decreased wait times from 40 minutes to 16 minutes (GOOD). This is an indicator that milestones have been achieved in eliminating some of the loopholes that exist within the systems for both Cambridge and France.
Cost-effectiveness at the clinic level is also an important consideration that would have to be used in developing an understanding of how the two regions perform. Just as is the case with the financial costs the cost-effectiveness of running specific clinics in Cambridge is poor standing at $2833 average/clinic/minute decrease as compared to a favorable rating of good in France recognizing a cost of $125 average/clinic/minute decreased.
When it comes to equity both France and Cambridge would have a favorable rating. For Cambridge equitable distribution of clinics and access to healthcare is good and does provide for appointment type of patients choice. France is also rated as good since it does provide triage of acuity to determine appropriate destination.
On indirect effects the Cambridge system would only rate as fair when compared to the French system. The universal health care systems in Cambridge have impacted many yet there are many more loopholes that need to be filled in order for it to reach at least 80% of the total population.