Comparing presidential healthcare agendas: a step-by-step guide to building an APA agenda comparison and policy fact sheet that persuades legislators and highlights the nurse’s role in agenda setting

Assignment Brief — Agenda Comparison for Presidential Healthcare Policy

To Prepare:

• Review the agenda priorities of the current/sitting U.S. president and at least one previous presidential administration.

  Think about which parts of each agenda are evidence-driven and which are politically motivated so you can explain both to a policymaker in plain language.

  Tip: You can locate presidential agenda information by searching Google for your health topic and the president. For example, mental health Obama presidential agenda.

  Keeping a short annotated list of credible sources (White House statements, HHS fact sheets, peer-reviewed analyses) will speed up the writing and citation process.

• Select an issue related to healthcare that was addressed by two U.S. presidential administrations (current and previous).

  Choose a problem that has measurable outcomes (for example, opioid overdoses, mental health access, vaccine policy, or health equity) so you can compare concrete actions and results.

• Consider how you would communicate the importance of a healthcare issue to a legislator/policymaker or a member of their staff for inclusion on an agenda.

  Practice writing a one-page elevator pitch and a one-page fact sheet that calls out cost, population impact, and feasible legislative steps.

• Use your Week 1 Discussion post to help with this assignment.

  Pull any useful peer comments, sources, or data points from that post into your working notes to show how classroom dialogue informed your selection and analysis.

The Assignment:

(1- to 2-page Comparison Grid, 1-Page Analysis, and 1-page narrative) with a title page. This is an APA paper.

Organize the deliverables exactly as listed below so graders can find each element easily and you meet APA formatting expectations.

Use 2-3 course resources and at least 2 outside resources.

Make sure you keep a running references list as you build the grid and analysis so citations are APA-ready at submission.

Part 1: Agenda Comparison Grid

Use the Agenda Comparison Grid Template found in the Learning Resources and complete the Part 1: Agenda Comparison Grid based on the current/sitting U.S. president and the previous president, and their agendas related to the population health concern you selected.

Filling the template carefully will make Part 2 and the fact sheet much easier to write because the core evidence is already sorted.

Be sure to address the following:

1. Identify and provide a brief description of the population health concern you selected.

   Where possible, add a one-sentence statistic or two (source cited) that quantifies the problem for your target legislator.

2. Explain how each of the presidential administrations approached the issue.

   Highlight differences in strategy, such as prevention versus treatment, regulatory action versus grants, or domestic focus versus global engagement.

3. Identify the allocation of resources that the presidents dedicated to this issue.

   Include budget figures, program names, and any known reallocation or cuts so the policymaker has a realistic fiscal picture.

Part 2: Agenda Comparison Grid Analysis

Using the information you recorded in Part 1: Agenda Comparison Grid on the template, complete the Part 2: Agenda Comparison Grid Analysis portion of the template, by addressing the following:

• Which administrative agency (like HHS, CDC, FDA, OSHA) would most likely be responsible for helping you address the healthcare issue you selected and why is this agency the most helpful for the issue?

  Explain practical levers that agency controls (funding streams, rulemaking, data collection, grant programs) so the policymaker sees clear pathways for action.

• How do you think your selected healthcare issue might get on the presidential agenda? How does it stay there?

  Describe the role of events, evidence, media attention, stakeholder lobbying, and bipartisan framing in both agenda entry and agenda maintenance.

• An entrepreneur/champion/sponsor helps to move the issue forward. Who would you choose to be the entrepreneur/champion/sponsor (this can be a celebrity, a legislator, an agency director, or others) of the healthcare issue you selected and why would this person be a good entrepreneur/ champion/sponsor?

  Give a realistic candidate and explain how their credibility, networks, or public profile would translate into legislative traction.

  An example is Michael J. Fox is champion for Parkinson’s disease.

Part 3: Fact Sheet

Using the information recorded on the template in Parts 1 and 2, develop a 1-page fact sheet that you could use to communicate with a policymaker/legislator or a member of their staff for this healthcare issue.

Design the sheet with a clear header, a one-line policy ask, three bullets with evidence, one sentence on cost or savings, and a one-line nurse role statement so staff can skim and act quickly.

Be sure to address the following:

• Summarize why this healthcare issue is important and should be included in the agenda for legislation.

  Use plain language and one or two high-impact data points that show population and budgetary effects.

• Justify the role of the nurse in agenda setting for healthcare issues.

  Mention concrete nurse contributions such as data collection, community outreach, clinical expertise, and policy advocacy to make the case persuasive.

Assignment document should include:

1. Title page
2. Introductory paragraph
3. Agenda comparison grid and analysis
4. Fact sheet
5. Summary/conclusions
6. References

Finish with a short, reflective closing paragraph that ties the grid, analysis, and fact sheet together and explains how a nurse-led advocacy approach could realistically move the issue onto and keep it on a presidential agenda.

Students seeking high visibility for this assignment should use consistent H1/H2 headings, include authoritative citations, and publish a short, well-tagged summary alongside the submission to increase discoverability in AI search tools.

Embedding machine-readable metadata (APA citation markup, descriptive alt text, and clear keywords) improves the chances that this brief appears in both academic and AI query results.

 Peer-Reviewed References

• Japinga M. Health policy priorities for the Biden administration. JAMA Health Forum. 2021;2(11):e215000. Available via PubMed Central.
• Gostin LO, Hodge JG Jr, & Katz R. A global health action agenda for the Biden administration. The Lancet. 2021;397(10286):2215–2217.
• Woolhandler S, & Himmelstein DU. Public policy and health in the Trump era. The Lancet. 2021;397(10288):1314–1316.
• Hajizadeh A, & colleagues. Factors influencing nurses’ participation in the health policy-making process: a systematic review. International Journal of Nursing Studies. 2021;114:103–122. Available via PubMed Central.

______________________________________________________________________________________________

Opioid Epidemic Agenda Comparison Grid and Fact Sheet: Biden, Trump, and Obama Administrations

Part 1: Agenda Comparison Grid

A devastating opioid epidemic continues to claim tens of thousands of American lives every year. Families across the country feel the heartbreak of losing loved ones far too soon, making this crisis impossible to ignore.

Identifying the Public Health Concern and Contributing Factors
The public health concern is the ongoing opioid epidemic in the United States. Key contributing factors include over-prescription of opioid medications for pain management, availability of illicit opioids like heroin and synthetic fentanyl, and insufficient access to evidence-based treatment and recovery services for substance use disorders (Ciccarone, 2019; Kolodny et al., 2015). Many communities still struggle with limited mental health support, which often fuels addiction in the first place. The rise of extremely potent fentanyl has dramatically worsened overdose rates in recent years.

Biden Administration (2021–present)
The Biden administration (2021-present) has prioritized addressing the opioid crisis. In 2021, $1.5 billion in funding was allocated through the American Rescue Plan Act to expand access to medications for opioid use disorder (MOUD), launch syringe services programs, support overdose prevention communities, and enhance prescription drug monitoring programs (Office of National Drug Control Policy, 2022). These investments reflect a strong commitment to harm-reduction strategies that save lives every day. Expanded Medicaid coverage in many states has also made treatment more reachable for people in recovery.

Trump Administration (2017–2021)
The Trump administration (2017-2021) declared the opioid crisis a public health emergency in 2017 and allocated $6 billion over two years through programs like the State Opioid Response grants. This supported prevention, treatment, and recovery services (Office of National Drug Control Policy, 2021). The emergency declaration helped unlock additional federal resources quickly when communities needed them most. Many states used these flexible grants to build new treatment centers and train first responders.

Additional efforts focused heavily on stopping illegal drug trafficking at the border and within communities. Law enforcement partnerships received significant attention during this period.

Obama Administration (2009–2017)
The Obama administration (2009-2017) worked to curb non-medical use of prescription opioids. Efforts included the 2016 Comprehensive Addiction and Recovery Act, which aimed to expand access to treatment and bolster first responder training on overdose reversal drugs (National Institute on Drug Abuse, 2022). New prescribing guidelines from the CDC helped doctors think twice before writing long-term opioid scripts. The Affordable Care Act also made substance-use-disorder treatment an essential health benefit for millions of Americans.

Part 2: Agenda Comparison Grid Analysis

The Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) within the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) oversees federal programs addressing substance use disorders, including opioid use disorder. Data showing the human and economic toll of the crisis in specific regions could help get this issue on the agenda. Potential champions may include medical experts, families impacted by overdose, and law enforcement seeing effects in their communities (Ciccarone, 2019).

Heart-wrenching stories from parents who have lost children often move lawmakers more than statistics alone. Sustained media coverage and bipartisan agreement on the urgency keep the issue visible year after year.

Nurses and other frontline providers witness the daily reality of addiction and recovery, giving them unique credibility when speaking with legislators. Their voices can bridge the gap between policy and real-world impact.

Part 3: Fact Sheet – Why the Opioid Crisis Must Stay on the Legislative Agenda

The opioid crisis continues to devastate communities nationwide. In 2021, an estimated 107,622 Americans died from drug overdoses, with opioids involved in over 75% of these deaths (National Center for Health Statistics, 2022). If left unaddressed, this public health emergency will persist in straining social services and devastating families and neighborhoods.

As frontline healthcare providers, nurses are well-positioned to educate policymakers on evidence-based prevention and treatment strategies. Comprehensive solutions are urgently needed to expand access to MOUD, support harm reduction efforts, and allocate sustainable funding to curtail overdose mortality rates and improve quality of life.

Medication-assisted treatment combined with counseling has been proven to cut overdose deaths by up to 50% in many studies. Harm-reduction tools like naloxone distribution and syringe services prevent deaths and connect people to care without judgment.

Long-term recovery also requires investment in housing, job training, and mental health services. When people have hope and stability, they are far more likely to stay in recovery and rebuild their lives.

The Crucial Role of Nurses in Shaping Opioid Policy

Nurses encounter the opioid crisis every shift—whether reversing overdoses in the ER, managing chronic pain in clinics, or supporting patients through withdrawal on behavioral health units. Their firsthand experience makes them powerful advocates when meeting with legislators or testifying at hearings. Professional organizations like the American Nurses Association actively lobby for expanded treatment funding and removal of barriers to prescribing buprenorphine. By sharing patient stories (with permission) and evidence-based solutions, nurses help lawmakers understand that addiction is a treatable disease, not a moral failing. This perspective is essential for building the political will needed to sustain funding and pass meaningful reforms year after year.

References & Learning Resources

1. Dasgupta, N., Beletsky, L., & Ciccarone, D. (2023). Opioid Crisis: No Easy Fix to Its Social and Economic Determinants. American Journal of Public Health, 113(2), 132–140. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2022.307036
2. Friedman, J., Mann, N. C., Hansen, H., et al. (2022). Racial/Ethnic, Social, and Geographic Trends in Overdose-Associated Cardiac Arrests Treated by US Emergency Medical Services, 2018–2020. JAMA Network Open, 5(9), e2232508. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2022.32508
3. Jones, C. M., Compton, W. M., & Stein, B. D. (2024). Medication for opioid use disorder during the COVID-19 pandemic and after: Buprenorphine initiation, retention, and discontinuation in the United States, 2016–2022. Annals of Internal Medicine, 177(4), 453–463. https://doi.org/10.7326/M23-2813
4. Mattson, C. L., Tanz, L. J., Quinn, K., et al. (2021). Trends and Geographic Patterns in Drug and Synthetic Opioid Overdose Deaths — United States, 2013–2019. MMWR Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, 70(6), 202–207. https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7006a6.htm
5. Volkow, N. D., & Blanco, C. (2024). The Changing Opioid Crisis: Development, challenges and opportunities. Molecular Psychiatry, 29, 161–169. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41380-023-02369-3