One Ask, Four Million Dollars: Testimony to the Senate Finance Committee on Funding a Community Health Worker Pilot, With Rationale
Student Name
Doctor of Nursing Practice Program, Aspen University
DNP870: Health Policy, Advocacy, and Partnerships
Instructor Name
Month Day, Year
One Ask, Four Million Dollars: Testimony to the Senate Finance Committee on Funding a Community Health Worker Pilot, With Rationale
Legislative testimony is a genre with its own rules: it must be short, open with the request, connect to the committee's responsibilities, combine evidence with a story, and answer objections before they are asked. This paper presents written testimony to a composite state Senate Finance Committee on a bill establishing a community health worker pilot in Medicaid, followed by an explanation of the choices behind it. The committee's jurisdiction is money, so the testimony has one ask: fund the pilot at the level passed by the House.
The Testimony: Opening and Ask
Chair Alvarez, Vice Chair Brooks, and members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to testify. My name is [Name]. I am a doctorally prepared nurse practitioner at a federally qualified health center in the committee's northern region and a member of the state nurses association. I am here to ask one thing: that you fund House Bill 1142 at the $4 million level approved by the House, so that the community health worker pilot can begin in three regions next July.
The Testimony: Evidence
This investment rests on strong evidence. When 592 low-income primary care patients were randomly assigned, those given community health worker support used far fewer hospital days over the next six months than those receiving usual care, and more of them gave their care the top rating (Kangovi et al., 2018). An economic analysis of the same model estimated that every dollar invested returns $2.47 to a typical Medicaid payer within a single fiscal year (Kangovi et al., 2020). The pilot's required evaluation will tell this committee whether our state achieves similar results before any decision about statewide expansion.
The Testimony: One Patient
Let me tell you about one of my patients, whom I will call Ms. R., with her permission. She has heart failure and diabetes, and last year she was admitted to the hospital four times. Each time, she went home with new prescriptions she could not afford and a follow-up appointment she could not reach, because her bus route had been cut. After our health center's grant-funded community health worker began visiting her, she enrolled in a prescription assistance program, arranged rides to her appointments, and learned to call us when her weight rose. She has not been admitted since. Our grant ends in June. This bill is the difference between Ms. R.'s story being the exception and being the plan.
The Testimony: Answering Concerns
I know members have raised three concerns. First, cost: the pilot is limited to three regions and two years, and the evaluation will measure savings before any expansion. Second, quality: the bill requires certification standards set by the Medicaid agency, and research shows that states with certification programs have seen larger wage gains for community health workers, which supports a stable workforce (Jones et al., 2022). Third, flexibility for managed care plans: the House amendment lets plans buy these services from community-based organizations, which the plans' association has told the committee it can support.
I ask you to fund House Bill 1142 at $4 million. Thank you. I would be glad to answer questions.
Rationale: Why One Ask
Finance committee members hear dozens of witnesses in a hearing day and decide on funding, not policy design. Testimony that asks for several things, such as changes to certification, eligibility, and payment in addition to funding, invites members to pick the least expensive request. By asking for one thing within the committee's jurisdiction, the testimony makes the member's decision simple and the witness's credibility clear. Oral testimony is limited to three minutes, so the spoken version condenses the written text to the ask, one statistic, the patient, and the restated ask. The written testimony, submitted 24 hours in advance as the committee requires, carries the full evidence and citations for members and staff who read it later.
Rationale: Evidence and Story Together
Legislators respond to both numbers and people. The trial result and return on investment speak to the committee's fiscal responsibility; Ms. R.'s story makes the evidence memorable and connects it to a district. The story is specific, consented, and ends with the grant's expiration, which ties the patient to the funding decision. The objection section borrows credibility from the House amendments and the plans' own position, showing the committee that the bill has already been negotiated.
Rationale: Preparing for Questions
The most important part of testimony often comes after the prepared remarks, when members ask questions. The witness prepared answers to five likely questions. What will the program cost after the pilot? The answer points to the evaluation and notes that the committee will decide expansion with local data. How will we know workers are qualified? The answer describes the certification rule the agency must adopt. Could health centers fund this themselves? The answer explains that grants are temporary and that most health centers operate on thin margins. Why not let managed care plans do it voluntarily? The answer notes that some already do on a small scale but that coverage is uneven across plans and absent for fee-for-service enrollees. And what happens in regions outside the pilot? The answer acknowledges that they will wait for the evaluation, which is the price of a responsible pilot. Each answer is two or three sentences, returns to the ask where natural, and avoids claims the witness cannot support. When a witness does not know an answer, the right response is to say so and promise a written follow-up within a week, which builds more credibility than a guess. Staff remember witnesses who follow up.
Conclusion
Effective testimony is short, specific, and aimed at the decision the committee can make. This testimony asks the Senate Finance Committee for one thing, full funding of the community health worker pilot, and supports it with evidence framed in fiscal terms, a patient whose care depends on the decision, and answers to the committee's likely concerns.
References
Jones, T. M., Jeung, C., Schulte, A., Lewis, C. M., & Maddox, P. J. (2022). Hourly wages and turnover of community health workers according to US state certification policy and Medicaid reimbursement, 2010-2021. American Journal of Public Health, 112(10), 1480-1488. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2022.306965
Kangovi, S., Mitra, N., Grande, D., Long, J. A., & Asch, D. A. (2020). Evidence-based community health worker program addresses unmet social needs and generates positive return on investment. Health Affairs, 39(2), 207-213. https://doi.org/10.1377/hlthaff.2019.00981
Kangovi, S., Mitra, N., Norton, L., Harte, R., Zhao, X., Carter, T., Grande, D., & Long, J. A. (2018). Effect of community health worker support on clinical outcomes of low-income patients across primary care facilities: A randomized clinical trial. JAMA Internal Medicine, 178(12), 1635-1643. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamainternmed.2018.4630
How this DNP 870 Module 7 example is structured
DNP870 Module 7 papers often draft testimony or a brief with one actionable ask. Aspen does not publish module deliverables, so check your classroom for the exact prompt. This example presents the testimony itself, opening with the ask, then evidence, a story and objections, and then explains why each element was chosen.
DNP870 Module 7 questions, answered
What does DNP870 Module 7 usually ask for?
The module often asks you to draft legislative testimony or a policy brief with one clear, actionable request, supported by evidence and aimed at a specific decision-maker. Aspen does not publish module deliverables, so your classroom's instructions govern.
Why should testimony have only one ask?
Committees decide specific questions within their jurisdiction. A single ask makes the member's decision simple, while several requests invite members to choose the least costly or ignore the testimony.
How long should oral testimony be?
Oral testimony is often limited to about three minutes, so it should focus on the ask, one key piece of evidence, a brief story and a restatement of the ask, with details left to the written version.
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 Aspen University 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.