BUSI 600 Discussion Tips and Examples The Discussion questions are based upon a different case study each module and analyze the case scenario/research through a series of questions. The overall structure of each case is similar in that each case begins with an abstract followed by a description of the scenario/research and concludes with a discussion about the situation. The discussion is simply a series of unique questions about each case scenario that you will answer as part of the discussion. As you work on these discussions, remember the Liberty University Online Honor Code. You Part 1: Thread The primary goal of the thread is to thoroughly answer each of the case study questions. Some answers may require a paragraph-style response, whereas others will be best answered with a table or bulleted points. Use the response style that is most appropriate to answer the individual question while ensuring the following are met: · Each thread will consist of 800 - 1000 words that answer all the assigned case study questions, include 1 biblical application/integration (no more than 10% of the total response) and across all the questions use at least 5 different peer reviewed sources. · Each case has multiple questions and each question response must be supported with at least 1 peer-reviewed source. · Use proper grammar and current APA format. Part 2: Two Replies The primary goal of the replies is to discuss the threads by offering analysis and critiques to include specific strengths and weaknesses and other insights for consideration. Ensure the following are met: · Reply to at least 2 different peer threads and address at least 1 strength and 1 weakness per reply. · Each reply must be supported with at least 2 peer-reviewed sources and include 1 biblical application/integration (no more than 10% of the total response). · Each reply must be 450–600 words · Use proper grammar and current APA formatting. · Do not submit the discussion posts as Microsoft Word documents. Instead post the primary content of your posts into the body of the discussion area since opening files is an inconvenience when the same information can be reviewed within the discussion. Health Information Technology Audit Compliance Evaluation Matrix Name: Haley Hemsworth Date: October 5, 3021 Audit Findings The Law and Code Section Legal requirements & Penalties for non-compliance with the Law Compliance Assessment Comply Partial Compliance Non-compliance (Support your Compliance rating) Compliance Risk Assessment High Medium Low (Evaluate and Rate Risk Of Non Compliance based on audit findings and penalties for non- compliance) Justify your rating. Priority Rank for Action 1 First to need action 10 Last to need acti0n For each audit finding determine its priority for action based on the compliance risk assessment (Number each audit finding from 1-10 in order of priority with 1 being the first priority and each having a different number) Justify your prio ...

1. BUSI 600
Discussion Tips and Examples
The Discussion questions are based upon a different case study
each module and analyze the case scenario/research through a
series of questions. The overall structure of each case is similar
in that each case begins with an abstract followed by a
description of the scenario/research and concludes with a
discussion about the situation. The discussion is simply a series
of unique questions about each case scenario that you will
answer as part of the discussion.
As you work on these discussions, remember the Liberty
University Online Honor Code. You
Part 1: Thread
The primary goal of the thread is to thoroughly answer each of
the case study questions. Some answers may require a
paragraph-style response, whereas others will be best answered
with a table or bulleted points. Use the response style that is
most appropriate to answer the individual question while
ensuring the following are met:
· Each thread will consist of 800 - 1000 words that answer all
the assigned case study questions, include 1 biblical
application/integration (no more than 10% of the total response)
and across all the questions use at least 5 different peer
reviewed sources.
· Each case has multiple questions and each question response
must be supported with at least 1 peer-reviewed source.
· Use proper grammar and current APA format.
Part 2: Two Replies
The primary goal of the replies is to discuss the threads by
offering analysis and critiques to include specific strengths and
weaknesses and other insights for consideration. Ensure the
following are met:
· Reply to at least 2 different peer threads and address at least 1

2. strength and 1 weakness per reply.
· Each reply must be supported with at least 2 peer-reviewed
sources and include 1 biblical application/integration (no more
than 10% of the total response).
· Each reply must be 450–600 words
· Use proper grammar and current APA formatting.
· Do not submit the discussion posts as Microsoft Word
documents. Instead post the primary content of your posts into
the body of the discussion area since opening files is an
inconvenience when the same information can be reviewed
within the discussion.
Health Information Technology
Audit Compliance Evaluation
Matrix
Name: Haley Hemsworth
Date: October 5, 3021
Audit Findings
The Law and Code Section
Legal requirements & Penalties for
non-compliance with the Law
Compliance
Assessment
Comply
Partial
Compliance
Non-compliance
(Support your
Compliance

3. rating)
Compliance
Risk
Assessment
High
Medium
Low
(Evaluate and
Rate Risk
Of Non
Compliance
based on audit findings
and penalties
for non-
compliance)
Justify your rating.
Priority Rank for
Action
1 First to need action
10 Last to need acti0n
For each audit finding determine its priority for action based on
the compliance risk assessment
(Number each audit finding from 1-10 in order of priority with
1 being the first priority and each having a different number)
Justify your priorities
The next managerial action you would take to comply with the
law
Describes the action you would take next.
State reasons to support your action and explain why it is the
next action

4. 1. The audit finds that the company has a good record retention
policy in place and a solid process to de-identify personal
health information (PHII) before removal of PHI from
computers. This process has been in place for one year.
However, two years ago the company sold 10 office computers
on e-bay and replaced them with newer models. PHI of 10,000
patients was found on the 10 computers after they were sold.
The company learned of this 1 ½ years ago and did nothing to
follow-up. There is no breach notice policy.
HIPAA Breach
Notice
2. The audit found that the organization has a patient portal
where patients can review their electronic health information
(EHI) through a secure portal. This has been popular with
patients and there have been no security breaches. However
recent patient satisfaction surveys indicate patients would like
to be able to access their prescription drug records through the
portal. The organization outsources its pharmacy through a
national vendor. The vendor is willing to make the information
available, but the organization EHR system is not compatible
with the vendor so it would be very expensive. The organization
currently charges $12 for patient access to pharmacy records.
21st Century Cures Act and Patient Access to EHI
CEHRT Interoperability

5. 3. The audit showed that a security risk analysis was done 5
years ago and that the issues identified were corrected. No
security risk analysis has been completed since then even
though the organization purchased a new electronic health
record (EHR) system 2 years ago. The sellers of the EHR
system said the system itself was a tool to manage risk.
The audit showed that there have been 5 security breached in
the last 5 years and that they all involved “curious employees”
looking at the records of high profile patients. The only action
taken against the employees was a reprimand by the supervisor
and attendance at an extra HIPAA training session.
HIPAA Security
4. The audit found that your health care organization is known
internationally. In the last 2 years, you have treated 25
international patients of whom 10 were from the European
Union (EU). All 10 of the EU patients requested their medical
records be sent to their health care providers in the EU. Your
health care organization honored these requests for medical
records as it would any other medical record request.
GDPR
5. The audit found that the organization has been involved in
10 large e-discovery requests in the last year related to lawsuits
for claims of medical negligence. The audit found that in all 10
e-discovery responses sent the records electronically There was
no process to review for privilege or whether the record request

6. exceeded the scope of discovery.
E-Discovery Rule 26
Rule 502
HIPAA privacy
6. The audit revealed that there were 25 small discovery
requests in the last year that went out by e-mail. In two of
those requests, the e-mail was sent to opposing counsel instead
of to the attorney requesting the organization in the court case.
None of the e-mails were encrypted and 1 of the inadvertent e-
mails to opposing counsel included mental health information of
the patient. There was no follow-up. The organization has no
policies or protocols for e-discovery.
E-Discovery
HIPAA security
HIPAA mental health
State mental health
7. The audit revealed that incident reports have regularly been
released as part of court e-discovery. The CEO would like to
find a way to keep the incident reports protected from
discovery.
HCQIA peer review immunity

7. Discovery privileges
8. Your audit revealed that one of your employees “Billing
Betty” has been running a “side business” She is a secretary in
the billing department. She copies the patient health
information (PHI) onto a thumb drive once a month, takes it
home, and bills Medicare for prescription drugs for these
patients. She has been earning a nice side income of $100,000 a
month with the billings. When her supervisor asked her about a
thumb drive they found, “Billing Betty” denied that it was hers.
The company itself bills all patients once a month at the end of
the month for services rendered.
Medical Identity Theft
Red Flags Rule
False Claims Act
9. Your audit revealed that hackers have been accessing
information on medical devices including defibrillators as a
back door to get to other network computers. Hackers have
used this strategy to access personal health information on 251
patients in the last year. The last 45 involved ransomware
attacks where the cyberattacker demanded $100,000 each time
to unlock the data. The company paid the first 3 times before it
created back up files of the data.
Cybersecurity

8. Response
HIPAA Security
HIPAA Breach Notice
10. The audit revealed that the organization is not yet using
2015 Edition CEHRT. The hospital can’t use EHR for
electronic prescribing (eRx) and is not able to provide public
health clinical date for reporting.
21st Century
Cures Act
CMS Program Requirements
Interoperability
Requirements
BUSI 600
Discussion Assignment Instructions
The student will complete four (4) Discussions in this course.
The student will post one thread of at least 800 - 1000 words by
11:59 p.m. (ET) on Thursday of the assigned Module: Week
(Part I). The student must then post two (2) replies of at least
450–600 words by 11:59 p.m. (ET) on Sunday of the assigned

9. Module: Week (Part II). For each thread (Part I), there are
multiple questions based off the case study; each question
response must be supported with at least 1 peer-reviewed
source. Each thread must also include 1 biblical
application/integration. Each response must be supported with
at least 2 peer-reviewed sources and include 1 biblical
application/integration (Part II). Note that the biblical
application/integration cannot be more than 10% of the thread
or replies.
Business Research Methods, 14e/Schindler
1
>cases
In periods of economic downturn, government leaders try to
stimulate entrepreneurship
activity. Project directors of the Global Entrepreneurship
Monitor, partnered with the
Kauffman Center for Entrepreneurial Leadership of Ewing
Marion Kauffman Foundation, the
London School of Business and Babson College,designed a
research study to add insight to
what activities would be most likely to stimulate entreprenship
activities.
>Abstract
>The Scenario
What government policies and initiatives are most likely to
generate high levels of

10. entrepreneurial activity? Which are positively correlated with
the economic well-being
of a country as measured by growth in GDP and job formation?
Project directors of the
Global Entrepreneurship Monitor (GEM), who define
entrepreneurship as “any attempt
at new business or new venture creation, such as self-
employment, a new business organi-
zation, or the expansion of an existing business, by an
individual, a team of individuals,
or an established business,” suggest the following:
• Promoting entrepreneurship, especially outside the most active
age group (25–
44), with specific programs that support entrepreneurial
activity.
• Facilitating the availability of resources to women to
participate in the entre-
preneurial process.
• Committing to long-term, substantial postsecondary education,
including
training programs designed to develop skills required to start a
business.
• Emphasis on developing an individual’s capacity to recognize
and pursue new
opportunities.
• Developing the capacity of a society to accommodate the
higher levels of
income disparity associated with entrepreneurial activity.
• Creating a culture that validates and promotes
entrepreneurship throughout

11. society.
Researchers at the Kauffman Center for Entrepreneurial
Leadership (Babson College)
and the London Business School revealed these propositions
based on a study
designed to prove a causal relationship between factors that
affect entrepreneurial
opportunities and potential, to business dynamics and national
economic growth and
well-being.
The research design compensated for lack of control of
extraneous variables
by using data from 10 nations “with diversity in framework
conditions, entrepreneurial
sectors, business dynamics, and economic growth.” The
longitudinal study
proposed to prove or disprove a new conceptual model of
cultural, economic, physical,
and political factors to predict economic growth (Exhibit C-
GEM 1–1).
A GEM of a Study
>The Research
704
A GEM of a Study
What government policies and initiatives are most likely to
generate high levels of
entrepreneurial activity? Which are positively correlated with

12. the economic well-being
of a country as measured by growth in GDP and job formation?
Project directors of the
Global Entrepreneurship Monitor (GEM), who define
entrepreneurship as “any attempt
at new business or new venture creation, such as self-
employment, a new business orga-
nization, or the expansion of an existing business, by an
individual, a team of individu-
als, or an established business,” suggest the following:
• Promoting entrepreneurship, especially outside the most active
age group (25–44),
with specific programs that support entrepreneurial activity.
General National
Framework
Conditions
Openness
Government
Financial markets
Technology, R & D
Infrastructure
Management (skills)
Labor markets
Institutions
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

13. Entrepreneurial
Framework
Conditions
Financial
Government policies
Government programs
Education & training
R & D transfer
Commercial, legal
infrastructure
Internal market openness
Access to physical
infrastructure
Cultural, social norms
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Business
Dynamics
(firms, jobs)
•
•

14. •
•
Births
Expansion
Deaths
Contraction
Entrepreneurial
Opportunities
Entrepreneurial
Capacity
Economic
Growth
(GDP, jobs)
Social,
Cultural,
Political
Context
Existence
Perception
•
•
Skills
Motivation
•
•

15. EXHIBIT C-GEM 1–1 Conceptual Model: The Entrepreneurial
Sector and Economic Growth
coo98706_cases.qxd 6/9/02 2:05 PM Page 704
• Facilitating the availability of resources to women to
participate in the entrepre-
neurial process.
• Committing to long-term, substantial postsecondary education,
including training
programs designed to develop skills required to start a business.
• Emphasis on developing an individual’s capacity to recognize
and pursue new
opportunities.
• Developing the capacity of a society to accommodate the
higher levels of income
disparity associated with entrepreneurial activity.
• Creating a culture that validates and promotes
entrepreneurship throughout society.
Researchers at the Kauffman Center for Entrepreneurial
Leadership (Babson Col-
lege) and the London Business School revealed these
propositions based on a study
designed to prove a causal relationship between factors that
affect entrepreneurial
opportunities and potential, to business dynamics and national
economic growth and
well-being. The research design compensated for lack of control
of extraneous vari-

16. ables by using data from 10 nations “with diversity in
framework conditions, entrepre-
neurial sectors, business dynamics, and economic growth.” The
longitudinal study
proposed to prove or disprove a new conceptual model of
cultural, economic, physical,
and political factors to predict economic growth (Exhibit C-
GEM 1–1).
CASES 705
Culture
Favorable
Neutral
Unfavorable
0.8
0.15
0.34
–0.07
–0.2
–0.09
–0.92
–0.65
–0.36

17. 0.87
U.S.
Canada
Israel
U.K.
Germany
Denmark
France
Japan
Finland
Correlation to
Start-Up Rate
1.23
0.55
–0.06
0.17
–0.22
–0.3

18. –1.01
0.29
–0.94
0.79
0.44
0
–0.97
–0.03
–0.21
–0.56
–0.81
–0.52
–0.33
0.58
0.21
–0.12
0.29
–0.02

19. 0.03
–0.12
–0.23
–0.39
–0.1
0.69
–0.46
–0.28
–0.26
–0.97
–1.24
–0.52
–1.21
–1.06
–0.94
0.65
0.8
0.22

20. 0.04
0.08
0.15
0.39
–0.1
–0.68
–0.22
0.71
0.88
0.86
0.67
0.57
0.29
0.33
–0.49
–0.61
1.03
0.55

21. Equity Debt R&D Education Subcontractor Legal, Banking
EXHIBIT C-GEM 1–2 Entrepreneurial Framework Conditions:
Cross-National Comparisons of Key Informant
Multi-Item Indexes
coo98706_cases.qxd 6/9/02 2:05 PM Page 705
Business Research Methods, 14e/Schindler
4
>Sources
Various data collection methods were employed, including:
• Promoting entrepreneurship, especially outside the most active
age group (25–
44), with specific programs that support entrepreneurial
activity.
• Current, nonstandardized data collected by each national
research team.
• Two rounds of adult population surveys (1,000 randomly
selected adults per
country) to measure entrepreneurial activity and attitude,
completed and
coordinated by an international market survey firm by phone—
or face-to-face
in Japan. (Market Facts [Arlington, VA] did the first round of
data collection in
June 1998 [Canada, Finland, Germany, the United Kingdom,
and the United
States]. Audience Selection, Ltd. [London] conducted the

22. second round in
March 1999 from all 10 countries.)
• Hour-long personal interviews with 4 to 39 experts (key
informants) in each
country.
• Detailed 12-page questionnaire completed by each key
informant.
The perception of opportunity (.79) and the two measures of
entrepreneurial potential of the
population—capacity (.64) and motivation (.93)—positively
correlate with business start-up
rates. And start-up rates positively correlate with growth in
GDP (.60) and level of employ-
ment (.47).
While many cross-sectional measures still remain in this
ongoing study, study directors
claim, “The support for the conceptual model is encouraging,
although clearly not conclu-
sive. GEM provides a robust framework within which national
governments can evolve a set
of effective policies for enhancing entrepreneurship.”
1. What are the independent and dependent variables in this
study?
2. What are some of the intervening, extraneous, and
moderating variables that the study
attempted to control with its 10-nation design?
3. Can you do a causal study without controlling intervening,
extraneous, and moderating
variables?

23. 4. What is the impact on study results of using national experts
(key informants) to
identify and weigh entrepreneurial framework conditions?
5. Can you do a causal study when much of the primary data
collected is descriptive
opinion and ordinal or interval data?
• Developed for Business Research Methods, 7e. Used with
permission of Pamela S. Schindler and
Donald R. Cooper. © 2001
• Global Entrepreneurship Assessment: National
Entrepreneurship Assessment, UK, 1999 Executive
Report. Center for Entrepreneurial Leadership of Ewing Marion
Kauffman Foundation, 1999.
• Reynolds, P., M. Hay, and M. Camp. Global Entrepreneurship
Monitor: 1999 Executive Report.
Kauffman Center for Entrepreneurial Leadership of Ewing
Marion Kauffman Foundation, 1999.
• Reynolds, P., J. Levie, and E. Autio. Global Entrepreneurship
Monitor:1999 Data Collection-
Analysis Strategies Operations Manual. Babson College and the
London Business School, 1999.
• Reynolds, P., J. Levie, E. Autio, M. Hay, and B. Bygrave.
Global Entrepreneurship Monitor: 1999
Research Report: Entrepreneurship and National Economic
Well-Being. Babson College and the
London Business School, 1999.
• Zacharakis, A., P. Reynolds, and W. Bygrave. Global
Entrepreneurship Assessment: National

24. Entrepreneurship Assessment, United States of America, 1999
Executive Report. Center for
Entrepreneurial Leadership of Ewing Marion Kauffman
Foundation, 1999.
A GEM of a Study
>>>>>Discussion