Competitions
High-school only. In person. Open an event for the official role, mechanic, work product, and 100-point rubric.
A student may register for up to six Normal Events in a season. Most events allow a solo competitor or a team of up to five. A few are solo-only or team-only. Regional is required. Everyone who competes at Regional advances to State. State top three earn a National nomination. Nationals first place is National Champion.
Advisors enter student names in the portal. The assigned student page then opens this same packet.
Event packets
Role. Emergency clinical-prioritization team
Action. Prioritize
Signature mechanic. Evolving patient-status board
Class. On-site: Advanced Release · Solo or team, 1 to 5
What you do
Students receive a fictional acute-care scenario with symptoms, vitals, laboratory or imaging findings, operational constraints, and progressively released updates. Their task is to establish the safest order of action, not merely name a diagnosis, and explain why each step occurs now, later, or not at all.
Preparation before competition
Study clinical reasoning, triage frameworks, patient safety, escalation, and interpretation of basic fictional diagnostic data. The broad annual domain is announced early. The complete case is released in a supervised room two hours before the judged round.
At competition
Teams build a one-page action board. During the round, staff release two or three new updates, such as worsening vital signs, a medication allergy, bed unavailability, or transport delay. Teams must visibly reorder priorities and defend the change.
Required work product
Prioritized action board; evidence/risk map; escalation plan; oral defense.
Medical Triage rubric. 100 points.
Every event uses a 100-point rubric. High-scoring work is accurate, case-specific, feasible, ethically aware, transparent about uncertainty, and resilient under questioning. Judges score substance and reasoning over aesthetic polish. A material safety error, fabricated evidence, prohibited assistance, or failure to meet required deliverables may result in deductions or formal review.
| Criterion | Points |
|---|---|
| Safety and prioritization | 35 |
| Evidence interpretation | 25 |
| Adaptation to live changes | 15 |
| Feasibility and escalation | 15 |
| Individual oral defense | 10 |
Student success standard
A standout entry inhabits the emergency clinical-prioritization team, performs prioritize, and uses the evolving patient-status board to prove the reasoning holds when conditions change.
Rules and boundaries
Role. Patient-safety chart auditor
Action. Audit
Signature mechanic. Line-by-line error hunt
Class. On-site: Standard · Solo-only
What you do
Competitors act as documentation and patient-safety auditors. A fictional chart contains material inconsistencies, omissions, unsafe abbreviations, medication or allergy conflicts, date errors, or documentation weaknesses that could affect care, billing, privacy, or continuity.
Preparation before competition
Study medical terminology, chart structures, safe documentation practices, patient-safety concepts, privacy, and basic billing and reimbursement vocabulary. The chart is confidential until the event.
At competition
Students complete a timed, line-referenced audit. Every claimed issue must identify the exact chart evidence, likely consequence, and appropriate correction. Finalists may defend one disputed finding in a short interview.
Required work product
Completed audit worksheet; ranked issue list; consequence-and-correction rationale.
Chart Audit rubric. 100 points.
Every event uses a 100-point rubric. High-scoring work is accurate, case-specific, feasible, ethically aware, transparent about uncertainty, and resilient under questioning. Judges score substance and reasoning over aesthetic polish. A material safety error, fabricated evidence, prohibited assistance, or failure to meet required deliverables may result in deductions or formal review.
| Criterion | Points |
|---|---|
| Accuracy of material findings | 40 |
| Patient-safety impact | 25 |
| Documentation and terminology reasoning | 20 |
| Billing, privacy, or continuity analysis | 10 |
| Clarity and completeness | 5 |
Student success standard
A standout entry inhabits the patient-safety chart auditor, performs audit, and uses the line-by-line error hunt to prove the reasoning holds when conditions change.
Rules and boundaries
Role. Physiology systems analyst
Action. Trace
Signature mechanic. Causal-cascade mapping board
Class. On-site: Standard · Solo or team, 1 to 5
What you do
A fictional physiologic system breaks down. Competitors trace the cascade from initiating event to compensatory changes, organ-level effects, clinical deterioration, intervention priorities, and care-resource impact. This is a systems-mapping challenge, not a rapid triage contest.
Preparation before competition
Study anatomy, physiology, pathophysiology, disease pathways, and basic implications of complications for beds, testing, staffing, and cost. The annual system focus may be announced. The case is released on-site.
At competition
Competitors construct a visual cascade map with arrows, decision points, and clinical consequences. Judges interrupt at selected links and ask what evidence supports that connection and what would break the cascade.
Required work product
Causal map; intervention nodes; clinical and operations impact summary; oral explanation.
Disease Pathway rubric. 100 points.
Every event uses a 100-point rubric. High-scoring work is accurate, case-specific, feasible, ethically aware, transparent about uncertainty, and resilient under questioning. Judges score substance and reasoning over aesthetic polish. A material safety error, fabricated evidence, prohibited assistance, or failure to meet required deliverables may result in deductions or formal review.
| Criterion | Points |
|---|---|
| Physiologic accuracy and causal logic | 35 |
| Depth of cascade analysis | 25 |
| Intervention reasoning | 20 |
| Healthcare-resource connection | 10 |
| Visual clarity and oral defense | 10 |
Student success standard
A standout entry inhabits the physiology systems analyst, performs trace, and uses the causal-cascade mapping board to prove the reasoning holds when conditions change.
Rules and boundaries
Role. Outbreak investigation unit
Action. Investigate
Signature mechanic. Physical evidence wall and outbreak map
Class. On-site: Advanced Release · Solo or team, 1 to 5
What you do
Competitors investigate a fictional outbreak through case records, timelines, maps, exposure histories, laboratory data, and population statistics. They determine the most plausible source and transmission pathway, then propose a proportional response under resource and trust constraints.
Preparation before competition
Study epidemiology, outbreak methods, epidemic curves, attack rates, surveillance, communication, and response planning. The full outbreak packet releases two hours before the round.
At competition
Teams assemble an evidence wall connecting people, places, exposures, and time. They issue a command briefing, then receive a new lab result or exposure record that may require the hypothesis to change.
Required work product
Source and transmission hypothesis; evidence wall or map; response plan; communications and resource summary.
Outbreak Investigation rubric. 100 points.
Every event uses a 100-point rubric. High-scoring work is accurate, case-specific, feasible, ethically aware, transparent about uncertainty, and resilient under questioning. Judges score substance and reasoning over aesthetic polish. A material safety error, fabricated evidence, prohibited assistance, or failure to meet required deliverables may result in deductions or formal review.
| Criterion | Points |
|---|---|
| Use of epidemiologic evidence | 30 |
| Source and transmission reasoning | 20 |
| Containment and implementation plan | 20 |
| Adaptation to new evidence | 15 |
| Equity, ethics, and public trust | 10 |
| Communication quality | 5 |
Student success standard
A standout entry inhabits the outbreak investigation unit, performs investigate, and uses the evidence wall and outbreak map to prove the reasoning holds when conditions change.
Rules and boundaries
Role. Biomedical peer-review committee
Action. Peer-review
Signature mechanic. Confidential journal decision hearing
Class. On-site: Advanced Release · Team-only, 2 to 5
What you do
Teams receive a fictional biomedical paper, trial report, or evidence dossier with a consequential methodological, statistical, ethical, reporting, or interpretation problem. They decide whether the work should be accepted, revised, rejected, replicated, restricted, or deferred.
Preparation before competition
Study study design, bias, basic statistics, evidence hierarchies, clinical research ethics, conflicts of interest, and scientific communication. The complete paper packet is released two hours before the hearing.
At competition
Teams prepare a structured peer-review memorandum and issue a formal committee ruling. Judges conduct a journal-editor hearing in which each member must defend a particular claim, limitation, or recommendation.
Required work product
Peer-review memorandum; decision statement; evidence audit; proposed corrective or next-study plan.
Research Review rubric. 100 points.
Every event uses a 100-point rubric. High-scoring work is accurate, case-specific, feasible, ethically aware, transparent about uncertainty, and resilient under questioning. Judges score substance and reasoning over aesthetic polish. A material safety error, fabricated evidence, prohibited assistance, or failure to meet required deliverables may result in deductions or formal review.
| Criterion | Points |
|---|---|
| Identification of consequential flaws | 35 |
| Methodological and statistical reasoning | 25 |
| Ethics and integrity analysis | 15 |
| Quality of ruling and next steps | 15 |
| Committee defense and role mastery | 10 |
Student success standard
A standout entry inhabits the biomedical peer-review committee, performs peer-review, and uses the confidential journal decision hearing to prove the reasoning holds when conditions change.
Rules and boundaries
Role. Clinical ethics committee
Action. Deliberate
Signature mechanic. Stakeholder testimony and written ruling
Class. On-site: Standard · Solo or team, 1 to 5
What you do
Competitors receive a difficult healthcare dilemma involving consent, privacy, scarce resources, end-of-life care, AI, disability rights, family conflict, or equitable access. They must reach a concrete recommendation, openly identify the harm it may cause, and establish safeguards.
Preparation before competition
Study ethical frameworks, consent, privacy, equity, institutional decision-making, and respectful healthcare communication. The scenario is released at the event.
At competition
After analysis, competitors hear short fictional stakeholder statements. They issue a written ruling and defend it before an ethics-chair panel. The event does not use assigned opposing sides. It tests deliberation and accountable decision-making.
Required work product
Decision and ruling; stakeholder-impact matrix; safeguards and communication plan; oral defense.
Medical Ethics rubric. 100 points.
Every event uses a 100-point rubric. High-scoring work is accurate, case-specific, feasible, ethically aware, transparent about uncertainty, and resilient under questioning. Judges score substance and reasoning over aesthetic polish. A material safety error, fabricated evidence, prohibited assistance, or failure to meet required deliverables may result in deductions or formal review.
| Criterion | Points |
|---|---|
| Ethical reasoning and stakeholder analysis | 35 |
| Defensibility of the recommendation | 25 |
| Equity and unintended-effects analysis | 15 |
| Safeguards and practical implementation | 15 |
| Communication and response | 10 |
Student success standard
A standout entry inhabits the clinical ethics committee, performs deliberate, and uses stakeholder testimony and a written ruling to prove the reasoning holds when conditions change.
Rules and boundaries
Role. Legislative and policy advocacy team
Action. Debate
Signature mechanic. Formal hearing with cross-examination and amendment round
Class. On-site: Advanced Release · Team-only, 2 to 5
What you do
Teams argue assigned affirmative or negative positions on a healthcare-policy resolution. They must show how the proposal would work, who benefits or bears risk, what it costs, and how implementation would occur. This is adversarial policy advocacy, not an ethics committee discussion.
Preparation before competition
Study the announced policy domain, health-system financing, access, implementation, evidence use, and rebuttal. The official resolution, assigned side, evidence packet, and amendment details release two hours before competition.
At competition
The event includes opening advocacy, evidence presentation, cross-examination, rebuttal, an amendment or fiscal-impact round, and closing. Every member must hold a visible role such as lead advocate, evidence analyst, cross-examiner, or closing strategist.
Required work product
Evidence outline; formal debate performance; amendment response; closing recommendation.
Health Policy Debate rubric. 100 points.
Every event uses a 100-point rubric. High-scoring work is accurate, case-specific, feasible, ethically aware, transparent about uncertainty, and resilient under questioning. Judges score substance and reasoning over aesthetic polish. A material safety error, fabricated evidence, prohibited assistance, or failure to meet required deliverables may result in deductions or formal review.
| Criterion | Points |
|---|---|
| Policy and evidence analysis | 25 |
| Medical, access, and equity impact | 20 |
| Financial and implementation analysis | 20 |
| Rebuttal and cross-examination | 20 |
| Team role execution | 10 |
| Professionalism | 5 |
Student success standard
A standout entry inhabits the legislative and policy advocacy team, performs debate, and uses the formal hearing with cross-examination and amendment round to prove the reasoning holds when conditions change.
Rules and boundaries
Role. Healthcare solution designer
Action. Design
Signature mechanic. Demonstration, prototype, workflow, or storyboard requirement
Class. Preparation-based · Solo or team, 1 to 5
What you do
Competitors develop a solution for deployment inside an existing hospital, clinic, payer, nonprofit, school, or public-health program. Entries may be workflows, services, apps, devices, navigation systems, quality-improvement tools, or interventions, but must demonstrate a real operational path, not just an idea.
Preparation before competition
The problem area and submission rules are released before competition. Students research need, build a solution, test or refine it where appropriate, and prepare a practical implementation plan. Safe mockups, workflow demonstrations, and storyboards are encouraged. No unapproved human testing is allowed.
At competition
At competition, teams demonstrate how the solution works, pitch the implementing organization, and respond to an adoption barrier such as budget reduction, staff resistance, privacy concern, or patient-access complication.
Required work product
Solution brief; implementation roadmap; demonstration, prototype, or workflow; budget; impact metrics; live defense.
Solution Design rubric. 100 points.
Every event uses a 100-point rubric. High-scoring work is accurate, case-specific, feasible, ethically aware, transparent about uncertainty, and resilient under questioning. Judges score substance and reasoning over aesthetic polish. A material safety error, fabricated evidence, prohibited assistance, or failure to meet required deliverables may result in deductions or formal review.
| Criterion | Points |
|---|---|
| Need and user definition | 20 |
| Solution quality and usability | 25 |
| Clinical and public-health value | 15 |
| Implementation and operational feasibility | 20 |
| Financial sustainability and metrics | 10 |
| Demonstration and defense | 10 |
Student success standard
A standout entry inhabits the healthcare solution designer, performs design, and uses a demonstration, prototype, workflow, or storyboard to prove the reasoning holds when conditions change.
Rules and boundaries
Role. Household financial planner
Action. Plan
Signature mechanic. Budget board with unexpected expense cards
Class. On-site: Standard · Solo-only
What you do
Competitors manage a fictional individual or household facing healthcare-related financial choices involving income, insurance, deductibles, debt, emergency savings, treatment costs, risk, and competing obligations. The goal is a sustainable and humane plan, not simply the lowest short-term expense.
Preparation before competition
Study budgeting, insurance fundamentals, debt, savings, risk, consumer choices, and healthcare affordability. The household scenario is released at the event.
At competition
Competitors create a budget and decision plan, then draw an unexpected event card, such as a job loss, emergency visit, coverage change, or medication cost increase, and revise their strategy.
Required work product
Budget worksheet; coverage and care decision; risk and savings plan; revision rationale.
Healthcare Budgeting rubric. 100 points.
Every event uses a 100-point rubric. High-scoring work is accurate, case-specific, feasible, ethically aware, transparent about uncertainty, and resilient under questioning. Judges score substance and reasoning over aesthetic polish. A material safety error, fabricated evidence, prohibited assistance, or failure to meet required deliverables may result in deductions or formal review.
| Criterion | Points |
|---|---|
| Calculation accuracy and case reading | 30 |
| Financial decision quality | 30 |
| Healthcare-access and human-impact reasoning | 20 |
| Response to unexpected expense | 15 |
| Clarity and completeness | 5 |
Student success standard
A standout entry inhabits the household financial planner, performs plan, and uses the budget board with unexpected expense cards to prove the reasoning holds when conditions change.
Rules and boundaries
Role. Investment desk analyst
Action. Trade
Signature mechanic. Live market-shock ticker
Class. On-site: Standard · Solo or team, 1 to 5
What you do
Competitors receive a fictional market mandate and newly released market or company information. They develop an investment view, allocation, or strategic position, name their catalysts and risks, and defend the call. The result is scored on reasoning at the time of decision, not hindsight performance.
Preparation before competition
Study financial statements, valuation, risk and return, portfolios, market structure, macroeconomic signals, and healthcare-sector drivers where applicable. The case data are confidential until competition.
At competition
After timed analysis, competitors make a recorded call. A live market-shock ticker then releases a policy change, earnings surprise, competitor action, or macroeconomic event. Competitors must hold, hedge, exit, or revise, and explain why.
Required work product
Investment thesis; allocation or position; risk plan; post-shock update; oral defense.
Market Analysis rubric. 100 points.
Every event uses a 100-point rubric. High-scoring work is accurate, case-specific, feasible, ethically aware, transparent about uncertainty, and resilient under questioning. Judges score substance and reasoning over aesthetic polish. A material safety error, fabricated evidence, prohibited assistance, or failure to meet required deliverables may result in deductions or formal review.
| Criterion | Points |
|---|---|
| Data interpretation and analysis | 30 |
| Thesis and strategic coherence | 25 |
| Risk management and assumptions | 20 |
| Response to market shock | 15 |
| Communication and questioning | 10 |
Student success standard
A standout entry inhabits the investment desk analyst, performs trade, and uses the live market-shock ticker to prove the reasoning holds when conditions change.
Rules and boundaries
Role. Deal team: investor, lender, or corporate finance adviser
Action. Negotiate
Signature mechanic. Live founder, investor, or lender negotiation
Class. Preparation-based · Team-only, 2 to 5
What you do
Teams receive a company and financing context in advance. They recommend funding structure and terms based on valuation, capital needs, dilution, control, milestones, downside protection, and intended use of proceeds. The core event is negotiation, not spreadsheet display.
Preparation before competition
Students receive the company dossier and rules before competition. Teams prepare a financing memorandum, draft term sheet, and negotiation strategy grounded in the company's facts and sector risks.
At competition
Teams first present their proposed deal. A judge role-playing founder, investor, lender, or board representative then negotiates valuation, control, milestones, covenant, liquidation, or timing points. A late performance update forces a revised offer or walk-away decision.
Required work product
Investment memorandum; draft term sheet; financial assumptions; negotiation strategy; final deal rationale.
Deal Negotiation rubric. 100 points.
Every event uses a 100-point rubric. High-scoring work is accurate, case-specific, feasible, ethically aware, transparent about uncertainty, and resilient under questioning. Judges score substance and reasoning over aesthetic polish. A material safety error, fabricated evidence, prohibited assistance, or failure to meet required deliverables may result in deductions or formal review.
| Criterion | Points |
|---|---|
| Financial and valuation logic | 30 |
| Term quality and risk allocation | 25 |
| Strategic use of proceeds | 15 |
| Negotiation execution | 20 |
| Adaptation and team command | 10 |
Student success standard
A standout entry inhabits the deal team, performs negotiate, and uses the live founder, investor, or lender negotiation to prove the reasoning holds when conditions change.
Rules and boundaries
Role. Healthcare resource-allocation analyst
Action. Allocate
Signature mechanic. Finite-budget token board
Class. On-site: Standard · Solo or team, 1 to 5
What you do
Competitors confront a health-system or policy scenario in which demand exceeds available funding, capacity, workforce, medication, or service access. They allocate a visibly limited set of resources and explain the economic incentives, patient consequences, and safeguards behind each choice.
Preparation before competition
Study healthcare economics, supply and demand, insurance, incentives, market failures, regulation, externalities, and access. The specific allocation problem releases at competition.
At competition
Teams receive a finite budget or token board. Each allocation to one program visibly prevents allocation elsewhere. A mid-round change in demand, reimbursement, or supply requires reallocation and a transparent explanation of what must be delayed, protected, or redesigned.
Required work product
Allocation board; economic analysis; access and equity safeguards; revised plan after shock.
Resource Allocation rubric. 100 points.
Every event uses a 100-point rubric. High-scoring work is accurate, case-specific, feasible, ethically aware, transparent about uncertainty, and resilient under questioning. Judges score substance and reasoning over aesthetic polish. A material safety error, fabricated evidence, prohibited assistance, or failure to meet required deliverables may result in deductions or formal review.
| Criterion | Points |
|---|---|
| Economic and incentive analysis | 30 |
| Allocation quality and tradeoff transparency | 25 |
| Access, equity, and patient outcomes | 20 |
| Fiscal and operational feasibility | 15 |
| Adaptation and oral defense | 10 |
Student success standard
A standout entry inhabits the healthcare resource-allocation analyst, performs allocate, and uses the finite-budget token board to prove the reasoning holds when conditions change.
Rules and boundaries
Role. Service-line or clinic optimization team
Action. Optimize
Signature mechanic. Operations dashboard and constraint round
Class. Preparation-based · Team-only, 2 to 5
What you do
Teams receive a defined hospital or clinic operational problem in advance, such as bottlenecks, staffing, denied claims, revenue leakage, avoidable utilization, quality costs, or service-line pressure. Unlike Hospital Recovery, this event targets one operating system and requires a measurable improvement plan.
Preparation before competition
The organization packet, metrics, and decision question are released before competition. Teams build a focused plan supported by data, financial assumptions, workflow redesign, quality safeguards, and implementation metrics.
At competition
Teams present to an operations committee using a dashboard. Judges then impose a constraint: fewer staff, a budget cut, a payer rule, a capacity limit, or a quality threshold. Teams must protect the core plan or deliberately redesign it.
Required work product
Problem diagnosis; dashboard; operating and financial plan; implementation timeline; quality and access safeguards; revised constraint response.
Clinic Operations rubric. 100 points.
Every event uses a 100-point rubric. High-scoring work is accurate, case-specific, feasible, ethically aware, transparent about uncertainty, and resilient under questioning. Judges score substance and reasoning over aesthetic polish. A material safety error, fabricated evidence, prohibited assistance, or failure to meet required deliverables may result in deductions or formal review.
| Criterion | Points |
|---|---|
| Data-based problem diagnosis | 25 |
| Financial sustainability | 25 |
| Patient quality and access protection | 20 |
| Operational feasibility | 20 |
| Constraint response and defense | 10 |
Student success standard
A standout entry inhabits the service-line or clinic optimization team, performs optimize, and uses the operations dashboard and constraint round to prove the reasoning holds when conditions change.
Rules and boundaries
Role. Biotech and pharma due-diligence committee
Action. Diligence
Signature mechanic. Investment committee with late clinical or patent update
Class. Preparation-based · Solo or team, 1 to 5
What you do
Competitors assess whether a fictional biotechnology or pharmaceutical opportunity can succeed scientifically and commercially. They examine clinical evidence, trial risk, patent life, manufacturing, regulation, pricing, reimbursement, competition, capital needs, and launch strategy.
Preparation before competition
The company dossier and therapeutic domain release before competition. Competitors research the area, complete a diligence analysis, and prepare a recommendation with scenarios and key assumptions.
At competition
Teams deliver an investment-committee recommendation. During questioning, they receive a new trial endpoint result, patent challenge, reimbursement decision, manufacturing issue, or competitor entry that forces a funding, valuation, partnership, or launch revision.
Required work product
Diligence report; clinical-to-commercial assessment; risk matrix; scenario model; recommendation and live revision.
Biotech Review rubric. 100 points.
Every event uses a 100-point rubric. High-scoring work is accurate, case-specific, feasible, ethically aware, transparent about uncertainty, and resilient under questioning. Judges score substance and reasoning over aesthetic polish. A material safety error, fabricated evidence, prohibited assistance, or failure to meet required deliverables may result in deductions or formal review.
| Criterion | Points |
|---|---|
| Clinical and scientific interpretation | 20 |
| Commercial, regulatory, and reimbursement analysis | 25 |
| Financial logic and risk modeling | 25 |
| Strategic recommendation | 20 |
| Response to late update | 10 |
Student success standard
A standout entry inhabits the biotech and pharma due-diligence committee, performs diligence, and uses the late clinical or patent update to prove the reasoning holds when conditions change.
Rules and boundaries
Role. Claims appeal and adjudication panel
Action. Adjudicate
Signature mechanic. Two-chair payer and patient hearing
Class. On-site: Standard · Solo or team, 1 to 5
What you do
Competitors receive a fictional denied claim, policy language, medical record, coding and billing context, and appeal facts. They must accurately articulate both the patient-access case and payer-administration rationale before issuing a fair, evidence-based resolution.
Preparation before competition
Study coverage design, reimbursement, medical-necessity review, appeals, documentation, coding context, patient access, and ethical decision-making. The case is released on-site.
At competition
Competitors first prepare separate patient and payer analyses. At the hearing, two judges represent those perspectives and challenge the proposed resolution. A late document or policy clarification may alter the outcome.
Required work product
Claim analysis; patient and payer comparison; adjudication decision; appeals and process improvement recommendation.
Insurance Appeals rubric. 100 points.
Every event uses a 100-point rubric. High-scoring work is accurate, case-specific, feasible, ethically aware, transparent about uncertainty, and resilient under questioning. Judges score substance and reasoning over aesthetic polish. A material safety error, fabricated evidence, prohibited assistance, or failure to meet required deliverables may result in deductions or formal review.
| Criterion | Points |
|---|---|
| Case and coverage interpretation | 25 |
| Clinical evidence and appropriateness | 20 |
| Fairness and access reasoning | 20 |
| Financial and administrative defensibility | 20 |
| Hearing performance and resolution clarity | 15 |
Student success standard
A standout entry inhabits the claims appeal and adjudication panel, performs adjudicate, and uses the two-chair payer and patient hearing to prove the reasoning holds when conditions change.
Rules and boundaries
Role. Executive leadership team
Action. Rescue
Signature mechanic. Multi-round boardroom rescue simulation
Class. Preparation-based · Team-only, 2 to 5
What you do
Teams take over a failing healthcare organization facing interlocking problems in finance, staffing, quality, access, governance, and public confidence. This is an enterprise rescue, not a single workflow optimization. Teams must choose a strategic direction and protect essential care while restoring viability.
Preparation before competition
The organization dossier and turnaround mandate are released before competition. Teams prepare a board-ready stabilization and multi-year recovery plan with financial, workforce, quality, communications, and governance components.
At competition
The boardroom simulation has multiple rounds: initial strategy, hostile board questions, a new crisis such as a payer shift or safety incident, and a final recovery and accountability briefing. Teams must show what they will change, what they will protect, and what they will stop doing.
Required work product
Root-cause diagnosis; stabilization plan; multi-year strategy; financial, workforce, and quality plan; risk register; updated response.
Hospital Recovery rubric. 100 points.
Every event uses a 100-point rubric. High-scoring work is accurate, case-specific, feasible, ethically aware, transparent about uncertainty, and resilient under questioning. Judges score substance and reasoning over aesthetic polish. A material safety error, fabricated evidence, prohibited assistance, or failure to meet required deliverables may result in deductions or formal review.
| Criterion | Points |
|---|---|
| Strategic diagnosis and coherence | 20 |
| Quality, safety, and access protection | 20 |
| Financial and operational resilience | 20 |
| Workforce and governance plan | 15 |
| Implementation and risk management | 15 |
| Live executive adaptation | 10 |
Student success standard
A standout entry inhabits the executive leadership team, performs rescue, and uses the multi-round boardroom rescue simulation to prove the reasoning holds when conditions change.
Rules and boundaries
Role. Clinical technology review board
Action. Validate
Signature mechanic. Technology approval gate and incident drill
Class. On-site: Standard · Solo or team, 1 to 5
What you do
Competitors assess a fictional AI or digital-health product for true clinical, operational, and financial value. They distinguish good marketing from credible evidence by reviewing validation data, subgroup performance, workflow fit, privacy, cybersecurity, cost, adoption, and governance.
Preparation before competition
Study digital-health evaluation, AI limitations, clinical evidence, bias, privacy, interoperability, cybersecurity, workflows, and business models. The product dossier is released at competition.
At competition
Teams run a formal approval gate: approve, pilot, restrict, redesign, reject, or defer. They must define conditions and monitoring thresholds. Then an incident drill reveals a false negative, subgroup disparity, outage, data-sharing concern, or clinician work-around.
Required work product
Technology decision; evidence audit; deployment and oversight conditions; incident response; financial and operational assessment.
Digital Health Review rubric. 100 points.
Every event uses a 100-point rubric. High-scoring work is accurate, case-specific, feasible, ethically aware, transparent about uncertainty, and resilient under questioning. Judges score substance and reasoning over aesthetic polish. A material safety error, fabricated evidence, prohibited assistance, or failure to meet required deliverables may result in deductions or formal review.
| Criterion | Points |
|---|---|
| Clinical value and patient safety | 25 |
| Data, evidence, and limitation analysis | 20 |
| Equity, privacy, and governance | 20 |
| Operational and financial feasibility | 20 |
| Approval conditions and incident response | 15 |
Student success standard
A standout entry inhabits the clinical technology review board, performs validate, and uses the technology approval gate and incident drill to prove the reasoning holds when conditions change.
Rules and boundaries
Role. Healthcare startup founding team
Action. Found
Signature mechanic. Investor due-diligence gauntlet
Class. Preparation-based · Solo or team, 1 to 5
What you do
Competitors build an independent healthcare venture with a defined customer, unmet need, business model, revenue logic, funding ask, milestones, and responsible-growth plan. Unlike Solution Design, Healthcare Startup asks whether a new company deserves capital and can become sustainable.
Preparation before competition
The event prompt and submission rules release in advance. Teams validate the problem, develop the company model, build financial assumptions, identify competitors and risks, and submit venture materials before competition.
At competition
Teams pitch investors, then face a due-diligence gauntlet on market size, price, unit economics, clinical evidence, privacy, regulation, competition, and funding use. Judges may challenge one core assumption, requiring a revised path or a reasoned defense.
Required work product
Executive summary; pitch deck; financial model; funding ask and use of funds; milestones; risk and impact plan.
Healthcare Startup rubric. 100 points.
Every event uses a 100-point rubric. High-scoring work is accurate, case-specific, feasible, ethically aware, transparent about uncertainty, and resilient under questioning. Judges score substance and reasoning over aesthetic polish. A material safety error, fabricated evidence, prohibited assistance, or failure to meet required deliverables may result in deductions or formal review.
| Criterion | Points |
|---|---|
| Problem-market fit and validation | 20 |
| Business model and financial logic | 25 |
| Innovation and competitive strategy | 20 |
| Responsible feasibility and growth | 15 |
| Funding strategy and milestones | 10 |
| Investor defense | 10 |
Student success standard
A standout entry inhabits the healthcare startup founding team, performs found, and uses the investor due-diligence gauntlet to prove the reasoning holds when conditions change.
Rules and boundaries
Role. Contextual health-implementation team
Action. Implement
Signature mechanic. Geographic implementation board and logistics shock
Class. Preparation-based · Solo or team, 1 to 5
What you do
Competitors receive a specified country or region and health challenge in advance. They design a response grounded in disease burden, local infrastructure, workforce, culture, supply chains, governance, financing, affordability, and community partnership. The central test is implementability in context.
Preparation before competition
The setting, health challenge, baseline data, and rules are released before competition. Teams research responsibly, declare assumptions, develop a budget and phased implementation plan, and submit materials.
At competition
Teams present at an implementation board. A logistics shock, such as weather, supply interruption, funding cut, policy change, workforce departure, or changing disease burden, requires teams to protect core services and revise sequencing.
Required work product
Context analysis; fixed-budget allocation; partnership and implementation roadmap; metrics; sustainability plan; live revision.
Global Health rubric. 100 points.
Every event uses a 100-point rubric. High-scoring work is accurate, case-specific, feasible, ethically aware, transparent about uncertainty, and resilient under questioning. Judges score substance and reasoning over aesthetic polish. A material safety error, fabricated evidence, prohibited assistance, or failure to meet required deliverables may result in deductions or formal review.
| Criterion | Points |
|---|---|
| Contextual accuracy and needs analysis | 20 |
| Clinical and public-health impact | 20 |
| Budget logic and allocation | 20 |
| Local feasibility and sustainability | 25 |
| Equity, ethics, and risk response | 10 |
| Communication | 5 |
Student success standard
A standout entry inhabits the contextual health-implementation team, performs implement, and uses the geographic implementation board and logistics shock to prove the reasoning holds when conditions change.
Rules and boundaries
Role. Health crisis communications team
Action. Communicate
Signature mechanic. Live press room and misinformation escalation
Class. Preparation-based · Team-only, 2 to 5
What you do
Teams prepare an evidence-based response to a fictional health misinformation, patient-trust, product-safety, outbreak, privacy, or organizational-confidence crisis. They must communicate accurately and humanely while aligning messages with an actual operational response. The event rewards trustworthy action, not public-relations polish alone.
Preparation before competition
The initial scenario and submission rules release in advance. Teams create a communications strategy, stakeholder map, message architecture, selected materials, and escalation plan before competition.
At competition
At competition, teams conduct a press briefing and stakeholder briefing. Judges act as reporters, patients, staff, advocates, and board members. A live rumor, data correction, video clip, or affected-community concern tests whether the team can correct course without losing credibility.
Required work product
Audience map; core messages; channel and timing strategy; misinformation protocol; selected materials; live briefing and update.
Crisis Communications rubric. 100 points.
Every event uses a 100-point rubric. High-scoring work is accurate, case-specific, feasible, ethically aware, transparent about uncertainty, and resilient under questioning. Judges score substance and reasoning over aesthetic polish. A material safety error, fabricated evidence, prohibited assistance, or failure to meet required deliverables may result in deductions or formal review.
| Criterion | Points |
|---|---|
| Accuracy, evidence, and transparency | 25 |
| Audience strategy and accessibility | 20 |
| Operational integration and feasibility | 20 |
| Trust, ethics, and equity | 15 |
| Adaptation to escalation | 10 |
| Team communication | 10 |
Student success standard
A standout entry inhabits the health crisis communications team, performs communicate, and uses the live press room and misinformation escalation to prove the reasoning holds when conditions change.
Rules and boundaries
