Search

The COVID-19 pandemic is just one of two public health crises the new Biden administration will confront. The addiction crisis is the other. The opioid epidemic has already killed more Americans than World Wars I and II combined. And it is but the most visible sign of a broader population health challenge that includes methamphetamine, cocaine, benzodiazepines, and alcohol. This article presents practical legislative and executive actions that are required for addressing these challenges. The authors focus on two broad policy challenges: (1) improving financing and delivery of treatment for substance use disorders, and (2) reducing population exposure to addictive and lethal substances. Through both of these channels, a portfolio of well-implemented, evidence-informed policies can save many thousands of lives every year., (Copyright © 2021 by Duke University Press.)

The United States is now experiencing public health catastrophe on a scale not seen for more than a century. COVID-19 puts into stark relief the mutual obligations that reflect interdependence among participants in a common society. Drawing on the work of Amartya Sen concerning famine and related challenges, the author discusses the accompanying implications for social justice. Social justice in catastrophe requires strong social insurance structures and legal protections for the most vulnerable people, who would otherwise lack economic resources and political influence to protect their essential interests. Social justice also requires greater and more sustained attention to disaster preparedness and public health infrastructure-both of which are characteristically neglected, in part because the public health enterprise is identified with politically weak and often stigmatized populations., (Copyright © 2020 by Duke University Press.)

Context: In contrast to the Affordable Care Act, some have suggested the opioid epidemic represents an area of bipartisanship. This raises an important question: to what extent are Democrat-led and Republican-led states different or similar in their policy responses to the opioid epidemic?, Methods: Three main methodological approaches were used to assess state-level policy responses to the opioid epidemic: a legislative analysis across all 50 states, an online survey of 50 state Medicaid agencies, and in-depth case studies with policy stakeholders in five states., Findings: Conservative states pursue hidden and targeted Medicaid expansions, and a number of legislative initiatives, to address the opioid crisis. However, the total fiscal commitment among these Republican-led states pales in comparison to states that adopt the ACA Medicaid expansion. Because the state legislative initiatives do not provide treatment, these states spend substantially less than states with Democratic control., Conclusions: Rather than persistently working to retrench all programs, conservatives have relied on policy designs that emphasize devolution, fragmentation, and inequality to both expand and retrench benefits. This strategy, which allocates benefits differentially to different social groups and obfuscates responsibility, allows conservatives to avoid political blame typically associated with retrenchment., (Copyright © 2020 by Duke University Press.)

After nearly a century of failed or incomplete legislative efforts, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA), enacted by Congress in March 2010, establishes the principle that every American is entitled to affordable and effective health insurance coverage regardless of income or health status. Although many aspects of the act have received broad attention, its impact on reproductive health has received considerably less scrutiny, except when debated through the specific lens of particularly polarized ideological concerns. If fully implemented as planned, the PPACA has the potential to improve reproductive health in the United States in at least three ways: increasing the number of women and men with insurance coverage; increasing the value of insurance coverage for addressing reproductive health needs; and improving access to reproductive health services and information more generally. Several PPACA provisions stand out as having particular importance for reproductive health, including Medicaid family planning expansions, standards for an essential health benefits package, expanded coverage for contraception and other clinical preventive services, and teen pregnancy prevention programs. All these potential gains, however, are threatened by political, economic, and logistical challenges to the PPACA and by flaws in the legislation itself.