Search

Section 1332 of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) provides states unprecedented flexibility to alter federal health policy. The authors analyze state waiver activity from 2019 to 2023, applying a comparative approach to understand waivers proposed by Georgia, Colorado, Washington, Oregon, and Nevada. Much of the waiver activity during this period focused on reinsurance programs. During the Trump administration, the most innovative waiver application was from Georgia, which sought to restructure and decentralize its individual market, moving away from the framework established by the ACA. While the Biden administration suspended Georgia's efforts, Democratic-led states have focused implementing waiver programs supporting and expanding on the ACA. This has included adopting public-option insurance plans offered by private insurers and expanding eligibility for qualified health plans for previously ineligible groups. The authors' analysis offers insights into contemporary health politics, policy durability, and the role of the administrative presidency., (Copyright © 2024 by Duke University Press.)

Context: Homeless policy advocates viewed Medicaid expansion as an opportunity to enhance health care access for this vulnerable population. We studied Medicaid expansion implementation to assess the extent to which broadening insurance eligibility affected the functioning of municipal homelessness programs targeting chronic homelessness in the context of two separate governance systems., Methods: We employed a comparative case study of San Francisco, California, and Shreveport, Louisiana, which were selected as exemplar cases from a national sample of cities across the United States. We conducted elite interviews with a range of local-level stakeholders and combined this data with primary-source documentation., Findings: Medicaid expansion did not substantially enhance the functioning of homelessness programs and policies because of Medicaid access challenges and governance conflicts. Administrative burden and funding limitations contributed to limited provider networks, inadequate service coverage, and lack of linkages between Medicaid enrollment and homelessness programming. Governance conflicts reinforced these functional challenges, with homelessness under the administration of local municipalities and nongovernmental organizations while states administer Medicaid., Conclusions: Improving access to health care services for persons experiencing homelessness cannot occur without intentional coordination between sectors and levels of government and thus necessitates the development of targeted policies and programs to overcome these challenges., (Copyright © 2021 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.)

Seven states have used Section 1115 waivers to expand Medicaid as part of the Affordable Care Act (ACA). While each state pursued a unique plan, there are similarities in the types of changes each state desired to make. Equally important to how a state modified their Medicaid programs is how a state talked about Medicaid and reform. We investigate whether the rhetoric that emerged in waiver states is unique, analyze whether the rhetoric is associated with particular waiver reforms, and consider the implications of our findings for the future of Medicaid policy making. We find that proponents in waiver states have convinced a conservative legislature that their reform is sufficiently innovative that they are not doing a Medicaid expansion, and not building on the traditional Medicaid program. Particularly striking is that none of these reforms are entirely new to the Medicaid program. While not new, the way in which waiver states have been allowed to implement many of the reforms is new and has become stricter. We find an emerging consensus utilized by conservative policy makers in framing the Medicaid expansion. Expansion efforts by conservative policy makers in other states have subsequently pushed this framing far to the right., (Copyright © 2017 by Duke University Press.)