Search

The 2010 health reform bill, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, included a provision that would expand eligibility of the public insurance program Medicaid. One concern raised about implementing the Medicaid expansion is that it would lead to reductions in state spending in other policy domains. In this study, we test whether adopting expansion is associated with changes in higher education appropriations. Using a difference-in-difference model, we find no significant changes in higher education appropriations between expansion and non-expansion states. Implications of these findings for universities and state policymakers are discussed.

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of World Medical & Health Policy is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

COVID‐19 is not the first, nor the last, public health challenge the US political system has faced. Understanding drivers of governmental responses to public health emergencies is important for policy decision‐making, planning, health and social outcomes, and advocacy. We use federal political disaster‐aid debates to examine political factors related to variations in outcomes for Puerto Rico, Texas, and Florida after the 2017 hurricane season. Despite the comparable need and unprecedented mortality, Puerto Rico received delayed and substantially less aid. We find bipartisan participation in floor debates over aid to Texas and Florida, but primarily Democrat participation for Puerto Rican aid. Yet, deliberation and participation in the debates were strongly influenced by whether a state or district was at risk of natural disasters. Nearly one‐third of all states did not participate in any aid debate. States' local disaster risk levels and political parties' attachments to different racial and ethnic groups may help explain Congressional public health disaster response failures. These lessons are of increasing importance in the face of growing collective action problems around the climate crisis and subsequent emergent threats from natural disasters. Key points: Our results suggest that the deaths of thousands of Americans may not be enough to mobilize congressional participation in disaster aid deliberations, and that legislators may be more incentivized to participate in debates if they perceive disaster risk to their districts.Where some states have more advocacy for federal disaster aid than others, disparities in disaster aid relief and subsequent outcomes may be exacerbated.Institutional barriers may further exacerbate participatory inequality in disaster aid deliberations, such as no voting membership for U.S. territories. Institutional constraints and the strong relationship between disaster risk and legislative participation in aid debates compared to mortality may reduce accountability for federal disaster response failures. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Using moral foundations theory (MFT), this study analyzes how Republican governors employed moral concepts to either build support or opposition to Medicaid expansion. The study examined statements about Medicaid expansion made by all Republican governors as reported in two large newspapers in each governor's state from 28 June 2012 to 31 December 2018. A slight majority of the statements (183 or 58.5%) used moral arguments in support of Medicaid expansion. Governors from both policy camps most frequently used the moral foundations shared by liberals and conservatives: care/harm and fairness/cheating. Those supporting expansion also used loyalty/betrayal, authority/subversion, and sanctity/degradation. Those opposing expansion used liberty/oppression. Policymakers recognize that activating the public's moral intuitions can be an effective way to advance a policy of interest. Those interested in advancing health policies would do well to better understand the kind of moral arguments that are used with potential supporters and arguments that may be used by opponents. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The Affordable Care Act requires all insurance plans sold on health insurance marketplaces and individual and small-group plans to cover 10 Essential Health Benefits (EHB), including behavioral health services. Instead of applying a uniform EHB plan design, the Department of Health and Human Services let states define their own EHB plan. This approach was seen as the best balance between flexibility and comprehensiveness, and assumed there would be little state-to-state variation. Limited federal oversight runs the risk of variation in EHB coverage definitions and requirements, as well as potential divergence from standardized medical guidelines. We analyzed 112 EHB documents from all states for behavioral health coverage in effect from 2012 to 2017. We find wide variation among states in their EHB plan required-coverage, and divergence between medical-practice guidelines and EHB plans. These results emphasize consideration of federated regulation over health insurance coverage standards. Federal flexibility in states benefit design nods to state-specific policymaking-processes and population needs. However, flexibility becomes problematic if it leads to inadequate coverage that reduces access to critical health care services. The EHBs demonstrate an incomplete effort to establish appropriate minimum standards of coverage for behavioral health services. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]