Home » Blog
05/14/2012 Poverty and Health: A Connection We Can't Ignore
04/30/2012 Cardiac Care - A Case Study in Practice Variation
04/16/2012 One Courageous Woman
costs poverty aca variation cost use quality health policy research politics health reform policy health insurance acos hmos communication essential benefits reform coverage sgr congress drugs class long term care va employers e-prescribing emrs patient safety medicaid states medicare for-profit nonprofit block grant tanf welfare reform hospice end of life non-profit evidence-based care waste washtenaw county uninsured population health managed care cms access cancer end-of-life care individual mandate ryan proposal obesity pharmaceutical industry r & d comparative effectiveness research evidence based care quality improvement collaborative quality initiatives cqi pharmaceuticals regulations prematurity exchanges heath reform antibiotics overuse geographic variation medical appropriateness health websites imrt radiation therapy medical errors constitutionality courts translate health care economics rationing insurance regulation incentives cardiology pcmh health disparities election british health care system safety net fqhc guidelines radiology pain early childhood electronic medical records physician employment aco dartmouth atlas cover michigan health care coverage insurance preventive care public health

Well, the federal government has spoken about its intent with regard to defining essential benefits, and the answer is: leave it to the states. As Tim Jost notes in his latest blog post, there are some (probably, most) who assumed the Affordable Care Act would result in more uniformity in essential benefits across the country. But instead (no doubt bowing to a perceived political backlash at this time of difficult discourse in Washington, DC) the Obama administration decided to publish guidelines and establish broad parameters for essential benefits without going into the details.