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
It is difficult to find an issue that is more politically contentious than health care; particularly the policy changes and programs that are needed to assure that Americans have access to needed care. The liberal position tends to see health care as a right, and seeks a strong centralized public role in assuring that all Americans have access to the same kinds of benefits and care. The conservative position sees fiscal and personal responsibility as the top priorities; tending to favor decentralized, private market solutions.

In early August, when the debt ceiling agreement was reached, many news reports noted the agreement did nothing to address core reasons for the debt, namely: Social Security, Medicaid and Medicare. Indeed, nearly every article written about the debt ceiling talked about the need to “deal with” (aka: cut) Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security.

Recently, 29 Republican governors sent a letter to the President and Congress advocating for more flexibility in the Medicaid program and a full repeal of the Affordable Care Act. The principles endorsed by these 29 governors (which notably did not include Governor Snyder of Michigan) essentially supported the concept of a block grant for the Medicaid program.

Health care policy happens at many levels, but health care delivery: just one. Policy is made at the federal, state and local levels—but delivery is at the local level: in organized systems of care or with individual or teams of practitioners working with patients and families.

Today we are releasing our Cover Michigan Survey, 2011. Like last year’s survey, this report looks at what Michigan residents say about their access to health care. Different from last year, this survey was designed to look more in-depth at access, along with health status.

Michigan Governor Rick Snyder deserves special notice and acknowledgement for the courage and focus he displayed in his decision not to sign on to the letter signed by all other Republican governors, asking for changes to the Medicaid program and advocating for the repeal of the Affordable Care Act.
I met a young man last week who lost his job in December of 2009, and despite his best efforts, still hasn’t found another. He told me he had excellent health benefits through his previous employer, but rarely needed to use them. He described himself as a typical young and healthy patient – going in for routine cleanings at the dentist’s office and seeing a primary care physician for nothing worse than a bad cold. Given this, losing his health insurance was not at the top of his worry list when he lost his job.

The Arizona Medicaid program has been much in the news lately for its decisions to deny Medicaid coverage for certain transplants. The state has variously argued several things about these decisions. First, that these are evidence based decisions; that is, that the transplants were denied because the research shows that they don’t actually work. But, when challenged by transplant surgeons and others, the state has given other reasons for their denial, with cost being at the top of the list.

Many analyses of the impact of health reform focus on the large increase in expected Medicaid enrollment. Indeed, our own analysis of potential Medicaid enrollment in Michigan showed as many as 452,000 people could be enrolled come 2014 (link to Cover Michigan) who are not enrolled today. Kaiser's numbers were slightly higher, at 590,000 potentially new Medicaid enrollees, and more recent Census data suggest the numbers could be even higher. Whatever the actual number, all analysts expect a significant increase in Medicaid enrollment in Michigan over the 1.9 million enrolled in 2010. Providers, states, businesses and community groups are all planning based on these expected increases in Medicaid enrollment.

One of the most interesting stories in the new health reform Act – and vastly under-reported – is the significance of the roles established for state and federal governments. These roles represent a historic shift in the philosophy of health care policy-making in this country: a shift I think is all to the good.