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

Everybody and their brother will be blogging about the Supreme Court arguments on health care reform over the next several weeks. I do not want to add to the noise by focusing on the arguments and/or who has the winning position: many others will offer that kind of analysis.

As we continue to focus on health care spending, it is important to look at the tools we’ve tried already and learn from our experience – especially our mistakes.
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.

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 get asked to speak about health reform on a fairly frequent basis. It is actually quite fun, because health reform is so topical and there is always something new going on. I also enjoy the subject because there is always a range of viewpoints in any given audience: from those who strongly advocate for a single payer system to those who think the whole thing should be scrapped. It is interesting to hear the foundations for the various points of view.

Well, the polling data are in! And, the results: people are just as confused about health reform today as they were when it passed a year ago; maybe, more so. In fact, 22 percent of those polled by the Kaiser Family Foundation believe health care reform has already been repealed and another 26 percent aren’t sure.

Despite the “Strum und Drang” over health care reform in Congress these days, there is actually some interesting bipartisan activity occurring. While the stridency on health care reform often gets the most notice, the bipartisan activity offers some hope that challenging problems can move forward in a constructive way.

The Affordable Care Act is a complicated law, in part because it builds off the current health care system to achieve some far reaching goals: significantly expanded access to care and control over the rate of cost increase. Though some describe the Act as a federal takeover of health care, in fact, much of the law is to be carried out in the states, with considerable state discretion over the design of many provisions.

Since the January 31 decision by the Florida court that struck down the entire Affordable Care Act as unconstitutional, there has been endless speculation about what the court ruling means and what will happen next. Some Attorneys General who were party to the lawsuit have asked for an expedited decision by the Supreme Court on the constitutionality of the law; others have argued that Judge Vinson’s decision in Florida gives the states all the rationale they need to suspend implementation of the law in its entirety. The Senate held a vote on February 2 on the Republican proposal to repeal the law and not surprisingly, the repeal vote lost, 47 to 51 (Republicans voted unanimously for repeal). What is lost in all this focus on the legal and political strategy (especially: the theatrics) around the Affordable Care Act is what American consumers, businesses, and health care entities are actually saying about the law.

Ever since Bill Clinton took a turn at health care reform, the issue has often been discussed as an economic one. Bill Clinton first framed the health reform issue in 1992 before he took office. He had famously kept as a center piece of his campaign the idea that “it’s the economy, stupid” and health care became part of that dialog. He heard from the CEOs of many businesses, including the three Detroit automakers, that they were having a hard time competing in the global economy because they had to bear the cost of health insurance whereas their foreign competitors did not. So, when President Clinton convened his economic summit in Arkansas after he was elected but before he took office, health care was front and center.