In 2017, Medicaid faced a near-death experience, the third of its 53-year history. Its survival and resilience is a testament not just to its size but to the multiple, vital roles Medicaid plays in the health care system, and its ability to adapt to emerging population health needs. It can take an existential threat to make these indispensable qualities clear.

The confluence of racial unrest and Medicaid expansion in Virginia should inspire a national reimagining of how health care can contribute to health equity. Hospitals in particular can leverage their role as economic drivers in communities to equalize health and social outcomes for all. The urgent need for innovative opioid intervention presents a fertile proving ground for new ways that hospitals can act to reduce the impact of racial inequity. Inspired by the role hospitals played to achieve desegregation during the (...) Civil Rights era, this essay proposes an integrated approach to use Medicaid expansion to advance health and racial healing in America. (shrink)

The U.S. and Canadian health care systems are more similar than is commonly believed. This article debunks some of the powerful myths about these health care systems and opens up the discussion for greater policy learning from both sides of the border. Cross-border comparisons can yield a number of lessons from common policy challenges such as cost control, physician organization and payment, and the organization of health coverage and services for Native Americans and Indigenous Canadians.

This article examines the past, present, and future of individual market policies in the Affordable Care Act. It does so, first, by reviewing the law's goals, scope, and set of individual market policies, collectively called the Health Insurance Marketplace. The Marketplace, along with the ACA's Medicaid expansion, was designed to fill in gaps to provide all Americans with accessible, affordable coverage. Second, it reviews evidence on the law's impact to date, including changes under a new administration. Third, it discusses the (...) three main policy options for the Marketplace: do nothing, build on it, or replace it. Lastly, it discusses the factors which could determine which pathway policy makers follow. (shrink)

Many observers have argued that the US health care system could be more efficient, and achieve better outcomes if providers focused more on improving the community's health, not just the welfare of individual patients. The passage of the Affordable Care Act in 2010 seemed to herald the promise of such reforms, and greater integration of the health care and public systems. In this article, we reassess the quest for integration, a quest we call the “integration project.” After examining the modest (...) steps taken so far toward integration, we consider some conceptual barriers to integration as well as some of the risks it might portend for the public health system. Our assessment contributes to wide-ranging debates among public health advocates, practitioners, and policymakers as to the health care system's role in protecting public health, and how the public health system can best be organized to meet expected population health challenges. (shrink)

The Trump Administration has exposed both the durability and vulnerability of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act's insurance reforms. One of the Administration's first strikes at “Obamacare” was to discontinue federal government payment of cost-sharing reductions, which insurers pay to low-income enrollees on the exchanges to reduce their out-of-pocket share of medical spending. The states struck back with a clever solution that could hold insurers and enrollees harmless. This article examines this strategy and why, while impressive, it reaffirms larger (...) problems with the ACA's market-based approach to health reform and the need for new pathways forward. (shrink)

The author, a health insurance industry leader and a prominent voice in the national reform debate, shares his perspective on attempts to transform health care over nearly a decade. He advocates for a bipartisan solution to stabilize the health insurance market in the near term, and for private sector innovation in partnership with government to create sustainable long-term change. He encourages ASLME members to continue to lend their expertise to the process of transformation.

This essay questions the wisdom of adherence to an indulgent approach to vertical integration in health care. It first critiques the bases for antitrust law's traditional tolerance of vertical integration and describes contemporary economic learning that supports more robust antitrust enforcement. It goes on to dispute arguments urging extra caution in dealing with the health care sector and concludes with several justifications for close scrutiny of vertical health sector mergers.

The next steps in health reform, like all such efforts before it, will have to engage the issue of American health care federalism – the relationship between the federal and state governments in the realm of health law and policy. Since its enactment in 2010, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act has offered a robust example of modern federalism and revealed new complexities. This article recounts the findings of our five-year study of the federalist and nationalist features of ACA (...) implementation. Contrary to the claims of ACA opponents that the law marked a federal “takeover,” the ACA's governance structures have advanced rather than suppressed state power. But we also found that the advances in state power occurred seemingly independently of the statute's structural arrangements; that is, the ACA's nationalist and federalist features both enhanced state power over health policy. These findings raise questions about whether cherished American federalism values are unique to federalist structures; they also raise the question of what exactly health care federalism is for, and why we continue to design health policy with federalism front and center. It is not clear that enhanced state power has brought better health policy. If it has not, is federalism for its own sake worth the trade-off? (shrink)

Creating a single national health insurance pool is not likely to destabilize the economy by supplanting the private health insurance industry. This industry insures a relatively small percentage of the population and holds very little of the risk such insurance implies. In effect, insurance companies function as middlemen, bundling risk packages to distribute to other, larger companies and so serve a limited purpose. Were insurers to handle claims for a national pool as they do for the Medicare program, any destabilization (...) to the economy more broadly would be further minimized. (shrink)

The incredible complexity of the United States health care system can be connected to three simple outcomes: access, affordability, and quality. We should measure our progress against these three measures. While historic progress on access was made through implementation of the Affordable Care Act, the next area of focus for more results across all three measures is delivery system reform.

Health care costs and affordability are critical issues to consumers. Just as we assess the coverage impacts of a health reform proposal, we should be able to evaluate how the plan will constrain health care costs: its theory of cost control. This essay provides a framework to assess health reform plans on their theories of cost control, identifying the key policy tools to constrain health care costs organized in a two-by-two matrix across the following dimensions: price vs. utilization and public (...) vs. private payers. It then applies the framework to the Affordable Care Act and the Republican's 2017 legislative efforts to repeal and replace the ACA to identify their general theories of cost control, revealing on the plans' strengths, blind spots, and incoherence. (shrink)