In this Health Affairs blog post, we review a number of trade-offs—between health spending and insurance expansion, between premium levels for the young and healthy and those for the sick and elderly, and between covering additional people and the extent of the insurance provided—that the ACA sought to navigate, ones that the AHCA and any new effort must also address.
After a shooting, a stabbing, a car crash, or a fall, emergency services rush an injured patient to the emergency room. They bypass the waiting room and come directly to a specialized area called the trauma bay, where a team of clinicians performs a fast, intense, full-body exam and initiates treatment for injury. How do patients experience this?
The drop in number of projects funded by the National Institutes of Health in the past 10 years obscures significant differences between institutes. And these differences speak volumes to changing research priorities within fields and specialties.
In a Perspective in the New England Journal of Medicine, Joshua Rolnick, David Asch, and Scott Halpern suggest that an advance directive should be understood primarily as a clinical document, rather than a legal one.
Although well-intentioned, government regulation has inadvertently provided manufacturers that repurpose old orphan drugs with significant market power. Sustainable solutions, whether based in public policy or market strategies, must address this unintended effect.
After the House passed the American Health Care Act (AHCA), I asked a few of our Senior Fellows to comment on the economic problems the AHCA is designed to fix, and the economic problems it might cause, all politics aside.
Tennessee Senators Lamar Alexander and Bob Corker have introduced the bill Health Care Options Act of 2017 (HCOA) that would allow consumers living in an area with no insurers on the public exchange to use their ACA premium tax credit in the off-exchange individual market. We asked some experts to reflect on the implications of this policy proposal.
In the second of a three-part forum, Terri Lipman, PhD, CRNP, Joan Gluch, PhD, RDH, and community partners discussed Penn Nursing and Penn Dental partnerships with Sayre Health Clinic as an example of how to integrate education, community involvement, and organizational support through collaboration with community-based organizations.
The failure of the House Republican proposal to repeal and replace Obamacare has turned the attention of Republican members of the Senate to devising an alternative that captures their somewhat more moderate preferences but still sticks to Republican promises to repeal the objectionable parts of the ACA. The most well developed version is the Patient Freedom Act (PFA), introduced by Senators Cassidy and Collins. While there is, in my opinion, much merit in the core idea of the bill—to turn back to the states the difficult job of finding a plan to cover many uninsured people at a cost to insurance buyers and taxpayers that will not blow their respective budgets—the problem as usual is the details. And the problem is that, despite persuasive criticism that the ACA was weighted down with far too many unneeded, controversial, or partisan regulations, the PFA takes much the same strategy, with prespecified insurance designs and rules for what qualifies for subsidies.
The drafters of the Orphan Drug Act did not likely foresee a world of precision medicine, in which many common diseases could be transformed into orphan ones by molecularly characterizing subsets that can be targeted with a specific drug. They did not foresee a time when seven of the top ten best-selling drugs had orphan designations. And they did not foresee a drug development product cycle in which more than 40% of all new approved drugs would have the orphan designation.