In a push to encourage “personal responsibility,” the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) has approved work requirements as a condition for receiving Medicaid benefits in four states - Kentucky, Indiana, Arkansas, and most recently New Hampshire, with applications from other states pending. In a new JAMA Viewpoint, Harald Schmidt and Allison Hoffman review the implications and ethics of Medicaid work requirements and other personal responsibility policies. They propose safeguards CMS should consider to minimize risk and protect beneficiaries’ health.
New policies and technologies can empower pediatric clinicians and pediatric health care systems to help parent smokers quit. Fortunately, new policies outside of the health care setting may help prevent smoking initiation, as well as improve cessation treatments. [This blog originally appeared on the PolicyLab at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia blog. View the original blog post here.]
Our colleagues at the Wharton Public Policy Initiative have released a new Issue Brief, The Economic Realities of Replacing the Affordable Care Act, by LDI Senior Fellow Hanming Fang, PhD. In it, Fang uses new a new model of labor and health insurance market dynamics to simulate the long-run effects of the ACA's mechanisms, thus shedding some much-needed light on the repeal-and-replace debate.
Mental health care has taken a back seat in the never-ending debate on health care reform. For individuals with psychiatric and developmental disabilities, aspects of the AHCA place their “future in jeopardy.”
We don’t yet know exactly how the bill would affect the number of people covered and the cost to the government. However, early impressions of the bill suggest fewer people will be covered. Many lower-wage workers would be priced out of health insurance entirely. Young and healthy people and those earning more money would be better off. However, older and lower-income individuals will generally be worse off. And every year that passes, consumers will be getting less help relative to the cost of health insurance.
March 9, 2017 [This post originally appeared on the PolicyLab at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia blog.]
Current proposals to simultaneously repeal the Affordable Care Act (ACA) and reform the federal Medicaid program would be devastating to children and young adults with disabilities and complex medical needs.
Despite making national headlines only relatively recently, the opioid problem been building for years and will take years to address. Tough questions must be asked and answered. Here's what the Philadelphia Department of Public Health is doing, and some of the questions needing study.
“Pay more for drugs that do more.” Although few would argue with the concept of paying for value, the mechanism for doing so has thus far eluded our multi-payer, market-based system. The Gant Precision Cancer Medicine Consortium at the University of Pennsylvania looked past US borders to learn about mechanisms in other countries, in its quest to recommend sustainable frameworks for valuing precision cancer drugs.
More Medicaid patients were able to schedule appointments with a primary care doctor after the Affordable Care Act’s (ACA) implementation than before. Given the millions of newly-insured Americans looking to secure primary care appointments, these results are an unexpected and welcome addition to the ongoing debate on health reform.
We recently convened an expert roundtable to tackle how health systems, payers, and providers can spur the ‘de-adoption’ of medical practices and technologies no longer considered valuable. This got us thinking - while the process by which ineffective practices or technologies are abandoned is neither simple nor automatic, even the language used to describe it is not clear. Here we review and clarify the terminology.
Should a patient’s level of cognitive function be considered when allocating scarce organs for transplantation? In a recent perspective in the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM), Scott Halpern and David Goldberg weigh in on the highly charged debate.