David Muhlestein, Robert Saunders, et al.
June 28, 2017
Many rural Americans helped Donald Trump win the 2016 presidential election. Now, how can health funders be useful to people in rural parts of the United States? In this commentary, the author suggests ten ways to be a better rural health funder.
Since the first quarter of 2016, 138 new ACOs began operation, and 46 ACOs dropped their accountable care contracts, representing 11 percent growth.
With the potential for increased coverage of eating disorder treatment through parity clarification and appropriate federal regulations, there will be a burgeoning interest in quality performance from regulators, payers, and the public.
Forty-nine counties including 36,000 active exchange participants currently have no insurers offering coverage through the exchanges for 2018.
The unmistakable hallmark of these bills, however, is that they constitute a very cruel war on the poor. By far, no demographic group would be hurt more by these legislative proposals than low-income people.
Owning 70 percent AV on a partisan basis was a bad idea. Owning 58 percent AV on a partisan basis is worse. The political challenge of this policy issue remains one more reason why Americans would be better off if bipartisan health care reform could ever be achieved.
States approved for a Medicaid block grant would not be required to cover the EPSDT, which allows children to receive comprehensive screenings, immunizations, laboratory tests (including blood lead level testing), vital health education, and vision, dental, and hearing services.
The CBO projects that the Senate GOP health reform bill would reduce spending over the period of 2017-2026 by $321 billion. It would also, however, reduce coverage by about 22 million people by 2026, and would increase the cost and decrease the value of coverage for lower-income and older people.
The new Senate amendment would allow an insurer in the individual market to impose a waiting period of six months on an enrollee who had had a gap in coverage of 63 days or more during the preceding 12 months.
From the lens of economics, we draw an analogy to per capita payments in health insurance markets and explain how the currently proposed reforms threaten the core programmatic purpose of Medicaid by incentivizing states to limit care and coverage to the states’ most vulnerable residents.