Junkerhaaning9528

The media has long wrestled with how to communicate the complex policies and politics that drove the implementation of the Affordable Care Act.The ACA has increased access to health care for vulnerable populations; decreased the percentage of Americans who say they went without care due to cost; and spurred America's insurers, hospitals, and clinicians to change how they deliver and pay for health care. At the same time, the ACA has been challenged in the courts of justice and public opinion.Large disparities in health insurance coverage and access to health services have long persisted in the US health care system. We considered how the insurance coverage expansions of the Affordable Care Act have affected disparities related to race and ethnicity. In the years since the law went into effect, insurance coverage has increased significantly for all racial/ethnic groups. Because coverage increased more for non-Hispanic blacks and Hispanics than for non-Hispanic whites, disparities in coverage have decreased. Despite these improvements, a large number of adults remain uninsured, and the uninsurance rate among blacks and Hispanics is substantially higher than the rate among whites.Providing high-quality primary care is key to improving health care in the United States. The Affordable Care Act sharpened the emerging focus on primary care as a critical lever to use in improving health care delivery, lowering costs, and improving the quality of care. We describe primary care delivery system reform models that were developed and tested over the past decade by the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation-which was created by the Affordable Care Act-and reflect on key lessons and remaining challenges. Considerable progress has been made in understanding how to implement and support different approaches to improving primary care delivery in that decade, though evaluations showed little progress in spending or quality outcomes. This may be because none of the models was able to test substantial increases in primary care payment or strong incentives for other providers to coordinate with primary care to reduce costs and improve quality.The Affordable Care Act promoted payment reforms directly and through the creation of the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation, which it endowed with the authority to introduce Alternative Payment Models (APMs) into Medicare and Medicaid. We conducted a narrative review of these payment reforms, finding that several programs generated modest savings while maintaining or improving the quality of care, but they had high dropout rates. In general, evidence for other APMs is less conclusive, and whether the reforms spurred similar changes in the private sector remains anecdotal. Despite challenges, APMs provide incentives for efficient care provision and offer providers a way to succeed financially in an environment with slowly rising fee-for-service prices. Thus, we consider the Affordable Care Act's payment reforms to be modestly successful, and we encourage both the purging of initiatives that aren't working and the continued development and study of promising ones.The Affordable Care Act contained a range of provisions that altered prescription drug access and affordability for patients, payers, and providers. Yet the act stopped short of instituting systemic changes in the pricing of drugs, in part to address concerns that more fundamental changes might disrupt the development of new medicines. Looking back a decade after the Affordable Care Act became law, we found that new drug approvals have accelerated and the therapeutic advances embodied in some novel medicines are substantial-as are the prices that companies are charging for them. The lack of affordability of prescription drugs has become an increasing challenge for American patients and payers, particularly those with limited budgets. In this article we consider how things have changed in the past decade and how missed opportunities in the Affordable Care Act's passage figure prominently in the current drug pricing debate.Numerous provisions of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) were designed to make health care more affordable, yet the act's cumulative effects on health care costs are still debated. A key question is whether or not the ACA reduced the annual rate at which total national health care spending increased and brought per capita spending growth rates down. We review the direct and indirect effects of the ACA on spending across segments of the health insurance market. We highlight areas where the ACA has affected spending, but we emphasize that the ACA's long-run impact on spending will depend on sustaining the adjustments made to provider payment systems and expanding the emphasis on value across payers throughout the ACA's second decade and beyond.The Affordable Care Act required most people to obtain health insurance or pay a tax penalty. Legislation enacted in December 2017 effectively repealed that requirement, starting in 2019. NSC 640488 This article reviews recent research on the mandate's effects, concluding that the mandate meaningfully increased insurance coverage, but likely by less than was projected before implementation. These coverage gains are likely to erode as mandate repeal takes hold. Looking ahead, policy makers have many options for expanding insurance coverage without restoring an individual mandate. However, achieving universal coverage without some form of mandatory individual contribution to health insurance would have a very large fiscal cost.The Affordable Care Act (ACA) significantly improved health insurance coverage in the US, but too many Americans remain under- or uninsured. This article examines federal strategies under consideration that build on the ACA to extend comprehensive coverage to all low-income Americans and increase coverage affordability for middle-income Americans. For low-income Americans these policy options include extending the enhanced match rate offered to states that expanded eligibility for Medicaid in the early years of the ACA to states that have not yet expanded Medicaid and increasing Marketplace cost-sharing subsidies. To address the issue of affordability for middle-income Americans, this article considers options for lowering premiums (for example, extending tax credits to people with incomes above the current eligibility threshold, increasing the generosity of tax credits for those currently eligible, and making reinsurance permanent), lowering cost sharing (such as tying premium tax credits to the second-lowest-cost gold plan rather than the equivalent silver plan and extending federal assistance for cost sharing to people with incomes above the current threshold), and establishing a public option.These leaders celebrate the ACA's successes, reflect on its shortcomings, and explain the politics that led to passage of the landmark act.The Affordable Care Act was designed to provide financial protection to Americans in their use of the health care system. This required addressing two intertwined problems cost barriers to accessing coverage and care, and barriers to comprehensive risk protection provided by insurance. link2 We reviewed the evidence on whether the law was effective in achieving these goals. link3 We found that the Affordable Care Act generated substantial, widespread improvements in protecting Americans against the financial risks of illness. The coverage expansions reduced uninsurance rates, especially relative to earlier forecasts; improved access to care; and lowered out-of-pocket spending. The insurance market reforms also made it easier for people to get and stay enrolled in coverage and ensured that those who were insured had true financial risk protection. But subsequent court decisions and congressional and executive branch actions have left millions uninsured and allowed the risk of inadequate insurance to resurface.The Affordable Care Act's Medicaid expansion provided insurance coverage to many low-income adults with substance use disorders, but it is unclear whether this led to more people receiving treatment. We used the Treatment Episode Data Set and a difference-in-differences approach to compare annual rates of specialty treatment admissions in expansion versus nonexpansion states in the period 2010-17. We found that admissions to treatment steadily increased in the four years after Medicaid expansion, with 36 percent more people entering treatment by the fourth expansion year in expansion states compared to nonexpansion states. Changes were largest for people entering intensive outpatient programs and those seeking medication treatment for opioid use disorder. The share of admissions paid for by Medicaid increased 23 percentage points in expansion states compared to nonexpansion states, largely displacing treatment paid for by state and local governments. The gradual increase in specialty substance use disorder treatment admissions after Medicaid expansion may reflect improving capacity and access to care.A patient and student with severe asthma chases adequate insurance coverage until the Affordable Care Act provides something more.Women of working age (ages 19-64) faced specific challenges in obtaining health insurance coverage and health care before the Affordable Care Act. Multiple factors contributed to women's experiencing uninsurance, underinsurance, and increased financial burdens related to obtaining health care. This literature review summarizes evidence on the law's effects on women's health care and health and finds improvements in overall coverage, access to health care, affordability, preventive care use, mental health care, use of contraceptives, and perinatal outcomes. Despite major progress after the Affordable Care Act's implementation, barriers to coverage, access, and affordability remain, and serious threats to women's health still exist. Highlighting the law's effects on women's health is critical for informing future policies directed toward the continuing improvement of women's health care and health.Eight years after the US Supreme Court's landmark decision in National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius, more than two million of the nation's poorest working-age adults continue to feel its effects. These are the people who, because of the decision, remain without a pathway to affordable health insurance coverage because they live in a state that has not expanded Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act (ACA). Closing the coverage gap created by NFIB v. Sebelius represents the ACA's most pressing piece of unfinished business. Several options, which vary in cost and political complexity, exist for closing the gap in ways that respect the ACA's pluralistic approach to insurance coverage while adhering to constitutional principles. These considerations must be balanced against the urgency of the problem and the fact that, constitutionally speaking, Medicaid alone can no longer guarantee a national remedy to the fundamental issue of health insurance inequality for the poorest Americans.The vision of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) for a reformed individual health insurance market included requirements and incentives for insurers to manage risk instead of avoiding it, minimum standards for coverage adequacy, income-related subsidies, managed competition through health insurance Marketplaces, and new programs to promote insurer competition. Against this vision, we assessed how insurance markets evolved between 2014 and 2019, using metrics such as premium changes, insurer participation, and enrollment. We also assessed how federal and state policy choices during the implementation of the ACA may have affected market performance. The article closes with an assessment of recent federal-level policy choices and the evidence to date about their effect on insurance markets, together with a discussion of how market experience under the ACA can inform policy makers who seek to further expand consumers' access to affordable, comprehensive coverage.