Skoujoseph7201

Copyright © 2020 by Duke University Press.The passage and initial implementation of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) were imperiled by partisan divisions, court challenges, and the quagmire of federalism. In the aftermath of Republican efforts to repeal the ACA, however, the law not only carries on but also is changing the nature of political debate as its benefits are facilitating increased support for it, creating new constituents who rely on its benefits and share intense attachments to them, and lifting the confidence of Americans in both their individual competence to participate effectively in politics and that government will respond. Critics from the Left and the Right differ on their favored remedy, but both have failed to appreciate the qualitative shifts brought on by the ACA; this myopia results from viewing reform as a fixed endpoint instead of a process of evolution over time. The result is that conservatives have been blind to the widening network of support for the ACA, while those on the left have underestimated health reform's impact in broadening recognition of medical care as a right of citizenship instead of a privilege earned in the workplace. The forces that constrained the ACA's development still rage in American politics, but they no longer dictate its survival as they did during its passage in 2010. Copyright © 2020 by Duke University Press.The fight over health insurance exchanges epitomizes the rapid evolution of health reform politics in the decade since the passage of the Affordable Care Act (ACA). The ACA's drafters did not expect the exchanges to be contentious because they would expand private insurance coverage to low- and middle-income individuals who were increasingly unable to obtain employer-sponsored health insurance. Instead, exchanges became one of the primary fronts in the war over Obamacare. Have the exchanges been successful? The answer is not straightforward and requires a historical perspective through a federalism lens. What the ACA has accomplished has depended largely on whether states were invested in or resistant to implementation, as well as individual decisions by state leaders working with federal officials. Our account demonstrates that the states that have engaged with the ACA most consistently appear to have experienced greater exchange-related success. But each aspect of states' engagement with or resistance to the ACA must be counted to fully paint this picture, with significant variation among states. This variation should give pause to those considering next steps in health reform, because state variation can mean innovation and improvement but also lack of coverage, disparities, and diminished access to care. Copyright © 2020 by Duke University Press.Despite its passage a decade ago, the Affordable Care Act (ACA) remains a politically divisive law. These political divisions have long been on display in Congress, in the White House, and in states. A long-standing stalemate in Congress-where Republicans cannot repeal the law and Democrats cannot improve it-has emboldened efforts by the executive branch to act unilaterally to implement, or undermine, the ACA. In turn, the law's opponents and supporters have turned to the courts to promote their favored policy agendas through both broadside attacks on the law and targeted challenges to its implementation. Litigation has become politics pursued through other means. These challenges have often been brought, or opposed, by state attorneys general and governors, with red-state coalitions facing off against blue-state coalitions. ACA litigation has also been characterized by forum shopping, nationwide injunctions, and questions about the court as a truly adversarial forum. This article briefly reviews the history of ACA litigation, discusses these legal norms in the context of the historic health reform law, and considers the implications of this history and the changing judiciary for future health reform efforts. Copyright © 2020 by Duke University Press.The Affordable Care Act (ACA) is in many ways a success. Millions more Americans now have access to health care, and the ACA catalyzed advances in health care delivery reform. Simultaneously, it has reinforced and bolstered a problem at the heart of American health policy and regulation a love affair with choice. The ACA's insurance reforms doubled down on the particularly American obsession with choice. This article describes three ways in which that doubling down is problematic for the future of US health policy. First, pragmatically, health policy theory predicts that choice among health plans will produce tangible benefits that it does not actually produce. Most people do not like choosing among health plan options, and many people-even if well educated and knowledgeable-do not make good choices. Second, creating the regulatory structures to support these choices built and reinforced a massive market bureaucracy. Finally, and most important, philosophically and sociologically the ACA reinforces the idea that the goal of health regulation should be to preserve choice, even when that choice is empty. This vicious cycle seems likely to persist based on the Democratic debates leading up to the 2020 presidential election. Copyright © 2020 by Duke University Press.Many argue that the frustrated implementation of the 2010 Affordable Care Act (ACA) stems from the unprecedented level of political polarization that has surrounded the legislation. This article draws attention to the law's "institutional DNA" as a source of political struggle in the 50 states. As designed, in the context of US federalism, the law fractured authority in ways that has opened up the possibility of contestation and confusion. SR-717 mouse The successful implementation of the ACA varies not only across state lines but also across the various components of the law. In particular, opponents of the ACA have experienced their greatest successes when they could take advantage of weak preexisting policy legacies, high levels of institutional fragmentation, and negative public sentiments. As argued in this article, the fragmented patterns of health care politics in the 50 states identified in previous research have largely persisted during the Trump administration. Moreover, while Republicans were unsuccessful at repealing the legislation, the administration has taken advantage of its structural deficiencies to further weaken the legislation's capacity to expand access to affordable, quality health insurance.