Bridging the Gulf on Health Care Policy Beyond the Affordable Care Act

This article presents a brief overview of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) and changes ushered into the health care system by the Act. The overview is followed by arguments for and against the ACA, integrating and situating the divergent arguments within the context of both democratic and conservative standpoints on health care policy. Furthermore, the article explores the possibility of identifying factors responsible for the seeming difficulty in transiting policy from agenda status to adoption in a democratic system of governance. The article concludes with suggestions on ways and strategies that can help in bridging the ostensible gap between divergent positions, with the hope of charting the course to the desired destination of an equitable and sustainable health care policy for the United States.

PEDIATRICS ◽  
1991 ◽  
Vol 88 (5) ◽  
pp. 1051-1051
Author(s):  
STUDENT

The proportion of children in the United States without private or public health insurance increased from roughly 13 percent to 18 percent between 1977 and 1987, according to a new study by the Agency for Health Care Policy and Research (AHCPR). The growth in the proportion of uninsured children in poor and low-income families over the decade was even more dramatic—it rose from 21 percent to 31 percent.


2018 ◽  
Vol 46 (4) ◽  
pp. 825-828 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sylvia Mathews Burwell

The incredible complexity of the United States health care system can be connected to three simple outcomes: access, affordability, and quality. We should measure our progress against these three measures. While historic progress on access was made through implementation of the Affordable Care Act, the next area of focus for more results across all three measures is delivery system reform.


Author(s):  
Jeanine Kraybill

The American Catholic Church has a long history in health care. At the turn of 19th century, Catholic nuns began developing the United States’ first hospital and health care systems, amassing a high level of professionalization and expertise in the field. The bishops also have a well-established record advocating for healthcare, stemming back to 1919 with the Bishops’ Program for Social Reconstruction, which called for affordable and comprehensive care, particularly for the poor and vulnerable. Moving into the latter part of the 20th century, the bishops continued to push for health care reform. However, in the aftermath of Roe v. Wade (1973), the American bishops insisted that any reform or form of universal health care be consistent with the Church’s teaching against abortion, contraception, and euthanasia. The bishops were also adamant that health care policy respect religious liberty and freedom of conscience. In 1993, these concerns caused the bishops to pull their support for the Clinton Administration’s Health Security Act, since the bill covered abortion as a medical and pregnancy-related service. The debate over health care in the 1990s served as a precursor for the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops’ (USCCB) opposition to the Obama Administration’s Affordable Care Act (ACA) and the Department of Health and Human Services’ (HHS) contraception mandate. The ACA also highlighted a divide within the Church on health care among religious leaders. For example, progressive female religious leadership organizations, such as the Leadership Conference of Women Religious (LCWR) and their affiliate NETWORK (a Catholic social justice lobby), took a different position than the bishops and supported the ACA, believing it had enough protections against federally funded abortion. Though some argue this divide lead to institutional scrutiny of the sisters affiliated with the LCWR and NETWORK, both the bishops and the nuns have held common ground on lobbying the government for affordable, comprehensive, and universal health care.


2020 ◽  
Vol 45 (4) ◽  
pp. 677-691
Author(s):  
Holly Jarman ◽  
Scott L. Greer

Abstract International comparisons of US health care are common but mostly focus on comparing its performance to peers or asking why the United States remains so far from universal coverage. Here the authors ask how other comparative research could shed light on the unusual politics and structure of US health care and how the US experience could bring more to international conversations about health care and the welfare state. After introducing the concept of casing—asking what the Affordable Care Act (ACA) might be a case of—the authors discuss different “casings” of the ACA: complex legislation, path dependency, demos-constraining institutions, deep social cleavages, segmentalism, or the persistence of the welfare state. Each of these pictures of the ACA has strong support in the US-focused literature. Each also cases the ACA as part of a different experience shared with other countries, with different implications for how to analyze it and what we can learn from it. The final section discusses the implications for selecting cases that might shed light on the US experience and that make the United States look less exceptional and more tractable as an object of research.


2018 ◽  
Vol 4 (2) ◽  
pp. 234-254 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lorraine Frisina Doetter ◽  
Stefano Neri

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document