Source: Commonwealth Fund, Columbia Journalism Review, May 2010 supplement
From the summary:
This supplement to the May/June 2010 issue of the Columbia Journalism Review serves as a resource for journalists from The Commonwealth Fund.
Newly enacted national health reform will begin, almost immediately, to transform the U.S. health care system in ways large and small. The changes will increase the number of people with health insurance, and affect how many of us obtain coverage, how care is paid for and delivered, and how it is regulated. The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010 preserves the current private-public system of employer-based coverage, Medicare, and Medicaid and creates income-based subsidies to make coverage affordable to low- and middle-income families without employer coverage.
Source: Amanda Cassidy, Health Affairs and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, Health Policy Brief, April 30, 2010
From the summary:
Newly enacted health reform legislation mandates dozens of health insurance changes. Many go into effect this year and next.
In March 2010, Congress enacted substantial health reform measures intended to increase access to affordable insurance, reduce the number of uninsured people, and reform both the health insurance market and the health care delivery system. The lion’s share of these reforms will take effect in 2014. However, some reforms go into effect well before that time.
This new policy brief from Health Affairs and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, the near-term effects of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act are examined and enumerated, providing context for key immediate reforms to the private health insurance market that will take effect in 2010 and 2011.
Source: Hirsh Health Law and Policy program of the George Washington University School of Public Health and Health Services and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, 2010
Welcome to Health Reform GPS, a joint project of the Hirsh Health Law and Policy program of the George Washington University School of Public Health and Health Services and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation.
The purpose of this web site is to track health reform from enactment through implementation, through notes, expert and public commentary and key documents. This site will grow and expand as the legislation and its implementation unfolds.
Source: Lena M. Chen, Ashish K. Jha, Stuart Guterman, Abigail B. Ridgway, E. John Orav, Arnold M. Epstein, Archives of Internal Medicine, Vol. 170 no. 4, 2010
From the abstract:
Background: Hospitals face increasing pressure to lower cost of care while improving quality of care. It is unclear if efforts to reduce hospital cost of care will adversely affect quality of care or increase downstream inpatient cost of care.
Conclusions: The associations are inconsistent between hospitals’ cost of care and quality of care and between hospitals’ cost of care and mortality rates. Most evidence did not support the “penny wise and pound foolish” hypothesis that low-cost hospitals discharge patients earlier but have higher readmission rates and greater downstream inpatient cost of care.
Decreasing Hospital Costs While Maintaining Quality: Can It Be Done?
Source: Karen Davis, Kristof Stremikis, Commonwealth Fund Blog, December 21, 2009
The U.S. Congress is on the threshold of historic change that will usher in a new era in American health care. In the last 50 years, three presidents–Nixon, Carter, and Clinton–have made a serious effort to enact reform and failed. The nation simply can not afford to fail again–too much is at stake for those Americans who fail to get the life-saving care they need and for those who pay the bills of ever-rising cost of health care. History makes clear that failing to act on health reform has serious and far-reaching economic ramifications. An examination of trends in health spending over the past 50 years shows that if health reform measures proposed by previous presidents had been enacted and slowed the growth in spending by as little as 1.0 or 1.5 percentage points annually, spending trends in the U.S. would have been closer to those seen in other major industrialized countries and fewer adverse health consequences and economic burdens would have been borne by American families, businesses, and government.
Source: Matthew Buettgens and Linda J. Blumberg, Urban Institute, February 2010
From a Robert Wood Johnson Foundation summary:
Many low-income workers would be prevented from accessing subsidies under current health reform proposals if they are offered employer-sponsored health insurance (ESI). Thus, some low-income families would not benefit from the reforms as much as others.
Source: Ken Jacobs, William H. Dow, Dave Graham-Squire and Laurel Tan, Center for Labor Research and Education at UC Berkeley, Issue Brief, February 2010
This report examines the impact that the proposed Senate excise tax on high-cost employer health plans would have on union and non-union workers. The report finds that the vast majority of workers that would be affected by a tax on health benefits that cost above a certain threshold are not covered by a union contract. Non-union workers would receive a much larger share of the savings from the reduced excise tax that was negotiated between the White House and labor leaders in January.
Source: Howard Gleckman, Commonwealth Fund, Volume 1368, February 17, 2010
From the summary:
Broad health care reform legislation being considered by Congress would effect a major change in the way the United States finances long-term care. This paper reviews the experiences of France, Germany, Japan, the Netherlands, and the United Kingdom, and highlights some of the lessons the United States can learn from each.
Source: Stephen Blakely, Employee Benefit Research Institute, EBRI Issue Brief no. 339, February 2010
Since the vast majority of Americans who have health coverage get it through their jobs, one obvious question raised by the health reform legislation pending in Congress is: How might it affect the U.S. employment-based health benefits system? At a recent day-long conference sponsored by EBRI, more than a dozen experts from a wide range of specialties found consensus on one point: Imposing a tax on health benefits (such as the proposed tax on so-called “Cadillac” health plans) is likely to cause major cuts in health benefits and might result in structural changes in the employment-based benefits system.