Assignment: Legislation Comparison Grid And Testimony/Advocacy Statement

Based on the health-related bill you selected, complete the Legislation Comparison Grid Template. Be sure to address the following:

• Determine the legislative intent of the bill you have reviewed.
• Identify the proponents/opponents of the bill.
• Identify the target populations addressed by the bill.
• Where in the process is the bill currently? Is it in hearings or committees?
• Is it receiving press coverage?

NRSE 6050 Policy and Advocacy for Improving Population Health

Week 4 Assignment

Assignment: Legislation Comparison Grid and Testimony/Advocacy Statement

As a nurse, how often have you thought to yourself, If I had anything to do about it, things would work a little differently? Increasingly, nurses are beginning to realize that they do, in fact, have a role and a voice.

Many nurses encounter daily experiences that motivate them to take on an advocacy role in hopes of impacting policies, laws, or regulations that impact healthcare issues of interest. Of course, doing so means entering the less familiar world of policy and politics. While many nurses do not initially feel prepared to operate in this space effectively, the reward is the opportunity to shape and influence future health policy. Assignment: Legislation Comparison Grid And Testimony/Advocacy Statement

To Prepare:

Select a bill that has been proposed (not one that has been enacted) using the congressional websites provided in the Learning Resources.

The Assignment: (1- to 2-page Comparison Grid; 1- to 2-page Legislation Testimony/Advocacy Statement)

Part 1: Legislation Comparison Grid

Based on the health-related bill (proposed, not enacted) you selected, complete the Legislation Comparison Grid Template. Be sure to address the following:

• Determine the legislative intent of the bill you have reviewed.
• Identify the proponents/opponents of the bill.
• Identify the target populations addressed by the bill.
• Where in the process is the bill currently? Is it in hearings or committees?
• Is it receiving press coverage?

Part 2: Legislation Testimony/Advocacy Statement

Based on the health-related bill you selected, develop a 1- to 2-page Legislation Testimony/Advocacy Statement that addresses the following:

• Advocate a position for the bill you selected and write testimony in support of your position.
• Describe how you would address the opponent to your position. Be specific and provide examples.
• Recommend at least one amendment to the bill in support of your position.

By Day 7 of Week 4

Submit your completed legislation comparison grid and testimony/advocacy statement.

Submission and Grading Information

To submit your completed Assignment for review and grading, do the following:

• Please save your Assignment using the naming convention “WK4Assgn+last name+first initial.(extension)” as the name.
• Click the Week 4 Assignment Rubric to review the Grading Criteria for the Assignment.
• Click the Week 4 Assignment link. You will also be able to “View Rubric” for grading criteria from this area.
• Next, from the Attach File area, click on the Browse My Computer button. Find the document you saved as “WK4Assgn+last name+first initial.(extension)” and click Open.
• If applicable: From the Plagiarism Tools area, click the checkbox for I agree to submit my paper(s) to the Global Reference Database.
• Click on the Submit button to complete your submission.

Learning Resources

Note: To access this week’s required library resources, please click on the link to the Course Readings List, found in the Course Materials section of your Syllabus.

Required Readings

1 Milstead, J. A., & Short, N. M. (2019). Health policy and politics: A nurse’s guide (6th ed.). Burlington, MA: Jones & Bartlett Learning.

• Chapter 3, “Government Response: Legislation” (pp. 37–56)
• Chapter 10, “Overview: The Economics and Finance of Health Care” (pp. 180–183 only)

2 https://www.congress.gov/

3 Taylor, D., Olshansky, E., Fugate-Woods, N., Johnson-Mallard, V., Safriet, B. J., & Hagan, T. (2017). Corrigendum to position statement: Political interference in sexual and reproductive health research and health professional education. Nursing Outlook, 65(2), 346–350. doi:10.1016/j.outlook.2017.05.003

Note: You will access this article from the Walden Library databases.

4 https://www.house.gov/

5 https://www.senate.gov/

6 https://www.senate.gov/reference/org_chart.htm

Testimony/Advocacy Statement

Good afternoon.  My name is Erin Littlepage, and today I will be discussing the importance of passing the H.R.4769 bill, also known as the Medicare Prescription Drug Savings and Choice Act of 2019.  Compared to other highly developed countries with decent healthcare, the United States has substantially higher prices for the cost of drugs.  There are many bills that have been introduced to the House of Representatives in order to combat these high prices that we as Americans face every day, and the Medicare Prescription Drug Savings and Choice Act of 2019 bill is especially important.

Under the current administration, as of December 18, 2019, Donald Trump has announced plans to allow states to purchase prescription medications from Canada to help lower the costs of Americans purchasing their medications.   The fact that our medications are so expensive, we must go to another country to purchase prescription drugs is a disturbing fact.  However, if the plan goes into action, the Medicare expenses will be lowered from state to state which would be a huge push in the right direction of lowering our prescription drug costs (Williams, 2019).

There are opponents to the bill, unfortunately.  Large drug companies must increase the prices of medications in order to make a profit for themselves.  This does not benefit the American consumer, however.  So many Americans fail to take their medications as prescribed by their provider because they do not have the money to pay for them.

I have worked on Medical Surgical units for my entire nursing career, and the amount of admissions and readmissions based on the mere fact that the patient cannot afford their drugs, and come in with acute symptoms that could be regulated with medication administration, is astounding.  While it appears as if the pharmaceutical companies will just continue increasing their drug prices, I think the only way to address these opponents is to have this bill and other bills related to drug pricing passed to Congress and have them take strong action to manage the issue.

An amendment I would propose in regard to this bill, is laid out in the Medicare Drug Price Negotiation act, which would allow the secretary of Health and Human Services to negotiate drug prices for drugs under Medicare.  This in turn, would lower drug prices.  Currently, the secretary of HHS is not permitted to negotiate on pricing so they must accept the numbers given by the pharmaceutical company.

In conclusion, the high prices of medications will continue to be an issue nationwide as long as Congress sits back and allows pharmaceutical companies to take advantage of innocent Americans.  The Medicare Prescription Drug Savings and Choice Act of 2019 will allow the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services to negotiate with pharmaceutical companies to keep pricing reasonable for drugs and offer alternatives medications that are of equal value, but of lower price.

These companies have time and time again shown their greed, and that a profit is more important than the life of American citizens.  This issue is long overdue to be solved and will continue until Congress takes a stand, starting with the passing of this bill and others related to the issue.

 References

• Pear, R. (2018, October 25). Trump Proposes to Lower Drug Prices by Basing Them on Other Countries’ Costs. Retrieved December 20, 2019, from https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/25/us/politics/medicare-prescription-drug-costs-trump.html.
• Prescription drug prices rising despite Trump pressure on Big Pharma. (2018, September 24). Retrieved December 20, 2019, from https://www.cbsnews.com/news/prescription-drug-prices-rising-despite-trump-pressure-on-big-pharma/.
• Schakowsky, J. D. (2019, October 21). H.R.4769 – 116th Congress (2019-2020): Medicare Prescription Drug Savings and Choice Act of 2019. Retrieved from https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-bill/4769?q={“search”:[“prescription+drugs”]}&s=7&r=5.
• Williams, L. (2019, December 18). Trump Plan Would Allow States To Buy Cheaper Prescription Drugs From Canada. Retrieved December 20, 2019, from https://www.ibtimes.com/trump-plan-would-allow-states-buy-cheaper-prescription-drugs-canada-2888113.

Read Also:

NURS 6050 Discussion 1: Evidence Base in Design

NURS 6050 Discussion 2: The Role of the RN/APRN in Policy-Making

NURS 6050 Assignment: Advocating for the Nursing Role in Program Design and Implementation

Regardless of geographical location, race, culture, and other factors, all populations deserve quality, timely, and affordable health. Besides, health care providers and stakeholders should devise interventions for health promotion and the protection of vulnerable communities. Health care policies are instrumental in health promotion since they outline guidelines for benefitting patients, communities, and health care providers (Wolstenholme & McKelvie, 2019). As a result, Congress and other law-making bodies formulate health promotion bills to advance health in the United States. The purpose of this paper is to evaluate a recently-proposed health-related bill and an advocacy statement supporting its legislation

Part 1: Legislation Grid

Part 2: Legislative Testimony/Advocacy Statement

Healthy populations are critical for a nation’s productivity and progressive economic well-being. The End Tuberculosis Now Act of 2022 will be instrumental to people’s health and well-being and should be quickly implemented. It will be crucial to health and well-being since it promotes preventive health, which helps to reduce deaths, disability, and health inequities (Franklin & Sleet, 2018). Besides, the bill applies a global approach to achieve internal health outcomes since it will advance measures for protecting Americans from foreign TB infections. Such an approach will further help the nation to achieve Healthy People 2030 goals.

TB rates vary with populations’ characteristics. Social determinants of income affect the legislation of the End Tuberculosis Now Act of 2022 since the variance in TB rates necessitates intervention programs specific to a population’s needs. Health research demonstrates a close link between TB and poverty since TB infections are high in low-income areas (Abou Jaoude et al., 2022). People living in low-income areas are likely to live in poorly ventilated and overcrowded conditions that are ideal for the spreading of TB bacteria. The rates of malnutrition and diseases such as HIV/AIDS are also high in low-income areas and increase TB resistance (Balinda et al., 2019). Such income-related outcomes necessitate adjustments in intervention measures since a universal approach cannot be used to promote health in populations with varying needs, vulnerabilities, and cultural practices.

Opponents should understand the implications of TB on populations, health care spending, and the progressive economic well-being of the nation. The best way to address them is through research and health statistics demonstrating the link between TB and adverse health outcomes. For instance, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (2020) reported that TB is the leading infectious disease in the world and claims approximately 1.5 million lives annually. As a result, multifaceted health promotion programs are vital. Abou Jaoude et al. (2022) stated that Stop TB Partnerships and health promotion programs have helped to reduce TB spending. Similar measures underlined in the End Tuberculosis Now Act of 2022 should be intensified to protect general and vulnerable populations.

 Conclusion

Health care bills advance health through more funding, advocacy, and the protection of special populations, among other strategies. Implementing the End Tuberculosis Now Act of 2022 will be instrumental in attaining healthy and productive populations. As a result, quick implementation of the bill is essential and more support from legislators is needed as well. The government should also supplement such interventions with other health promotion programs, particularly in vulnerable communities where TB rates are high.

 References

Abou Jaoude, G. J., Baena, I. G., Nguhiu, P., Siroka, A., Palmer, T., Goscé, L., … & Haghparast-Bidgoli, H. (2022). National tuberculosis spending efficiency and its associated factors in 121 low-income and middle-income countries, 2010–19: a data envelopment and stochastic frontier analysis. The Lancet Global Health, 10(5), e649-e660. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2214-109X(22)00085-7

Balinda, I. G., Sugrue, D. D., & Ivers, L. C. (2019). More than malnutrition: a review of the relationship between food insecurity and tuberculosis. Open forum infectious diseases, 6(4), ofz102. https://doi.org/10.1093/ofid/ofz102

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2020). Tuberculosis. https://www.cdc.gov/globalhealth/newsroom/topics/tb/index.html

Congress.gov. (2022). H.R. 8654– End Tuberculosis Now Act of 2022. https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/8654

Franklin, R. C., & Sleet, D. A. (2018). Injury prevention and health promotion: A global perspective. Health Promotion Journal of Australia: Official journal of Australian Association of Health Promotion Professionals, 29(2), 113–116. https://doi.org/10.1002/hpja.191

Kaiser Family Foundation. (2022). U.S. global health legislation tracker. https://www.kff.org/coronavirus-covid-19/fact-sheet/u-s-global-health-legislation-tracker/

Wolstenholme, E., & McKelvie, D. (2019).The dynamics of care: Understanding people flows in health and social care. Springer.

 Rubric Detail

Select Grid View or List View to change the rubric’s layout.

Grid View
List View

• Excellent
• Good
• Fair
• Poor

Federal and State Legislation

Part 1: Legislation Comparison Grid

Based on the health-related bill you selected, complete the Legislation Comparison Grid Template. Be sure to address the following:

• Determine the legislative intent of the bill you have reviewed.
• Identify the proponents/opponents of the bill.
• Identify the target populations addressed by the bill.
• Where in the process is the bill currently? Is it in hearings or committees?
• Is it receiving press coverage?

Points Range: 32 (32%) – 35 (35%)

• The response clearly and accurately summarizes in detail the legislative intent of the health-related bill.
• The response accurately identifies in detail the proponents and opponents of the health-related bill.
• The response accurately identifies in detail the populations targeted by the health-related bill.
• The response clearly and thoroughly describes in detail the current status of the health-related bill.

Points Range: 28 (28%) – 31 (31%)

• The response accurately summarizes the legislative intent of the health-related bill.
• The response accurately identifies the proponents and opponents of the health-related bill.
• The response accurately identifies the populations targeted by the health-related bill.
• The response accurately describes the current status of the health-related bill.

Points Range: 25 (25%) – 27 (27%)

• The response vaguely or inaccurately summarizes the legislative intent of the health-related bill.
• The response vaguely or inaccurately identifies the proponents and opponents of the health-related bill.
• The response vaguely or inaccurately identifies the populations targeted by the health-related bill.
• The response vaguely or inaccurately describes the current status of the health-related bill.

Points Range: 0 (0%) – 24 (24%)

• Summary of the legislative intent of the health-related bill is vague and inaccurate or is missing.
• Identification of the proponents and opponents of the health-related bill are vague and inaccurate or is missing.
• Identification of the populations targeted by the health-related bill is vague and inaccurate or is missing.
• The description of the current status of the health-related bill is vague and inaccurate or is missing.

Advocating for Legislation

Part 2: Legislation Testimony/Advocacy Statement

Based on the health-related bill you selected, develop a 1- to 2-page Legislation Testimony/Advocacy Statement that addresses the following:

• Advocate a position for the bill you selected and write testimony in support of your position.
• Describe how you would address the opponent to your position. Be specific and provide examples.
• Recommend at least one amendment to the bill in support of your position.

Points Range: 45 (45%) – 50 (50%)

• Testimony clearly and thoroughly provides statements that fully justifies a position for a health-related bill.
• Response provides a detailed, thorough, and logical explanation of how to address opponents to the position for the health-related bill and includes one or more clear and accurate supporting examples.
• A complete, detailed, and specific synthesis of two outside resources is provided. The response fully integrates at least 2 outside resources and 2-3 course specific resources that fully supports the responses provided.
• The response accurately and thoroughly recommends at least one amendment to the bill that fully supports the position.

Points Range: 40 (40%) – 44 (44%)

• Testimony clearly and accurately provides statements that somewhat justifies a position for a health-related bill.
• Response provides an accurate explanation of how to address opponents to the position for the health-related bill and may include at least one supporting example.
• An accurate synthesis of at least one outside resource is provided. The response integrates at least 1 outside resource and 2-3 course specific resources that may support the responses provided.
• The response accurately recommends at least one amendment to the bill that may support the position.

Points Range: 35 (35%) – 39 (39%)

• Testimony used to justify a position for a health-related bill is vague or inaccurate.
• Explanation of how to address the opponents to the position for the health-related bill is vague or inaccurate, lacks logic, and/or the supporting examples are vague or inaccurate.
• A vague or inaccurate synthesis of outside resources is provided. The response minimally integrates resources that may support the responses provided.
• The recommendation of an amendment to the bill in support of the position is inaccurate or incomplete.

Points Range: 0 (0%) – 34 (34%)

• Testimony used to justify a position for a health-related bill is vague and inaccurate, incomplete, or is missing.
• Explanation of how to address the opponents to the position for the health-related bill is vague and inaccurate, or is missing.
• A vague and inaccurate synthesis of no outside resources is provided, or is missing. The response fails to integrate any resources to support the responses provided.
• The recommendation of an amendment to the bill in support of the position is inaccurate and incomplete, or is missing.

Written Expression and Formatting – Paragraph Development and Organization:

Paragraphs make clear points that support well developed ideas, flow logically, and demonstrate continuity of ideas. Sentences are carefully focused–neither long and rambling nor short and lacking substance. A clear and comprehensive purpose statement and introduction is provided which delineates all required criteria.

Points Range: 5 (5%) – 5 (5%)

• Paragraphs and sentences follow writing standards for flow, continuity, and clarity.
• A clear and comprehensive purpose statement, introduction, and conclusion is provided which delineates all required criteria.

Points Range: 4 (4%) – 4 (4%)

• Paragraphs and sentences follow writing standards for flow, continuity, and clarity 80% of the time.
• Purpose, introduction, and conclusion of the assignment is stated, yet is brief and not descriptive.

Points Range: 3.5 (3.5%) – 3.5 (3.5%)

• Paragraphs and sentences follow writing standards for flow, continuity, and clarity 60%- 79% of the time.
• Purpose, introduction, and conclusion of the assignment is vague or off topic.

Points Range: 0 (0%) – 3 (3%)

• Paragraphs and sentences follow writing standards for flow, continuity, and clarity < 60% of the time.
• No purpose statement, introduction, or conclusion was provided.

Written Expression and Formatting – English writing standards:

Correct grammar, mechanics, and proper punctuation

Points Range: 5 (5%) – 5 (5%)

• Uses correct grammar, spelling, and punctuation with no errors.

Points Range: 4 (4%) – 4 (4%)

• Contains a few (1-2) grammar, spelling, and punctuation errors.

Points Range: 3.5 (3.5%) – 3.5 (3.5%)

• Contains several (3-4) grammar, spelling, and punctuation errors.

Points Range: 0 (0%) – 3 (3%)

• Contains many (≥ 5) grammar, spelling, and punctuation errors that interfere with the reader’s understanding.

Written Expression and Formatting

The paper follows correct APA format for title page, headings, font, spacing, margins, indentations, page numbers, parenthetical/in-text citations, and reference list.

Points Range: 5 (5%) – 5 (5%)

• Uses correct APA format with no errors.

Points Range: 4 (4%) – 4 (4%)

• Contains a few (1-2) APA format errors.

Points Range: 3.5 (3.5%) – 3.5 (3.5%)

• Contains several (3-4) APA format errors.

Points Range: 0 (0%) – 3 (3%)

• Contains many (≥ 5) APA format errors.

Total Points: 100

An Introduction to Health Policy and Law Program Transcript

JOEL TEITELBAUM: Politics plays a huge role in the development and implementation of health policy.

NARRATOR: Joel Teitelbaum is the associate professor and vice chair for academic affairs in the Department of Health Policy at the George Washington University. He’s also the school’s director of the Hirsch Health Law and Policy program. Professor Teitelbaum co-authored The Essentials of Health Policy and Law for students studying law and policy as a component of their public health studies.

As a university professor and an academic lawyer, Joel has influenced health policy and the policymaking process.

JOEL TEITELBAUM: Two of the three branches of government are by intent by design political. So the executive branch and the legislative branch, the two branches of government that are tasked with designing and implementing health policy and laws, are by their design political, because we elect them. They’re imbued with power as a result of federal and state elections.

So you from that starting point, you have to understand that anything that goes in the policy making and the legal process is going to be political. The Affordable Care Act, for example, passed without any Republicans signatures. And you can see, after it was passed and it’s being implemented that fully half of the states, most of them led by either Republican governors or legislatures, are actively challenging or ignoring the law.

So it’s clear that obviously politics is playing a very important role in both the design at the outset and now the implementation of the Affordable Care Act. Over the past century or so, there have been many examples of important health policies that have really changed the delivery of public health services in this country. I think a good starting point is with the Public Health Service Act in 1944, which at that point consolidated a lot of the health policies that were in existence and greatly expanded the role of the Public Health Service.

From there, you can look to the 1960s when we had the passage of Medicare and Medicaid, which of course gave health insurance and really did a lot to improve the public health for the elderly and for the disadvantaged and poor. The Community Health Center program, which has really influenced public health, was passed in 1965, was when the first health center opened.

From there, you can look at the Affordable Care Act of course in 2010. I think the Affordable Care Act has very much influenced the notion of health care as either a right or a privilege. I think it has taken us further away from the idea of health care as a privilege and closer to the idea of health care as a right. Now, the way that the Affordable Care Act mainly did this was through the creation and the regulation of new health insurance markets.

And there is clearly not a one to one correlation between having health insurance and health care as a right, because even with health insurance, there’s no guarantee that someone will get quality health care or any health care at all if they can’t access it. But I do you think that the Affordable Care Act has played a large role in helping the country move toward understanding that what it means to have an equitable and fair health care system means having access to insurance which then in many cases will then lead you to health care access.

Even after implementation of the Affordable Care Act, there’s going to be 10s of millions of people without insurance. So the idea that we’re somehow close even to universal insurance leading towards a right is still pretty far away. My experience in influencing health policy I think I can talk about in two different ways.

The first is what I have learned about what it means to be a health policy advocate or influential health policy maker or someone who can help influence the design of health policy. Broadly speaking, I think you have to have a lot of stamina, you have to be a very good team player understand that no one individual given the multifaceted nature of health policy making can have as great an influence as they can if they’re working with, say, lawyers and economists and others. I think you have to have a fertile political environment, because again, as we’ve seen, something like the Affordable Care Act barely even passed even though it is something we’ve been working toward for many, many decades in this country.

In terms of my own experience, my role in thinking about health policy and law and the research and teaching and writing that I’ve done has spanned several topical areas. I started off working on behavioral health care issues in law and policy– so substance abuse and mental health issues. That transformed into work around managed care law and policy, which then morphed into an interest that I brought the job which was health care civil rights, and after that into health care reform and implementation.

So along the way, I’ve been able I think to influence health policy in each one of those areas through articles, through presentations, I’ve testified before the DC council, I’ve written testimony for Congress. So there have been a lot of different ways I think as a university professor and as an academic lawyer that I’ve been able to influence the policy making process.

So what are some of the pearls and pitfalls of writing a health policy analysis? I’ll give you a handful. The first one is that you should not go into the writing a policy analysis with an outcome in mind. You’ve got to be open minded and be able to really take a look at what the data says, what the literature says, and be thinking creatively about what all the various options are, as opposed to going in with one outcome in mind.

The second thing is that the advice that you give, the final recommendation that you make to the policymaker, whoever that may be, has to be within that policymaker’s power to achieve. There’s no point in giving advice that there is no either political environment for or is within the power of the policymaker to actually carry out. Another one is that you have to address all sides of a policy issue.

When you’re writing a policy analysis, it’s not enough to look at two or three, even if they’re good, options. You have to address all sides of the issue. Otherwise, the policymaker won’t really be able to make an informed decision. You can’t be giving superficial advise. As the policy analyst, as the writer of a policy analysis, you have to be very well informed, oftentimes better informed than the policymaker him or herself.

It’s you they’re going to be relying on. And you have to be incredibly informed. So the giving of superficial advice is really something that you shouldn’t do in crafting a policy analysis. Oftentimes students forget in writing a policy analysis that giving the recommendation to do nothing is an option. In fact, it is an option.

So when what you’re doing is considering a policy question and thinking about what the options are, sometimes doing nothing, leaving things as they are, the status quo, is the best thing to do. A lot of times, students believe that they need to recommend a change just for change sake. I don’t think that’s always the best advice.

An Introduction to Health Policy and Law Additional Content Attribution

• Teitelbaum, J.B., & Wilensky, S.E. (2013). Essentials of Health Policy and Law (2nd Ed.). Burlington, MA: Jones & Bartlett Learning.

MUSIC:

• Creative Support Services Los Angeles, CA
• Dimension Sound Effects Library Newnan, GA
• Narrator Tracks Music Library Stevens Point, WI
• Signature Music, Inc Chesterton, IN
• Studio Cutz Music Library Carrollton, TX

Related Posts:

NURS 6050 Discussion: The Role of the RN/APRN in Policy Evaluation

NURS 6050 Assignment: Assessing a Healthcare Program/Policy Evaluation

NURS 6050 Assignment: Global Healthcare Comparison Matrix and Narrative Statement

Great post! As mentioned in the learning module, legislators’ primary goal is to be reelected. If the person is not reelected, they are out of a job. Therefore, most if not all decisions made by legislators are influenced by their main goal which is reelection. You mentioned a concern for legislators’ decision making based on the goal of being reelected. Although I do agree the primary goal should be a positive impact on the public, it could be beneficial for legislators to make decisions based on their goal for reelection because it will most likely be aligned with the views from those who elected the individual in hopes to be reelected by the same voters. According to Fouirnaies & Hall (2022) legislators who are not up for reelection sponsor less bills, have decreased participation in floor votes, and are less productive on committees. The decrease participation among those not up for reelection is concerning because it shows disinterest in their role. If legislators are not actively participating in policies, then the area or district that person represents is not being represented adequately.

Legislators do not base their decisions only on public opinion. Did you know that there is an agency within the government that is dedicated to cost-benefit analysis and does not hire employees based off political affiliation? The Congressional Budget Office provides nonbiased economic analyses and reports for hundreds of proposed legislations each year (The Congressional Budget Office, n.d.). This agency provides facts and data related to current proposed legislation.

The Affordable Care Act has never been stronger.  The platform for health insurance options, initially created by the Obama administration, had record enrollment for the 2023 registration period. According to White House data, more than 16 million Americans elected one of the plans under the Biden-Harris administration.  The care plan received significant challenge but in 2021, the US Supreme Court rejected efforts to shut down the plan and privatize care. This effort was led by Trump and 18 Republican Attorney Generals. Republicans, traditionally, support less government involvement in daily life and lower taxes in upper incomes.

Repealing or replacing the ACA

The Trump Administration challenged the ACA based on a technicality in the taxation policy.  The ACA has a  requirement that individuals have coverage or pay a penalty, and a 2017 tax law zeroed out that penalty. However, the  National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius upheld the policy and rejected efforts to repeal.  The health care platform was aimed to reduce or eliminate premiums based on individual health history and provide coverage to those insured.  This threatens profit margins for large insurance companies, often contributors to the political campaigns.  There was heavy lobbying against the effort to remove the  legislation. There were several lower court arguments on the topic in 2018 and 2019 but the supreme court gave the final judgement.  Had this not occurred, prescription drug prices and insurance premiums would be higher, adults older than 26 would not have coverage when no longer covered by parents, and millions of Americans would not have had coverage during the pandemic. It would have afforded a significant tax cut for the highest income households who were levied higher amounts to pay for the coverage.

My family uniquely appreciates both sides of the ACA argument.  Having lived in Toronto and England, both had a national healthcare platform.  Our taxes were nearly 40% of income and we paid for a more general level of care.  It was more difficult to get basic nebulizer treatments or antibiotics, but the level of preventative care was good.  We knew people who waited much longer for cancer diagnostics and treatment, even with private care, than in the US.  But everyone had access to medical attention.  The sector that particularly benefited was mental health services.  It was easier to get treatment and less money was required out of pocket.

One sector of the public affected by ACA was small business owners. Businesses with 50 or more employees were required to provide medical coverage, greatly impacting profit margins. My uncle is a small business owner who votes democratic in elections.  He voted on the oppisite side of the ballot strongly guided by the health care policy.  It was a a top issue affecting voters in the 2020 polls and elections.

Hello Patrick, I really enjoyed reading your post.  The facts you provide give good insight to a variety of views towards repealing the ACA.  President Trump was in favor of the repeal because it would provide a $30 billion decrease in taxes for high-income households (Mermin, 2020).  President Trump believed the ACA favored socialism and took away people’s rights and freedom.  The ACA made it mandatory for all Americans to have some form of healthcare coverage (Milstead & Short, 2019).  This is where it gets tricky, some Americans prefer to not pay for healthcare insurance and just pay out of pocket for services.  Trump argued this violates the rights and freedom of choice.  The repeal of the ACA would greatly affect the population of adults ages 50-64 and the sicker population (Nadash et al., 2018).  As you stated, the ones in favor of the repeal would be those of higher income brackets concerned with the national debt and decrease in taxes.  Thank you for your post.

References

Mermin, G. B. (2020). TaxVox: Campaigns, proposals, and reforms. Tax Policy Center. https://www.taxpolicycenter.org/tax.

Milstead, J. A., & Short, N. M. (2019). Health policy and politics: A nurse’s guide (6th ed). Jones & Bartlett Learning.

Nadash, P., Miller, E. A., Jones, D. K., Gusmano, M. K., & Rosenbaum, S. (2018). A series of unfortunate events: Implications of Republican efforts to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act for older adults. Journal of Aging & Social Policy. 30(3-4), pp. 259-281. https://doi.org/10.1080/08959420.2018.1462.