Shortly after the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the Affordable Care Act (the federal health care law), Gov. Rick Perry said Texas had no intention of implementing its key provisions, such as the establishment of health insurance exchanges. The exchanges will… Continue Reading
Last week was filled with discussion of Gov. Rick Perry’s letter rejecting an expansion of Medicaid that would cover about 1.5 million uninsured Texans. Largely overlooked was the fact that Perry also ceded authority to the federal government to operate a health insurance exchange in Texas. A health insurance exchange is a marketplace in which qualified health plans are offered for sale to individuals, families and small businesses in an organized, user-friendly fashion that enables consumers to compare features and prices of private health plans as they shop for coverage. The Affordable Care Act, which is the law of the land per the Supreme Court’s opinion, requires the operation of an exchange in each state. States are encouraged to establish and operate their own exchanges and if they fail to do so, the federal government will do it for them. The politics of Perry’s anti-ACA position are well known, but what about the policy implications of his refusal to create a Texas-run exchange? Continue Reading
Today’s Supreme Court ruling upholding key provisions of the Affordable Care Act — the health care reform law — is “the most dramatic legislation to influence health care in America since the creation of Medicare and Medicaid in the 1960s,” said Vivian Ho, James A. Baker III Institute Chair in Health Economics. “The court’s decision today means well over 30 million people who are uninsured today will get access to affordable health insurance and therefore health care.”
Continue Reading
The United States ranks first among nations in health-care expenditures, but No. 37 in health status. Other countries are spending significantly less money and getting better results, writes Elena Marks, Baker Institute scholar in health policy, in a recent Houston Chronicle… Continue Reading
As the Supreme Court debates the ACA’s constitutionality, I’m traveling in Australia, talking to people from all walks of life about our two very different health systems. Since the early 1970’s, Australia has had a taxpayer-funded national health insurance program called Medicare. In many ways, it is like U.S. Medicare, but for people of all ages. The federal government’s role is to fund Medicare while public and private hospitals and physicians deliver the care. Continue Reading
The current national discussion over contraceptives — whether insurance coverage without co-pays should be mandated, whether religiously affiliated businesses should be exempted, and whether the government should play a role in regulating and underwriting contraception — is largely focused on health care costs, religious choice and morality. But the reason I support this effort, is because of the public health benefits that family planning provides to our nation. Continue Reading
The Greater Houston Area is home to world-class medical facilities, but many of its residents do not have access to basic health care. In a recent op-ed for the Houston Chronicle, Elena Marks, Baker Institute scholar in health policy, explains… Continue Reading