scholarly journals Safety-Net Providers After Health Care Reform

2011 ◽  
Vol 171 (15) ◽  
pp. 1379 ◽  
Author(s):  
Leighton Ku
2016 ◽  
Vol 44 (4) ◽  
pp. 585-588
Author(s):  
Peter Shin ◽  
Marsha Regenstein

Two major safety net providers – community health centers and public hospitals – continue to play a key role in the health care system even in the wake of coverage reform. This article examines the gains and threats they face under the Affordable Care Act.


1996 ◽  
Vol 27 (2) ◽  
pp. 234-236 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robert K.Knopp

2016 ◽  
Vol 27 (2) ◽  
pp. 450-464 ◽  
Author(s):  
Julie C. Reynolds ◽  
Susan C. McKernan ◽  
Raymond A. Kuthy ◽  
Nancy B. Adrianse ◽  
Simi Mani ◽  
...  

2008 ◽  
Vol 27 (Suppl1) ◽  
pp. w374-w382 ◽  
Author(s):  
Peter J. Cunningham ◽  
Gloria J. Bazzoli ◽  
Aaron Katz

2012 ◽  
Vol 31 (8) ◽  
pp. 1690-1697 ◽  
Author(s):  
Teresa A. Coughlin ◽  
Sharon K. Long ◽  
Edward Sheen ◽  
Jennifer Tolbert

Author(s):  
Sara Rosenbaum ◽  
Morgan Handley ◽  
Rebecca Morris ◽  
Maria Casoni

Abstract Context: The racial health equity implications of the Trump administration’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods: We focus on four key health care policy decisions made by the administration in response to the public health emergency: rejecting a special Marketplace enrollment period; failing to use its full powers to enhance state Medicaid emergency options; refusing to suspend the public charge rule; and failing to target provider relief funds to providers serving the uninsured. Findings: In each case, the administration’s policy choices intensified, rather than mitigated, structural racism and racial health inequality. Its choices had a disproportionate adverse impact on minority populations and patients who are more likely to depend on public programs, be poor, experience pandemic-related job loss, lack insurance, rely on health care safety net providers, and be exposed to public charge sanctions. Conclusions: Ending structural racism in health care and promoting racial health care equity demands an equity-mindful approach to the pursuit of policies that enhance—rather than undermine—health care accessibility and effectiveness and resources for the poorest communities and the providers that serve them.


2012 ◽  
Vol 27 (11) ◽  
pp. 1548-1554 ◽  
Author(s):  
Danny McCormick ◽  
Assaad Sayah ◽  
Hermione Lokko ◽  
Steffie Woolhandler ◽  
Rachel Nardin

2018 ◽  
Vol 11 (2) ◽  
pp. 364-395
Author(s):  
Eric L. McDaniel ◽  
Kenneth M. Miller

AbstractMost research on the social gospel, a religious interpretation that obliges people to care for the less fortunate and correct social inequalities, has focused on elite rhetoric. However, it is not clear the extent to which members of the public also adhere to this socioreligious philosophy. The moralistic tone of the 2010 health care reform debate has led many to argue that there is a revival of the social gospel. To what extent has this debate gained traction among citizens writ large? Which individuals will be most likely to be influenced by elite discourse that draws social gospel? Using two unique surveys and an experiment, we demonstrate that Social Gospel adherents have distinctive political attitudes. Specifically, they are more attentive to social policy issues and are more supportive of expanding the social safety net. Second, we demonstrate that elite rhetoric that draws from the Social Gospel tradition can influence policy preferences.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document