scholarly journals Political Polarization, Anticipated Health Insurance Uptake and Individual Mandate: A view from the Washington State

2014 ◽  
Author(s):  
Anirban Basu ◽  
Norma Coe ◽  
David Grembowski ◽  
Larry Kessler
Keyword(s):  
Health Insurance ◽  
Washington State ◽  
Political Polarization ◽  
Individual Mandate

Morality, Emotions, and the Ideal Environmentalist: Toward A Conceptual Framework for Understanding Political Polarization

2021 ◽  
pp. 000276422110562
Author(s):  
Emily H. Kennedy ◽  
Parker Muzzerall
Keyword(s):  
Environmental Protection ◽  
Common Ground ◽  
Moral Worth ◽  
Washington State ◽  
Political Polarization ◽  
The Political ◽  
Political Spectrum ◽  
Political Differences ◽  
Depth Interviews ◽  
The Ideal

Americans are politically polarized in their views on environmental protection, and scholars have identified structural and cultural drivers of this polarity. Missing from these theories is a consideration of the emotional dynamics at play in environmentally relevant interactions between liberals and conservatives. Based on analyses of in-depth interviews conducted with 63 politically and socioeconomically diverse residents of four communities in Washington State, we find evidence of important common ground across the political spectrum. Our participants voice support and respect for environmental protection and convey a shared image of an ideal environmentalist: a conscious, caring, and committed individual who seeks to reduce their personal environmental impact. We see political differences arise when our participants evaluate their own relationship with the environment against this ideal environmentalist. Liberals are more likely to align with or admire the ideal environmentalist and conservatives are more likely to challenge or denigrate the ideal. Emotions and competing claims for moral worth, we suggest, play a role in making these political differences polarizing.

Is Your Automated Healthcare Information Secure?

2013 ◽  
pp. 128-142
Author(s):  
Mhamed Zineddine
Keyword(s):  
Health Insurance ◽  
Washington State ◽  
Healthcare Industry ◽  
Healthcare Information ◽  
Security Issues ◽  
Full Compliance ◽  
Rule Compliance ◽  
Governmental Intervention ◽  
Security Rule ◽  
Hipaa Security Rule

Information security issues are a serious matter that organizations from all industries have to deal with. The healthcare industry is no exception. Personally identifiable healthcare information automated by the healthcare industry can be stolen, intercepted, altered, and misused. Acceptable safeguards, therefore, have to be in place in order to ensure the privacy and protection of this information. Without governmental intervention however, it seems unlikely that the healthcare industry will voluntarily implement such safeguards. The Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) security rule has emerged and been mandated by Congress from the need of such intervention. The quantitative investigation in this chapter is aimed at determining if covered entities in Washington State are HIPAA security rule ready after two years from the compliance deadline, and if the factors identified through the literature review are a hindrance to HIPAA security rule compliance. This research study revealed that HIPAA Security Rule full compliance is far from achieved; many factors have emerged as impediments to the compliance process, and the way to compliance is complex and costly. Tracking the compliance progress within healthcare institutions in Washington State over the last five years revealed that the reaction to the HIPAA Security Rule was strong around the mandated date; the response after the mandated date, however, has been weak. Covered entities should brace themselves to the new level of enforcement due to the recent American Recovery Reinvestment Act (ARRA).

scholarly journals Oil and Water: Mixing Individual Mandates, Fragmented Markets, and Health Reform

2010 ◽  
Vol 36 (1) ◽  
pp. 7-78 ◽  
Author(s):  
Allison K. Hoffman
Keyword(s):  
Health Insurance ◽  
Medical Care ◽  
Health Reform ◽  
Care Delivery ◽  
Market Competition ◽  
Insurance Market ◽  
Insurance Reform ◽  
Health Insurance Reform ◽  
Individual Mandate ◽  
Policy Objectives

AbstractThe 2010 federal health insurance reform act includes an individual mandate that will require Americans to carry health insurance. This article argues that even if the mandate were to catalyze universal health insurance coverage, it will fall short on some of the policy objectives many hope to achieve through a mandate if implemented in a fragmented insurance market. To uncover this problem, this article sets forth a novel framework that disentangles three different policy objectives the individual mandate can serve. Namely, supporters of the mandate might hope for it to: (1) facilitate greater health and financial security for the uninsured (“paternalism”); (2) eliminate inefficiencies in health care delivery and financing (“efficiency”); and/or (3) require the healthy to buy insurance to help fund medical care for the sick (“health redistribution”). Health redistribution — the primary focus of this article — is a shifting of wealth from the healthy to the sick through the mechanism of risk pooling. Many see health redistribution as a means to enable all Americans to more equitably access medical care on the basis of need, rather than on the basis of ability or willingness to pay.Drawing on evidence from the implementation of an individual mandate in Massachusetts's health reform in 2006, this article reveals that the fragmented American health insurance market will thwart the mandate's ability to achieve these objectives— in particular the goal of health redistribution. Fragmentation is an atomization of the insurance market into numerous risk pools that has been driven by market competition and regulation. It prevents Americans from sharing broadly in the risk of poor health and, in doing so, entrenches a system where access to medical care remains tied to ability to pay and individualized characteristics. The final section of this article examines how various policies, including some in the new law (e.g., insurance regulation and exchanges) and others not (e.g., expanded public insurance), can reduce fragmentation so that the mandate can successfully serve all desired objectives and in the process gain greater legitimacy over time.

The Individual Health Insurance Mandate and Veterans Health Coverage

2019 ◽  
pp. 0095327X1987887 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dongjin Oh ◽  
Frances Stokes Berry
Keyword(s):  
Health Insurance ◽  
Safety Net ◽  
Veterans Health ◽  
Health Coverage ◽  
Health Administration ◽  
Social Safety Net ◽  
Individual Mandate ◽  
Insurance Mandate ◽  
The Individual ◽  
Veteran Health Care

In December 2017, Congress repealed the individual insurance mandate penalty. Given the poor health status of veterans, their higher demands for health insurance, and the substantial number of uninsured veterans, the repeal of the individual mandate should have a significant impact on the veterans. This article investigates how the repeal of the individual mandate effective in January 2019 is likely to affect the number of uninsured veterans and their enrollments in Veterans Affairs (VA) insurance. By analyzing 52,692 nonelderly veterans in Florida and California from 2008 to 2017, the findings suggest that the repeal will lead to a considerable increase in the number of uninsured veterans. Veterans who are unemployed, poor, and suffering disabilities are more likely to sign up for the VA insurance than better-off veterans. Thus, one of the important functions of veteran health care is to serve as a social safety net for vulnerable veterans. Thus, the Veterans Health Administration should establish a policy to minimize the expected negative repercussions of the repeal.

scholarly journals The Ghost that Slayed the Mandate

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kevin C. Walsh
Keyword(s):  
Health Insurance ◽  
Subject Matter ◽  
Federal Courts ◽  
Federal Law ◽  
Injunctive Relief ◽  
State Statutes ◽  
Individual Mandate ◽  
Federal Jurisdiction ◽  
Preemptive Effect ◽  
Sea Wall

Virginia v. Sebelius is a federal lawsuit in which Virginia has challenged President Obama's signature legislative initiative of health care reform. Virginia has sought declaratory and injunctive relief to vindicate a state statute declaring that no Virginia resident shall be required to buy health insurance. To defend this state law from the preemptive effect of federal law, Virginia has contended that the federal legislation's individual mandate to buy health insurance is unconstitutional. Virginia's lawsuit has been one of the most closely followed and politically salient federal cases in recent times. Yet the very features of the case that have contributed to its political salience also require its dismissal for lack of statutory subject matter jurisdiction. The Supreme Court has placed limits on statutory subject matter jurisdiction over declaratory judgment actions in which a state seeks a declaration that a state statute is not preempted by federal law-precisely the relief sought in Virginia v. Sebelius. These statutory limits are a sea wall; they keep out, on statutory grounds, some suits that should otherwise be kept out on Article III grounds. The statutory and constitutional limits on federal jurisdiction over suits like Virginia v. Sebelius insulate federal courts from the strong political forces surrounding lawsuits that follow from state statutes designed to create federal jurisdiction over constitutional challenges by states to federal law. This Article identifies previously neglected jurisdictional limits, shows why they demand dismissal of Virginia v. Sebelius, and explains why it is appropriate for federal courts to be closed to suits of this type.

scholarly journals Will uninsured people volunteer for voluntary health insurance? Experience from Washington State.

1996 ◽  
Vol 86 (4) ◽  
pp. 529-532 ◽  
Author(s):  
P Diehr ◽  
C W Madden ◽  
A Cheadle ◽  
D P Martin ◽  
D L Patrick ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Health Insurance ◽  
Washington State ◽  
Voluntary Health Insurance

scholarly journals The Affordable Care Act's Preventive Services Mandate: Breaking down the Barriers to Nationwide Access to Preventive Services

2011 ◽  
Vol 39 (3) ◽  
pp. 355-365 ◽  
Author(s):  
John Aloysius Cogan
Keyword(s):  
Public Health ◽  
Health Insurance ◽  
Health Care Financing ◽  
Preventive Services ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Public And Private ◽  
Patient Protection ◽  
Access To Health ◽  
Significant Public Health ◽  
Individual Mandate

The most prominent — and certainly the most controversial — feature of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (the ACA, or the Act) is the so-called “individual mandate,” which attempts to address the problem of 50 million uninsured by requiring nearly all Americans, beginning in 2014, to obtain health insurance. While expanded access to health insurance has been both the cornerstone and the lightening rod of the ACA, the Act also contains significant public health provisions focusing on, among other things, promoting the availability of prevention and wellness services. Although these public health provisions have been greeted with mixed reviews, there has been very little discussion of what may be the ACA’s most significant public health feature: the preventive services mandate. In a bold stroke, the ACA changes the way evidence-based preventive services will be provided and paid for by private health insurance plans, Medicare, and Medicaid. By requiring these health plans to provide evidence-based preventive services with no out-of-pocket costs, the ACA transforms the U.S.’s public and private health care financing systems into vehicles for promoting public health.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document