The articles I selected are “A federalist approach to health reform: The worst way, except for all the others” and “Medicare and Medicaid spending variations are strongly linked within hospital regions but not at overall state level.” In their article, Aaron and Butler (2008) suggest that the support for state actions should be instituted as part of any model of expanding the health insurance coverage. Political issues, which have lasted for over ten years, have been an obstacle to the national efforts to expand coverage. The researchers argue that some states have expanded the coverage while others have reiterated their determination to achieve such a goal. The researchers further acknowledge that legislative flexibility would play a crucial role in promoting widespread state actions. According to the researchers, irrespective of how people think, whether ensuring coverage would necessitate an amalgamated countrywide approach, or that varied situations require wide-ranging systems across states, the chances of evolution will be high if different states are committed to testing different ways of expanding coverage.
Kronick and Gilmer (2012), on their part, attempt to substantiate the claim that, when considering each state, in its entirety, a negligible connection to the level of Medicare expenditure for beneficiaries and other communities exist. In stark contrast, according to the researchers, there prevails a sturdy correlation between Medicaid and Medicare spending in the Hospital Referral Regions in all American states. As a result, the researchers suggest that the substantial interstate regional relationships clearly illustrate and underline the significance of supplying sanatorium beds and specialized practitioners, among other resources pertinent to health care. This course, as the researchers report, represents an appropriate spending. Contrastingly, the inadequate connection at the state stage is a suggestion that other critical factors, which include the use of influence and state-level poverty rates, influence no-Medicare and Medicare use, as well as, spending in a different fashion. The researchers conclude by revealing that it is importance to widen the analytic focal point from the recipients of the Medicare program to the larger population. Furthermore, they argue that policy-makers should consider transitions in the Medicare payment policy, especially on the care provided to the non-beneficiaries.
Ideally, the amounts of funds assigned to either of the programs usually have a relative impact on the recipients. When fewer funds set aside, the coverage shrinks. Therefore, the beneficiaries cannot receive optimized outcomes, including optimal care quality. However, when the funds are increased, the recipients’ outcomes also improve significantly. In most cases, the appropriateness of program also management matters. Even if sufficient funds are available, inefficient program management usually leads to adverse results for the recipients.
References
Aaron, H. J., & Butler, S. M. (2008). A federalist approach to health reform: The worst way, except for all the others. Health Affairs, 27(3), 725-735.
Kronick, R., & Gilmer, T. P. (2012). Medicare and Medicaid spending variations are strongly linked within hospital regions but not at overall state level. Health Affairs, 31(5), 948-955.
