Suppr超能文献

是否延长医疗补助计划中初级保健的“费用提升”?

To extend or not to extend the primary care "fee bump" in Medicaid?

作者信息

Wilk Adam S, Jones David K

机构信息

University of Michigan.

Boston University.

出版信息

J Health Polit Policy Law. 2014 Dec;39(6):1263-75. doi: 10.1215/03616878-2829495. Epub 2014 Sep 23.

Abstract

Policy makers and researchers are eager to learn the effects of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010 (ACA) and its many provisions, but to date, they have been frustrated by the dearth of robust evidence on the ACA's true impacts on important health care and patient outcomes (e.g., access to primary care services). The present limitations of evidence, often a consequence of delays and inconsistencies in the law's implementation, have begun to affect policy making in the ACA's wake. In this article, we consider the debates among state and federal policy makers about whether to extend the ACA's so-called fee bump provision, whereby Medicaid fees for primary care services were increased to 100 percent of Medicare levels during 2013 and 2014. We describe the difficulties state Medicaid programs have experienced in implementing the fee bump, as well as how the resulting evidence gap and the broader political context have shaped the deliberations. To conclude, we identify policy alternatives and other factors policy makers should consider when deciding whether to extend or reinstitute the fee bump in the coming years.

摘要

政策制定者和研究人员急于了解2010年《患者保护与平价医疗法案》(ACA)及其众多条款的影响,但迄今为止,他们因缺乏关于ACA对重要医疗保健和患者结局(如获得初级保健服务)的真实影响的有力证据而感到沮丧。目前证据的局限性,往往是该法律实施过程中延迟和不一致的结果,已开始在ACA之后影响政策制定。在本文中,我们考虑了州和联邦政策制定者之间关于是否延长ACA所谓的费用上调条款的辩论,根据该条款,2013年至2014年期间,初级保健服务的医疗补助费用提高到了医疗保险水平的100%。我们描述了州医疗补助计划在实施费用上调时所遇到的困难,以及由此产生的证据差距和更广泛的政治背景如何影响了审议过程。最后,我们确定了政策选择以及政策制定者在决定未来几年是否延长或重新实施费用上调时应考虑的其他因素。

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验