University of Chicago.
University of Hawai'i.
J Health Polit Policy Law. 2020 Apr 1;45(2):277-309. doi: 10.1215/03616878-8004886.
In contrast to the Affordable Care Act, some have suggested the opioid epidemic represents an area of bipartisanship. This raises an important question: to what extent are Democrat-led and Republican-led states different or similar in their policy responses to the opioid epidemic?
Three main methodological approaches were used to assess state-level policy responses to the opioid epidemic: a legislative analysis across all 50 states, an online survey of 50 state Medicaid agencies, and in-depth case studies with policy stakeholders in five states.
Conservative states pursue hidden and targeted Medicaid expansions, and a number of legislative initiatives, to address the opioid crisis. However, the total fiscal commitment among these Republican-led states pales in comparison to states that adopt the ACA Medicaid expansion. Because the state legislative initiatives do not provide treatment, these states spend substantially less than states with Democratic control.
Rather than persistently working to retrench all programs, conservatives have relied on policy designs that emphasize devolution, fragmentation, and inequality to both expand and retrench benefits. This strategy, which allocates benefits differentially to different social groups and obfuscates responsibility, allows conservatives to avoid political blame typically associated with retrenchment.
与《平价医疗法案》(Affordable Care Act)不同,一些人认为阿片类药物泛滥是两党合作的一个领域。这就提出了一个重要的问题:在应对阿片类药物泛滥的政策反应方面,民主党领导的州和共和党领导的州在多大程度上存在差异或相似?
为了评估各州对阿片类药物泛滥的政策反应,采用了三种主要的方法:对所有 50 个州的立法进行分析,对 50 个州的医疗补助机构进行在线调查,以及对五个州的政策利益相关者进行深入的案例研究。
保守派州追求隐藏和有针对性的医疗补助扩张,以及一些立法举措,以应对阿片类药物危机。然而,这些共和党领导的州在财政总承诺方面与那些采用《平价医疗法案》医疗补助扩张的州相形见绌。由于州立法倡议不提供治疗,这些州的支出远远低于民主党控制的州。
保守派人士并没有一直努力削减所有项目,而是依赖于强调权力下放、碎片化和不平等的政策设计,以扩大和削减福利。这种策略将福利有区别地分配给不同的社会群体,并模糊了责任,使保守派人士能够避免与削减相关的政治指责。