How Would Low-Income Communities Prioritize Medicaid Spending?

Author:

Myers C. Daniel1,Kieffer Edith C.2,Fendrick A. Mark2,Kim Hyungjin Myra2,Calhoun Karen3,Szymecko Lisa4,LaHahnn Lynnette5,Ledón Charo6,Danis Marion7,Rowe Zachary8,Goold Susan Dorr2

Affiliation:

1. University of Minnesota

2. University of Michigan

3. Michigan Institute for Clinical and Health Research

4. Michigan State University

5. Cor de Holistic Care

6. Acción Buenos Vecinos

7. National Institutes of Health

8. Friends of Parkside

Abstract

Abstract Context: Medicaid plays a critical role in low-income, minority, and medically underserved communities, particularly in states that have expanded Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act. Yet, the voices of underresourced communities are often unheard in decisions about how to allocate Medicaid's scarce resources, and traditional methods of public engagement are poorly suited to gathering such input. We argue that deliberative public engagement can be a useful tool for involving communities in setting Medicaid priorities. Method: We engaged 209 residents of low-income, medically underserved Michigan communities in discussions about Medicaid spending priorities using an exercise in informed deliberation: CHAT (CHoosing All Together). Participants learned about Medicaid, deliberated in small groups, and set priorities both individually and collectively. Findings: Participants prioritized broad eligibility consistent with the ACA expansion, accepted some cost sharing, and prioritized spending in areas—including mental health—that are historically underfunded. Participants allocated less funding beyond benefit coverage, such as spending on healthy communities. Participants perceived the deliberative process as fair and informative, and they supported using it in the policy-making process. Conclusion: The choices of participants from low-income, medically underserved communities reflect a unique set of priorities and suggest that engaging low-income communities more deeply in Medicaid policy making might result in different prioritization decisions.

Publisher

Duke University Press

Subject

Health Policy

Reference61 articles.

1. Abelson Julia , BlacksherErika, LiKathy, BoesveldSarah, and GooldSusan. 2013. “Public Deliberation in Health Policy and Bioethics: Mapping an Emerging, Interdisciplinary Field.” Journal of Public Deliberation9, no. 1. www.publicdeliberation.net/jpd/vol9/iss1/art5.

2. Antonisse Larisa , GarfieldRachael, RudowitzRobin, and ArtigaSamantha. 2018. “The Effects of Medicaid Expansion under the ACA: Findings from a Literature Review.” Kaiser Family Foundation, Issue Brief, March. web.archive.org/web/20191222182520/files.kff.org/attachment/Issue-Brief-The-Effects-of-Medicaid-Expansion-Under-the-ACA-Updated-Findings-from-a-Literature-Review.

3. Atiga Samantha , RudowitzRobin, TolbertJennifer, ParadiseJulia, and MajerolMellissa. 2016. “Findings from the Field: Medicaid Delivery Systems and Access to Care in Four States in Year Three of the ACA.” Kaiser Family Foundation, September20. web.archive.org/web/20181129192519/https://www.kff.org/medicaid/issue-brief/findings-from-the-field-medicaid-delivery-systems-and-access-to-care-in-four-states-in-year-three-of-the-aca/.

4. Michigan's Approach to Medicaid Expansion and Reform;Ayanian;New England Journal of Medicine,2013

5. The Politics of Need: Examining Governors' Decisions to Oppose the ‘Obamacare’ Medicaid Expansion;Barrilleaux;State Politics and Policy Quarterly,2014

Cited by 4 articles. 订阅此论文施引文献 订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3