Affordable Care Act Expansion

Affordable Care Act Expansion

Arguments For and Against ACA Expansion

Many states in the US have expanded Medicaid coverage to include low-income earners, as contained under the Affordable Care Act (ACA). Proponents of ACA expansion argue that a vast body of research proves that the program has benefited beneficiaries, their families, and the communities they belong to. ACA’s benefits include enhanced healthcare access, better healthcare, and financial security, especially for low-income earners.

A vital benefit of the program is improved healthcare access for all. Americans with chronic illnesses and those with personal physicians can now access healthcare. Besides, ACA has improved health outcomes. For instance, the death rate among elderly American adults has fallen significantly, with about 19,000 deaths saved to date annually (Centre on Budget and Policy Priorities, 2020). There are also gains in terms of mental health reporting and treatment.

Despite the benefits of the ACA, many Americans oppose the expansion of the Affordable Care Act and instead prefer market-based solutions. One of the aspects of ACA they disapprove of is the mandate that all Americans must have health insurance coverage (Garrett & Gangopadhyaya, 2016). Besides, the opponents of ACA are opposed to the government’s intervention in healthcare issues. The opposition to the government’s role in healthcare is also based on some citizens who do not trust their government. Do you need urgent assignment help ? Get in touch with us at eminencepapers.com. We endeavor to provide you with excellent service.

Beneficiaries and Losers in ACA Expansion

According to Garrett & Gangopadhyaya (2016), children are some of the biggest gainers from the expanded ACA program. About 2.8 million children aged between 5-18 years have benefited from the expanded coverage since its launch. That has been achieved since the program targets children from poor backgrounds. Other gainers include older people and women of childbearing age.

However, ACA expansion has hurt private healthcare insurance companies the most. Expanded coverage means that the insurance companies have to incur increased expenses, unlike before. For instance, catering for people with pre-existing conditions means the insurance companies will pay higher bills. In return, insurance companies have transferred the accounts to their customers, who have to incur higher premiums now. Another problem is that one may be fined for not being insured. This hurts higher-income citizens who have expensive alternative private insurance coverages.

ACA Positive Externalities 

Recent research has documented positive outcomes for non-health-related variables such as child support, abuse, crime, and finances following the expansion of ACA. One positive externality that resulted from expanded ACA is the decrease in foster home admissions. Increased foster home admission is often associated with child abuse, significantly reduced under ACA. Essentially, neglect incidents have decreased considerably due to the implementation of the ACA.

Cost of ACA against GDP

The implementation of ACA has had a significant impact on the economy. As the damaging provisions of ACA take shape gradually, so do the effects of the condition on the GDP. For instance, by 2015, ACA had subtracted about $250 billion from the GDP, with the figure expected to hit $ 1.2 trillion by the end of ACA’s first decade of existence (Congressional Budget Office, 2015). Essentially, the ACA will keep drawing significantly from the GDP as the number of beneficiaries keeps rising. Immediately following the inception of ACA in 2014/2015, the GDP dipped by $85 billion compared to the previous year.

Other economic costs of ACA are related to disincentives associated with the program. For instance, the employer penalty averages $275 per month for large employers who fail to enrol their employees on ACA. Essentially, that means employers have to cope with a $275 monthly penalty for just having a single employee on a permanent basis. That fact discourages small businesses from pursuing growth since they are highly limited. For instance, a small business seeking to employ 50 staff members on a permanent basis has to incur $5,500 in penalties, a figure that could be more than the entire wage bill (Congressional Budget Office, 2015).

Economic Experts’ Opinion

Economists are concerned about the expanded ACA’s safety net. Firstly, about three million citizens are ineligible for coverage in states that are yet to adopt the law, including Florida, Texas, and other states in the South. Although the law brought down the number of uninsured people significantly, it does not solve the problem yet since many poor Americans are still ineligible. Besides, the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic has shown that the number of uninsured and vulnerable Americans who do not have coverage currently stands at 28 million people (Goodnough & Abelson, 2020). Despite the high cost, ACA intervention has failed to cater to the target population fully.

Recommendations

There is a need to explore better ways of offering ACA by understanding specific patient needs. Although expanded ACA has significantly improved the insured, access to care remains an issue. As a result, there are still many people who remain uninsured. There is a need to adopt a public health insurance plan to improve accessibility. A general insurance plan will offer affordable plans, besides giving competition to private insurers to force them to reduce premiums.

References

Centre on Budget and Policy Priorities. (2020, October 21). The Far-Reaching Benefits of the Affordable Care Act’s Medicaid Expansion. Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. https://www.cbpp.org/research/health/chart-book-the-far-reaching-benefits-of-the-affordable-care-acts-medicaid-expansion

Congressional Budget Office. (2015, June 9). Budgetary and Economic Effects of Repealing the Affordable Care Act | Congressional Budget Office. Www.cbo.gov. https://www.cbo.gov/publication/50252

Dalen, J. E., Waterbrook, K., & Alpert, J. S. (2015). Why do so Many Americans Oppose the Affordable Care Act? The American Journal of Medicine, 128(8), 807–810. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amjmed.2015.01.032

Garrett, B., & Gangopadhyaya, A. (2016). Who Gained Health Insurance Coverage Under the ACA, and Where Do They Live? ACA Implementation-Monitoring and Tracking. https://www.urban.org/sites/default/files/publication/86761/2001041-who-gained-health-insurance-coverage-under-the-aca-and-where-do-they-live.pdf

Goodnough, A., & Abelson, R. (2020, June 27). Obamacare Faces Unprecedented Test as Economy Sinks. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/27/health/coronavirus-obamacare-unemployment-health-coverage.html

ORDER A PLAGIARISM-FREE PAPER HERE

We’ll write everything from scratch

Affordable Care Act Expansion

Analyze 1 of the following government intervention programs:

Countercyclical fiscal policies (countering economic disruptions such as the housing bubble and the Great Recession)
US agriculture support programs
Assistance for Low-Income Families (choose 1)
Housing vouchers
Earned Income Tax Credit (including Child Tax Credit)
Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP)
Low-income healthcare (choose 1)
Medicaid (including Children’s Health Insurance Program).
Affordable Care Act expansion
Social insurance programs (choose 1)
Old Age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance (OASDI)
Medicare
Unemployment insurance

Write a 700- to 1,050-word summary of your analysis. Identify the intervention and the market failure leading up to the intervention. Complete the following in your paper:

Analyze the arguments for government intervention as opposed to views for market-based solutions. Hint: See the information about market failures.
Examine who has been helped and who has been hurt by the selected government intervention.
Examine externalities and unintended consequences of such intervention. For example, consider whether the SNAP program and health coverage for low-income families result in higher future tax revenues because low-income children grow up healthier and produce higher incomes over their lifetimes.
Analyze whether the cost of the intervention you selected as a share of GDP or the number of participants is increasing, decreasing, or varies with the state of the economy based on the cost trend(or number of participants) since its inception or since 2000.
Analyze credible economists’ opinions on the success or failure of the intervention that you chose in achieving its objectives.
Recommend whether the program should be continued as is, discontinued, or modified based on your conclusions. Defend your recommendation.

Note: Use of charts and graphs with appropriate citations is encouraged. Any diagrams or graphs retrieved from the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis FRED website may only be included when the data sources used by FRED are US government sources such as the Bureau of Economic Analysis or the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

Cite at least 2 academically credible sources.

Format your assignment according to APA guidelines.