NURS 6050 Week 3 Discussion: Politics And The Patient Protection

by
with no comment
Nursing Papers

NURS 6050 Week 3 Discussion: Politics And The Patient Protection

NURS 6050 Week 3 Discussion

NURS 6050 Week 3 Discussion: Politics And The Patient Protection

RE: Discussion – Week 3
Collapse
Main Post
Politics and the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act
Citizens of the United States were presented with a new healthcare reform act known as the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act in 2010. The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, also known as Obamacare, was intended to develop healthcare and health insurance businesses in America. The main aim of Obamacare is to increase new benefits for healthcare, more patient rights, more patient protection, and make healthcare more affordable and accessible to the citizens in the United States. Attempts to repeal and replace Obamacare have been a subject matter constitutionally contested and have the subtle meaning of egotism by politicians to capitalize on voter support.  From a cost-benefit approach, for a system to be cost-effective, the benefits must be higher in comparison to the amount acquired during the enactment of the program (Milstead & Short, 2019). When the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act was developed, it made access to healthcare available to most American citizens, and thus, repealing and replacing the act will make political lawmakers lose voter support.
Despite the reported accomplishments of the Affordable Care Act, there is still political deliberation to repeal and replace it. Many political leaders are concerned that if the Act is repealed, many Americans will lose coverage from insurance companies (Taylor, et al., 2017). Consequently, many low-income or middle-class families insured under the Act by the Medicaid program will lose their coverage. A study by DaVanzo (2016) projected that if the Affordable Care Act is repealed, by 2026, the number of uninsured persons would have increased by 22 million persons, which can lead to an unparalleled health crisis as persons would no longer be covered and able to receive the care they need.
Since the Act was enacted, it has encountered many disputes among politicians. Since in office, the Trump administration has attempted to repeal and replace Obamacare but has since not succeeded. During his elections, many legislators supported this idea but at the present time, considers this decision a liability as they are up for re-election (Hawryluk, 2020). Legislators are more likely to support agendas that are favorable to them based on a cost-benefit analysis. As such, repealing The Affordable Care Act will not be of benefit to them and the American people. Therefore, they are unlikely to reverse the action.
The Affordable Care Act allows many Americans to have access to services in healthcare, and repealing the Act will only make legislators lose the voter support they want. Most political decisions and policies are driven by an appeal to the expectations of their voters.

References

DaVanzo, D. (2016, December 6). Estimating the Impact of Repealing the Affordable Care Act on Hospitals. Retrieved from AHA.org: /orders/www.aha.org/system/files/2018-02/impact-repeal-aca-report_0.pdf
Hawryluk, M. (2020, August 28). Opposition to Obamacare Becomes Political Liability for GOP Incumbents. Retrieved from KHN: /orders/khn.org/news/opposition-to-obamacare-becomes-political-liability-for-gop-incumbents/
Milstead, J. A., & Short, N. M. (2019). Health Policy and Politics: A Nurse’s Guide (6 ed.). Burlington, MA: Jones & Bartlett Learning.
Taylor, D., Olshansky, E. F., Fugate-Woods, N., Johnson-Mallard, V., Safriet, B. J., & Hagan, T. (2017, May 1). Corrigendum to position statement: Political interference in sexual and reproductive health research and health. Nursing Outlook, 65(3), 346-350. doi:/orders/doi.org/10.1016/j.outlook.2017.05.003

Regardless of political affiliation, individuals often grow concerned when considering perceived competing interests of government and their impact on topics of interest to them. The realm of healthcare is no different. Some people feel that local, state, and federal policies and legislation can be either helped or hindered by interests other than the benefit to society.
Consider for example that the number one job of a legislator is to be reelected. Cost can be measured in votes as well as dollars. Thus, it is important to consider the legislator’s perspective on either promoting or not promoting a certain initiative in the political landscape.
To Prepare:

  • Review the Resources and reflect on efforts to repeal/replace the Affordable Care Act (ACA).
  • Consider who benefits the most when policy is developed and in the context of policy implementation.

By Day 3 of Week 3
Post an explanation for how you think the cost-benefit analysis in terms of legislators being reelected affected efforts to repeal/replace the ACA. Then, explain how analyses of the voters views may affect decisions by legislative leaders in recommending or positioning national policies (e.g., Congress’ decisions impacting Medicare or Medicaid). Remember, the number one job of a legislator is to be re-elected. Please check your discussion grading rubric to ensure your responses meet the criteria.

ORDER an A++ paper from our MASTERS and DOCTORATE WRITERS: NURS 6050 Week 3 Discussion: Politics And The Patient Protection

By Day 6 of Week 3
Respond to at least two of your colleagues* on two different days by expanding on their explanation and providing an example that supports their explanation or respectfully challenging their explanation and providing an example.
*Note: Throughout this program, your fellow students are referred to as colleagues.
Submission and Grading Information
Grading Criteria
To access your rubric:
Week 3 Discussion Rubric

Post by Day 3 and Respond by Day 6 of Week 3
To participate in this Discussion:
Week 3 Discussion
Module 2: Legislation (Weeks 3-4)
Laureate Education (Producer). (2018). Legislation [Video file]. Baltimore, MD: Author.
Learning Objectives
Students will:
Analyze how cost-benefit analysis affects legislative efforts
Analyze legislative intent of bills
Identify proponents and opponents of bills
Analyze legislative process of bills
Advocate policy position for bills
Due By
Assignment
Week 3, Days 1-2
Read/Watch/Listen to the Learning Resources.
Compose your initial Discussion post.
Week 3, Day 3
Post your initial Discussion post.
Begin to compose your Assignment.
Week 3, Days 4-5
Review peer Discussion posts.
Compose your peer Discussion responses.
Continue to compose your Assignment.
Week 3, Day 6
Post at least two peer Discussion responses on two different days (and not the same day as the initial post).
Week 3, Day 7
Wrap up Discussion.
Week 4, Days 1-6
Continue to compose your Assignment.
Week 4, Day 7
Deadline to submit your Assignment.
Learning Resources
Required Readings
Milstead, J. A., & Short, N. M. (2019). Health policy and politics: A nurse’s guide (6th ed.). Burlington, MA: Jones & Bartlett Learning.
Chapter 3, “Government Response: Legislation” (pp. 37–56)
Chapter 10, “Overview: The Economics and Finance of Health Care” (pp. 180–183 only)
Congress.gov. (n.d.). Retrieved September 20, 2018, from /orders/www.congress.gov/
Taylor, D., Olshansky, E., Fugate-Woods, N., Johnson-Mallard, V., Safriet, B. J., & Hagan, T. (2017). Corrigendum to position statement: Political interference in sexual and reproductive health research and health professional education. Nursing Outlook, 65(2), 346–350. doi:10.1016/j.outlook.2017.05.003.
United States House of Representatives. (n.d.). Retrieved September 20, 2018, from /orders/www.house.gov/
United States Senate. (n.d.). Retrieved September 20, 2018, from /orders/www.senate.gov/
United States Senate. (n.d.). Senate organization chart for the 115th Congress. Retrieved September 20, 2018, from /orders/www.senate.gov/reference/org_chart.htm
Document: Legislation Comparison Grid Template (Word document)
Required Media
Laureate Education (Producer). (2018). Working with Legislators [Video file]. Baltimore, MD: Author.
Laureate Education (Producer). (2018). Introduction to Health Policy and Law with Joel Teitelbaum [Video file]. Baltimore, MD: Author.
Credit: Provided courtesy of the Laureate International Network of Universities.
Laureate Education (Producer). (2018). Contemporary Issues in Public Health Policy with Joel Teitelbaum [Video file]. Baltimore, MD: Author.
Laureate Education (Producer). (2018). Peter Beilenson: Population Health [Video file]. Baltimore, MD: Author.

Affordable Care Act Cost-Benefit Analysis

The Affordable Care Act (ACA) of 2010, popularly known as Obamacare, is a law that intended to make sure that all Americans had access to health insurance. One of its key factors is that it is determined to ensure that low-income earners can access health services. Most of such people are unemployed, with disabilities, tasked with household responsibilities, or unable to meet the necessity because of the history of their health, such as a chronic disease or medical condition. However, the act is an issue to various political debates with some advocates arguing that it will ensure improved longevity to Americans and advocates stating that it is not in line with the development agenda. The ACA has various winners and losers in terms of legislators seeking reelection and voters having differing interests in the enactment of the policy.
The impact of the enactment of the ACA policy has positive and negative impacts on policymakers seeking reelection. Concerning elected members, those who voted for the bill would benefit by serving people. On the other hand, most politicians are funded by pharmaceutical and medical corporate organizations that make one of the most significant industries in the United States (Hathi & Kocher, 2017). Therefore, although lawmakers will benefit from the electorate’s goodwill, they will lose from the campaign funds. On the other hand, the ACA policy has immeasurable benefits to voters (McKay, 2018). Therefore, ACA influences people positively and negatively.
ACA has positive and negative impacts on the electorate. The higher income citizens realize that the act is a corrective measure towards people earning higher incomes that the unprivileged ones because of the increased taxes. In contrast, lower-income citizens perceive the act as beneficial because most of them have suffered because of lack of sufficient funds to access healthcare services (Milstead & Short, 2019). Therefore, the perception depends on the income of the person.
The cost-benefit analysis affects those legislators who are seeking reelection because they must balance between their need to appease the people and ensure that they can access funds from the corporate entities. The legislators must guarantee that all people are satisfied with the policy. The most significant embarrassment is that politicians are not in a position to please the entire electorate because some Americans, mostly the low-income earners, are concerned about their wellbeing, while others are concerned about having to take care of other humans in the market. Moreover, legislators must consider the impact of their decisions to support the policy and their need to garner campaign money from affected companies.

References
Hathi, S., & Kocher, B. (2017, July/August). The right way to reform health care: To cut costs, empower patients. Foreign Affairs, 96, 17-25.
McKay, A. M. (2018). Fundraising for favors? linking lobbyist-hosted fundraisers to legislative benefits. Political Research Quarterly, 71(4), 869-880. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1065912918771745
Milstead, J. A., & Short, N. M. (2019). Health policy and politics: A nurse’s guide (6th ed.). Burlington, MA: Jones & Bartlett Learning.

Week 3 Response Post

Grace G..,

               Thank you for your interesting post. The Affordable Care Act is indeed a beneficial law. According to HHS.gov (n.d.), “the law addresses health insurance coverage, health care costs, and preventive care.” Many Americans and immigrants benefited from this law as it reflects equality when accessing health care services.  For instance, I know a family friend of mine who is a low-income worker. He has a chronic condition and was unintentionally non-compliant with his medications and doctor follow-ups because of high co-payments or total out of pocket spending. However, when the ACA was signed in 2010, he decided to take the opportunity of accessing all the health care benefits that he could get. He started availing free medications and following up with his doctors. It also has been easier for him to attend preventive programs to avoid condition exacerbation.

               Unfortunately, just like the other laws, the Affordable Care Act is not perfect and needs improvement as it affects high-income workers. But instead of improving it, many people who are against the law want it repealed instead. This is where the legislator’s discretion on cost-benefit analysis is applied; it is a “way to compare the costs and benefits of an intervention, where both are expressed in monetary units” (CDC.gov, n.d.). Even if the legislator intends to make an acceptable policy for the goodwill, they would also have to consider the campaign funds that they will need to be re-elected. According to Glassman (2018), “most of the time, members of Congress do want to pass good public policy, but they also have two other important goals, re-election and increased power in the legislature.”

                In the end, I still believe that it is always ideal for the legislators to depend on their decision making for the public good without thinking about the electoral consequences. But just like an ordinary individual, legislators have needs to fulfill, and number one of them is to be re-elected.

References

Glassman, M. (2018, February 7). Why congress doesn’t always do the right thing. The New York Times. Retrieved September 16, 2020, from

                   /orders/www.nytimes.com/2018/02/07/opinion/congress-incentives-public-good.html

What is the affordable care act? (2015, June 7). HHS.gov. Retrieved September 16, 2020, from

                   /orders/www.hhs.gov/answers/affordable-care-act/what-is-the-affordable-care-act/index.html

Cost-benefit analysis. (n.d.). Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Retrieved September 16, 2020, from

                   /orders/www.cdc.gov/policy/polaris/economics/cost-benefit-analysis.html

RE: Discussion – Week 3
Collapse
 
The Affordable Care Act (ACA) legislation was enacted into law to ensure all Americans had access to a health care plan that provided both adequate and affordable health care coverage. This legislation has been the subject of discussion and political debate since. In our cost-benefit analysis we consider what the ACA and changes to the ACA mean politically and for the individual American.
The ACA provides access to affordable health care coverage, and it has helped many Americans. A February 2019 article indicated about twenty million Americans were no longer uninsured since the implementation of the ACA in 2010 (McIntyre & Song, 2019, p.1). Prior to the law being passed, many Americans were either not covered or had inadequate health care coverage. The reason for the lack of adequate coverage in some cases was strictly because the coverage was not affordable, and in other cases it was a matter of coverage not being available through their employer(s) or the available coverage was inadequate. Another big concern for would-be insurance shoppers prior to the implementation of the ACA was pre-existing conditions. The Affordable Care Act addressed all of these situations and concerns. Republican posturing about repealing the ACA in its entirety left the many Americans that have benefitted from the law concerned and wondering if they will again be unable to afford adequate health care coverage for themselves and their families.
Mr. Himes, US Representative from the fourth district of Connecticut, stated while addressing the House that one of the proudest moments of his career in the Chamber “was the passage of the Affordable Care Act, not because it was perfect–it wasn’t–but because it changed the lives for the better of tens of millions of Americans.” (H. Rep No. 165-108, 2019, H5176). In an attempt to illustrate what repeal would look like, he goes on to say “overturning the ACA would raise the number of uninsured people in the United States by 20 to 21 million people. Due to preexisting conditions, more than 100 million Americans could face higher health insurance premiums or the possibility that they might not get insured at all” (H. Rep No. 165-108, 2019, H5176). There are parts of the ACA that many Americans agree should stay, and therefore a total repeal of the ACA seems like a gamble. Mr. Himes asks that as you consider the claim from his “Republican friends that they will preserve preexisting condition coverage, remember that they promised for 10 years to repeal the Affordable Care Act, and they didn’t do it. Then they promised to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act, and they didn’t do it. So when they promise to preserve preexisting conditions, take that with a grain of salt” (H. Rep No. 165-108, 2019, H5176). It is fair to point out that politicians do not always do what they say they will do, but that is of little comfort to the millions of Americans worried about losing their health insurance coverage.
“Nearly nine years after its passage, the Affordable Care Act (ACA) remains at the forefront of public policy debate” (McIntyre & Song, 2019, p.1), which is worth mentioning since the textbook for this course points out that “policymakers are not necessarily focused on how real people will be affected by changes to Obamacare or Medicare and Medicaid but rather on how the changes will affect their own re-election chances” (Milstead & Short, 2019, p.44). Cost-benefit analysis of the changes to the ACA and the politics surrounding it, along with the potential loss of favor and even future votes for elected officials, highlights the potential for politicians to make decisions they feel will cost them the least votes. The fact that too much deviation from an agreed party agenda could cost a politician favor and votes is something they must consider if they would like to remain in office.
Bottom line, one should consider that elected officials’ decisions could be, at least in part, based on how the decision will impact their future in politics. Unfortunately, this could mean that not all political decisions are being made in the best interest of the American people but rather in the best interest of elected officials worried about losing their jobs. Given this thinking, counting on a politician keeping a promise that might make it harder for him or her to get reelected seems foolish. Therefore, Americans are right to be concerned that a complete repeal of the ACA could remove protections without replacing them in any new healthcare legislation.
 
References
Milstead, J. A., & Short, N. M. (2019). Health policy and politics: A nurse’s guide (6th
ed.). Burlington, MA: Jones & Bartlett Learning.
McIntyre, A., & Song, Z. (2019). The US Affordable Care Act: Reflections and directions at the close of a
decade. PLoS medicine, 16(2), e1002752. /orders/doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1002752
165 Cong. Rec. No. 108. (June 26, 2019) p.H5176. (statement of Rep. Himes)
Rubric Detail
Select Grid View or List View to change the rubric’s layout.
Content
Name: NURS_6050_Module02_Week03_Discussion_Rubric
Grid View
List View
Excellent Good Fair Poor
Main Posting
Points Range: 45 (45%) – 50 (50%)
Answers all parts of the discussion question(s) expectations with reflective critical analysis and synthesis of knowledge gained from the course readings for the module and current credible sources.
Supported by at least three current, credible sources.
Written clearly and concisely with no grammatical or spelling errors and fully adheres to current APA manual writing rules and style.
Points Range: 40 (40%) – 44 (44%)
Responds to the discussion question(s) and is reflective with critical analysis and synthesis of knowledge gained from the course readings for the module.
At least 75% of post has exceptional depth and breadth.
Supported by at least three credible sources.
Written clearly and concisely with one or no grammatical or spelling errors and fully adheres to current APA manual writing rules and style.
Points Range: 35 (35%) – 39 (39%)
Responds to some of the discussion question(s).
One or two criteria are not addressed or are superficially addressed.
Is somewhat lacking reflection and critical analysis and synthesis.
Somewhat represents knowledge gained from the course readings for the module.
Post is cited with two credible sources.
Written somewhat concisely; may contain more than two spelling or grammatical errors.
Contains some APA formatting errors.
Points Range: 0 (0%) – 34 (34%)
Does not respond to the discussion question(s) adequately.
Lacks depth or superficially addresses criteria.
Lacks reflection and critical analysis and synthesis.
Does not represent knowledge gained from the course readings for the module.
Contains only one or no credible sources.
Not written clearly or concisely.
Contains more than two spelling or grammatical errors.
Does not adhere to current APA manual writing rules and style.
Main Post: Timeliness
Points Range: 10 (10%) – 10 (10%)
Posts main post by day 3.
Points Range: 0 (0%) – 0 (0%)
Points Range: 0 (0%) – 0 (0%)
Points Range: 0 (0%) – 0 (0%)
Does not post by day 3.
First Response
Points Range: 17 (17%) – 18 (18%)
Response exhibits synthesis, critical thinking, and application to practice settings.
Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues.
Responses to faculty questions are fully answered, if posed.
Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas that are supported by at least two scholarly sources.
Demonstrates synthesis and understanding of learning objectives.
Response is effectively written in standard, edited English.
Points Range: 15 (15%) – 16 (16%)
Response exhibits critical thinking and application to practice settings.
Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues.
Responses to faculty questions are answered, if posed.
Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas that are supported by two or more credible sources.
Response is effectively written in standard, edited English.
Points Range: 13 (13%) – 14 (14%)
Response is on topic and may have some depth.
Responses posted in the discussion may lack effective professional communication.
Responses to faculty questions are somewhat answered, if posed.
Response may lack clear, concise opinions and ideas, and a few or no credible sources are cited.
Points Range: 0 (0%) – 12 (12%)
Response may not be on topic and lacks depth.
Responses posted in the discussion lack effective professional communication.
Responses to faculty questions are missing.
No credible sources are cited.
Second Response
Points Range: 16 (16%) – 17 (17%)
Response exhibits synthesis, critical thinking, and application to practice settings.
Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues.
Responses to faculty questions are fully answered, if posed.
Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas that are supported by at least two scholarly sources.
Demonstrates synthesis and understanding of learning objectives.
Response is effectively written in standard, edited English.
Points Range: 14 (14%) – 15 (15%)
Response exhibits critical thinking and application to practice settings.
Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues.
Responses to faculty questions are answered, if posed.
Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas that are supported by two or more credible sources.
Response is effectively written in standard, edited English.
Points Range: 12 (12%) – 13 (13%)
Response is on topic and may have some depth.
Responses posted in the discussion may lack effective professional communication.
Responses to faculty questions are somewhat answered, if posed.
Response may lack clear, concise opinions and ideas, and a few or no credible sources are cited.
Points Range: 0 (0%) – 11 (11%)
Response may not be on topic and lacks depth.
Responses posted in the discussion lack effective professional communication.
Responses to faculty questions are missing.
No credible sources are cited.
Participation
Points Range: 5 (5%) – 5 (5%)
Meets requirements for participation by posting on three different days.
Points Range: 0 (0%) – 0 (0%)
Points Range: 0 (0%) – 0 (0%)
Points Range: 0 (0%) – 0 (0%)
Does not meet requirements for participation by posting on 3 different days.
Total Points: 100
Name: NURS_6050_Module02_Week03_Discussion_Rubric
RE: Discussion – Week 3
Collapse
 
The Affordable Care Act (ACA), or Obamacare, was signed into legislation in 2010. The ACA changed the healthcare system by reducing the amount citizens paid for themselves and their families for uncompensated care. The act also required every US citizen to have health insurance and provided assistance to those who could not afford it (eHealth, 2020). Although the ACA has been beneficial for most Americans, the Republicans and Democrats have not seen eye to eye on the act. Republicans believe that the ACA violates “American independence with its individual mandate and increased taxation” (HealthNetwork, 2017), hence one of the reasons why Trump has been trying to repeal and replace the act.
Politics is not a strong suit of mine so before starting this week’s discussion post I had to first look into what cost-benefit analysis (CBA) is. CBA is a way to compare the costs and benefits of an intervention. After learning the definition of CBA, I was able to apply it to legislation. One of the main goals of any legislator is to be re-elected. Legislators have to always be on their toes because a simple act such as wanting to repeal and replace the ACA could cause them a vote or monetary losses. By analyzing voters’ views, legislators can then make recommendations for new or changes to policies. When a legislator knows what the people want, they then have a greater chance of achieving their goal of being re-elected.
 
References
eHealth. (2020, October). History and Timeline of the Affordable Care Act (ACA). Retrieved from /orders/www.ehealthinsurance.com/resources/affordable-care-act/history-timeline-affordable-care-act-aca
HealthNetwork. (2017, July). What’s Dividing Republicans and Democrats on Healthcare Reform? Retrieved from HealthNetwork: /orders/healthnetwork.com/blog/differences-between-republicans-and-democrats-on-healthcare/

Comments are closed.