Blog

Media is currently filled with information about COVID-19. Tampa Bay Times highlighted some previous decisions by Florida's state government that appear to now come back and haunt it during this pandemic: reducing budget for the public health department. The article recounts how Florida was concerned about outbreaks as far back as 2005 and had increased funding accordingly, but had pulled back in more recent years.

Media is currently filled with information about COVID-19. Tampa Bay Times highlighted some previous decisions by Florida's state government that appear to now come back and haunt it during this pandemic: reducing budget for the public health department. The article recounts how Florida was concerned about outbreaks as far back as 2005 and had increased funding accordingly, but had pulled back in more recent years.

The article helps illustrates why funding for public good can be difficult when the benefits are not immediately tangible. Most of Florida probably indeed wishes they had a better public health department right now, but the decision is not always clear after years of not hearing news about outbreaks. The situation might be compared to buying earthquake insurance in an earthquake-prone area: the decision obviously seems very wise in the immediate aftermath of an earthquake, but for someone who has paid for insurance for fifteen years and has never had to use it, the decision is less clear. Similar to insurance, some public health benefits cannot be easily restarted once an adverse outcome occurs (e.g. the current pandemic). Funding across state and local governments for public health will likely increase in the coming years, perhaps only to be reduced in years of quiet as certain politicians and administrators try to be more budget-efficient.

There's policy as envisioned, and there's policy as implemented. The latter can be especially problematic when the administrator of such policies has to support policies that s/he does not agree with. Kaiser Health News reported on how the current White House administration has undermined elements of the Affordable Care Act by, for example, reducing advertising for health insurance options during open enrollment. States like California have tried to blunt such impact by spending their own advertising dollars.

There's policy as envisioned, and there's policy as implemented. The latter can be especially problematic when the administrator of such policies has to support policies that s/he does not agree with. Kaiser Health News reported on how the current White House administration has undermined elements of the Affordable Care Act by, for example, reducing advertising for health insurance options during open enrollment. States like California have tried to blunt such impact by spending their own advertising dollars.

However, the article highlighted what seems like might be purposeful desire of the White House administration to spite the state of California by denying the managed care organization tax, "a surcharge on the managed-care plans that provide coverage to about 10 million enrollees on Medi-Cal, California's public health insurance program for low-income people." California expected their request to be approved -- similar to how Michigan's request was approved -- but California's request was instead denied. At stake appears to be roughly $2 billion in revenue for Medi-Cal. Arguably, California and other states should have found a way to make up for the shortfall before the tax expired, but if so, there is a question of fairness in that it is unclear why Michigan's request was approved. We often think about the government setting neutral policy and sometimes forget that real human beings are involved, who might make decisions that undermine the stated policy.

Understandably, online news about the COVID-19 virus is difficult to avoid. Several states now mandate residents to "shelter in place," meaning that many people cannot work and are also therefore not paid. Kaiser Health News raised some questions that will undoubtedly be on people's mind, including the policy question of what should happen to people when they are effectively prohibited from working.

Understandably, online news about the COVID-19 virus is difficult to avoid. Several states now mandate residents to "shelter in place," meaning that many people cannot work and are also therefore not paid. Kaiser Health News raised some questions that will undoubtedly be on people's mind, including the policy question of what should happen to people when they are effectively prohibited from working.

On this particular question, it appears that Congress is considering legislation to send $1,200 checks to people whose income fell below a certain threshold in 2018. There are other related policy questions of who should pay for quarantine treatment, and whether the government should pay for all testing and treatment of infected individuals (and if so, which level of government). As the quarantine progresses and the bills add up, it seems that there will be much reckoning that will need to be done.

We have continued to work on improving our website and we recently released two small features: "Doctors You Might Also Be Interested In" and location autocomplete suggestions. You can see the first feature when viewing the profile of a provider -- at the bottom of the page, our website suggests other providers that you might be interested in learning more about. Location autocomplete will suggest city names when you start typing in the location field of the search form. Both features can still be refined, but we hope they make using this site a little easier.

We have continued to work on improving our website and we recently released two small features: "Doctors You Might Also Be Interested In" and location autocomplete suggestions. You can see the first feature when viewing the profile of a provider -- at the bottom of the page, our website suggests other providers that you might be interested in learning more about. Location autocomplete will suggest city names when you start typing in the location field of the search form. Both features can still be refined, but we hope they make using this site a little easier.

The location autocomplete feature is made possible by our geocoding provider, NetToolKit (which translates street addresses into coordinates). They recently released an autocomplete feature within the US.

Kaiser Health News published an article that surveys various state efforts to make state-wide public option insurance plans available. The original concept of the Affordable Care Act included public option insurance plans, but that was gutted after strong lobbying efforts. Now, various states are considering making public option insurance available, separate from the federal government.

Kaiser Health News published an article that surveys various state efforts to make state-wide public option insurance plans available. The original concept of the Affordable Care Act included public option insurance plans, but that was gutted after strong lobbying efforts. Now, various states are considering making public option insurance available, separate from the federal government.

The article highlighted a previous effort to get public option legislation passed in Connecticut, and noted how some of the largest employers in the state are health insurers who oppose public option plans. Doubtless, health insurers have the clout to delay public option plans (or worse from their perspective, single-payer health care), but as healthcare premiums continues to rise, people are increasingly looking for a more sustainable solution. Voters who are frustrated with the lack of coverage may end up forcing one alternative or another.