Advertisement

The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly: Overview of the Health Reform Law and Its Impact on Health-Care Disparities

  • Richard Allen WilliamsEmail author
Chapter

Abstract

The passage of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA or ACA) on March 23, 2010 has been hailed as simultaneously being a wondrous blessing that promises to uplift the delivery of health care for all; as a lukewarm and incomplete approach to the prodigious medical problems of the United States; and as a downright mistake that will hamper rather than help us to overcome what nearly everyone acknowledges as a crisis in medical care. Of course, there has been much subjective conjecture on this topic, with one’s orientation being influenced by political status, personal experience, level of education, geographical factors, racial and ethnic group membership, exposure to the issues, and frank bias. There has been a great deal of debate about what provisions are best for the country that has ranged from vitriolic to vapid, with no unifying perspective having been enunciated as yet. Some pundits say that there is no possibility of unification and that the issue of what kind of health care is best will remain perpetually divisive. There are ten major titles in the new national health-care reform program, each with its own separate agenda (The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, P.L. 111–148, 23 Mar 2010). They are as follows: 1. Title I: Quality, Affordable Health Care for all Americans 2. Title II: Role of Public Programs 3. Title III: Improving the Quality and Efficiency of Health Care 4. Title IV: Prevention of Chronic Disease and Improvement of Public Health 5. Title V: Health Care Workforce 6. Title VI: Transparency and Program Integrity 7. Title VII: Improving Access to Innovative Medical Therapies 8. Title VIII: Class Act 9. Title IX: Revenue Provisions 10. Title X: Strengthening Quality, Affordable Health Care for all Americans As the nation moves forward in complying with what is now health-care reform law, it is important to look at what we are in for and how we are going to deal with it. We also need to understand that the law is not immutable, and that we will need to examine the impact of certain policies and provisions that have been promulgated in order to determine what changes need to be made down the road. This gives us an opportunity to choose one particular entity, health-care disparities, to see how much has been included in the new law (or excluded from it) that might relate to this important area of health-care endeavor, and to examine it in an objective manner. None of the titles listed specifically aims at eliminating health-care disparities, although just about all of them contain sections that relate to this topic in one way or another. Some of these sections relating to ethnic and racial minorities and to disparities indicate an intent of beneficial action; others state mandated actions in the strongest terms, and many but not all list penalties for noncompliance as well as the level of appropriations to enable implementation. It appears useful, therefore, to put together a kind of road map that hopefully will help one to navigate through the complex waters of the new health-care reform law as it concerns health-care disparities and racial and ethnic minorities. Some of these will be discussed in detail, and others are presented in various chapters elsewhere in this book. They are not necessarily discussed in the order of importance or priority. For this report, the entire 906 pages of the health-care bill have been scanned and will be analyzed regarding the presence (or absence) of key provisions for reducing or eliminating health-care disparities. In this manner, we will be able to ascertain the extent to which concern over health equity has been taken into account by Congress and the Obama Administration.

Keywords

Healthcare reform Disparities Equity Literacy Data collection Quality improvement Health insurance coverage Affordability “Donut hole” Wellness Prevention Cultural competency Diversity Medical home “Public option” Patient-centered research Appropriations Proposition 209 Community empowerment 

References

  1. 1.
    Koh HK. A 2020 vision for healthy people. N Engl J Med. 2010;362(8):1653–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Murray CJL, Frenk J. Ranking 37th-measuring the performance of the U.S. health care ­system. N Engl J Med. 2010;362(2):98–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Wynia MK, Ivey SL, Hasnain-Wynia R. Collection of data on patients’ race and ethnic group by physician practices. N Engl J Med. 2010;362(9):846–50.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Institute of Medicine. Unequal treatment: confronting racial and ethnic disparities in health care. Washington, DC: National Academies Press; 2003.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Institute of Medicine. Race, ethnicity and language data: standardization for health care quality improvement. Washington, DC: National Academies Press; 2009.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Kirsch I, Jungeblut A, Jenkins L, Kohlstad A. Adult literacy in America: a first look at the results of the National Adult Literacy Survey. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics, U.S. Department of Education; 1993.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Rosenbaum S. A “customary and necessary” program-Medicaid and Health Care Reform. N Engl J Med. 2010;362(21):1952–5.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Institute of Medicine. Health literacy: a prescription to end confusion. Washington, DC: National Academies Press; 2004.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Schneider M. National assessment of adult literacy (NAAL) results. 2 Mar 2006. 2003. Available at http://www.nces.ed.gov/whatsnew/commissioner/remarks/12 15 2005.asp.
  10. 10.
    Parker RM, Kindig DA. Beyond the Institute of Medicine Health Literacy Report: are the recommendations being taken seriously? J Gen Intern Med. 2006;21(8):891–2.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kaiser Family Foundation. Health reform and communities of color: how might it affect racial and ethnic health disparities? Menlo Park, CA: The Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation; 2009.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Smith SG, Nsiah-Kumi PA, Jones PR, Pamies RJ. Pipeline programs in the health professions, part 1: preserving diversity and reducing health disparities. J Natl Med Assoc. 2009;101(9):836–63.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Jacobson PD, Gostin LO. Restoring health to health reform. JAMA. 2010;304(1):85–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    US Commission on Civil Rights. The commission, affirmative action, and current challenges facing equal opportunity in education. 2003. http://www.usccr.gov/action/ccraa.htm.Accessed 31 Oct 2008.
  15. 15.
    Norris KC, Baker RS, Taylor R, Montgomery-Rice V, Higginbotham EJ, Riley WJ, et al. Historically black medical schools: Addressing the minority health professional pipeline and the public mission of care for vulnerable populations. J Natl Med Assoc. 2009;101(9):864–72.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Friedberg MW, Coltin KL, Safran DG, Dresser M, Schneider EC. Medical home capabilities of primary care practices that serve sociodemographically vulnerable neighborhoods. Arch Intern Med. 2010;170(11):038–944.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Iglehart JK. No place like home – testing a new model for care delivery. N Engl J Med. 2010;359(12):1200–2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Stange KC, Miller WL, Nutting PA, Crabtree BF, Stewart EE, Jaen RC. Context for understanding the National Demonstration Project and the patient-centered medical home. Ann Fam Med. 2010;8:S2–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Qualis Health. The Safety Net Medical Home Initiative: transforming safety net clinics into patient-centered medical homes. (Accessed 27 Apr 2010, at http://www.qhmedicalhome.org/safety-net/)
  20. 20.
    Adashi EY, Geiger HJ, Fine MD. Health care reform and primary care-the growing importance of the community health center. N Engl J Med. 2010;362(22):2047–50.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Martin DF, Maguire MG, Fine SL. Identifying and eliminating the roadblocks to comparative-effectiveness research. N Engl J Med. 2010;363(2):105–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Hall HI, Ruiguang S, Rhodes P, et al. Estimation of HIV incidence in the United States. JAMA. 2008;300:520–39.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Oramasionwu CU, Brown CM, Ryan L, Lawson KA, Hunter JM, Frei CR. HIV/AIDS disparities: the mounting epidemic plaguing US blacks. J Natl Med Assoc. 2009;101(12):1196–204.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    CDC. HIV Surveillance Report, 2008; vol 20.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    DHHS. Trends in the health of Americans. Hyattsville, MD: Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Health statistics Office of Information Services; 2003.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Nadkarni M. The double whammy of chronic illness in underserved populations: can we afford not to care? Med Public Health Prev 2(1), 2004.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Koh HK, Sebelius KG. Promoting prevention through the Affordable Care Act. 10.1056/New Engl J Medp 1008560, published online at NEJM.org.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Aaron HJ. The midterm elections-high stakes for health policy. 10.1056/NEJMp1011213, published online on 6 Oct 2010 at NEJM.org.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.WashingtonUSA

Personalised recommendations