Healthcare Reform Case Study

If the federal government managed the healthcare at the state level the 22 states that elected not to expand Medicaid would not have left their citizens that live in poverty uninsured out in the cold. “Although 17 million Americans will become eligible for Medicaid by 2014” not every state will have the same coverages available at the same cost for their states (Richardson & Yilmazer, 2013, p. 191). The federal government would have regulates in place to prevent inconsistencies in coverage. Numerous citizens would not have to fret or be concerned that their state opted out just because they did not like what Washington was doing or to further their own political career. The Supreme Court “supine attitude” towards what all Americans need

With one centralized provider care could be streamlined. The need to coordinate amongst state and federal lines would no longer exist. Hospitals in states like Tennessee and their ability to stay open “ grim, made worse by the healthcare reform law’s reduction in disproportionate-share payments, which were expected to be offset by Medicaid expansion. But Tennessee hospitals faced a double whammy when their state’s Republican elected leaders did not accept expanding Medicaid to adults earning up to 138% of the federal poverty level. Hospitals in the state provided more than $2.4 billion in uncompensated care in 2012” (Dickson, 2014, p. 0014). With the federal government at the helm that would not have happened. The states just can’t be trusted with the health of their citizens when they allow politics to over shadow human life. The federal government for example, financial resources could be used to fund services such as care coordination—which many insurers do not reimburse—and the data could assist with strategies such as disease management” Bascetta, 2010, p.1). On dedicated department for each state within the federal government would make their whole operation more effective because few contacts would be