Typically, researchers try to stay as objective as possible with their work. After all, most research is based on strict and generally accepted methods of data collection and analysis that test hypotheses in a way that should be replicable and valid. (Got all of that?)
That said, when good research focuses on current health policy debates, there is a possibility that it can influence government programs. For example, legislators and other officials are considering ways to reduce the costs of government by reducing health care costs from programs like Medicaid (which supports people with low income and disabilities). This research report from the Urban Institute describes a current proposal for changing Medicaid and compares it to another option. Any policymaker (advocate or citizen) who does not support the current proposal can use this information as the basis for counter arguments or alternative positions.
Why bother? Because sometimes, in addition to other factors that influence policy choices…research or analysis from a reputable source can influence a policymaker’s vote….sometimes :).
Restructuring Medicaid through a Swap: An Alternative to a Block Grant
John HolahanAbstract
The large and growing U.S. deficit has led to calls for entitlement reform. Two prominent deficit commissions have made proposals to curtail Medicaid spending. One proposed a swap to address issues of gaming or creative financing in Medicaid. More recently, Congressman Paul Ryan proposed a block grant for Medicaid with substantially lower levels of federal spending. Both have problems. Swaps would result in a major redistribution of federal funds among states. The Ryan block grant would undoubtedly lead to much lower levels of coverage and access. In this paper we present a proposal for a swap that would largely eliminate incentives for gaming and strengthen incentives for cost containment without the distributional effects of straightforward swap proposals. Read the entire report in PDF format.
