Assignment: Legislation Grid and Testimony/Advocacy Statement

Legislation Comparison

Part 2

Authorization of legislation is critical within its current form that is, Autism CARES Act of 2019 because it focuses on improving the government’s involvement of resources towards people with autism. Such, resources would facilitate the needs of the given individuals. Consequently, if the bill is not passed, then there would be a challenge through the efforts of Helping an individual with autism.  Besides, the previous actions that that had been made with regards to improving the lives of such individuals would go in vain.

Fighting autism requires joint efforts from different units, both public and private sectors and the legislation of acts ensures implementations that promote the involved concerns (Short, 2017). For instance, the committee that coordinates various programs and schemes regarding autism come from both public and private areas of operation. However, failure to enact the law means that federal units and other agencies from the government would be excluded from their involvement in autism. In turn, this would significantly impact the coordination of the internal programs within the health sectors, specifically those that deal with patients with autism and other related disorders.

Therefore, passing the bill would be an appropriate step to take considering the needs of these patients or instead, the individuals with special needs. For example, more advancement would be invocated to support relevant areas like research and treatment technics that would be more effective. Besides, the bill would ensure that there is an increment in the number of personnel to manage and control the disorder among particular patients. However, despite the improvement of the autism management, such an act means that there would be an increased investment or cost on the health sector to cater for all the requirements. Considering this, there would be a need for other amendments regarding the collection of resources from other individual or private sectors. Therefore, this would mean that despite the exclusion of the government’s full participation in financing the industry, there would be a continuity of autism management program.

 Reference

Short, N. M. (Ed.). (2017). Health Policy and Politics. Jones & Bartlett Learning.

Legislation Comparison Grid And Testimony Statement
-1-
Name of Health-Related Bill
Prescription Drug Pricing Reduction Act (PDPRA) of 2019
Bill Number S.2543 (116th)
Description Senator Grassley Chuck brought the PDPRA to the House floor on September 25, 2019 (S.2543 – 116th Congress (2019-2020): Prescription Drug Pricing Reduction Act of 2019, 2019). The finance committee approved the measure by a vote of 19 to 9, with minor changes to the original chairman’s mark. The measure intends to reform various rules and programs related to prescription drug pricing covered by Medicare and Medicaid by focusing on removing multiple competition barriers, improving Part D of Medicare benefit design on outpatient prescription medicine, and lowering medication costs (Adler et al., 2019) Testimony/Advocacy Statement and Legislation Grid Assignment Essay Example.
State or federal?
Intention of Federal Legislators
To provide access to high-quality medical care for all Americans by reducing the rising cost of prescription medications (Kanavos et al., 2020). The PDRPA Act requires the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) to publish detailed information about drug discounts and refunds, as well as payments made between pharmacies, medical insurance, and pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs) (Kang et al., 2019a). Similarly, the bill seeks to lower the yearly out-of-pocket (OOP) spending threshold; require drug manufacturers to publish refunds to the CMS for a rejected quantity of specific single-dose medications under Medicare; and provide rebates to CMS for certain prescriptions under Medicare where the average pharmaceutical company’s price rises faster than the country’s inflation rate (Adler et al., 2019). The bill’s goal is to address all of the interconnected issues and practices that stymie efforts to lower costs and skew incentives in the country’s prescription medicine system.
Supporters and detractors
Proponents:
It was sponsored by one senator and approved by 19 senators on the committee level.

Opponents: Nine senators voted against it in committee.

Population Targeted

Every American seeking medical attention
The bill’s current status (is it in committees or hearings?)
The PDRPA was introduced to the Senate Finance Committee on September 25, 2019, and it is now on the Senate’s legislative agenda order No. 225 (S.2543 – 116th Congress (2019-2020): Prescription Drug Pricing Reduction Act of 2019, 2019). It was reintroduced on July 20, 2020, and was read twice before being assigned to the Senate Finance Committee (S. 4199 Prescription Drug Pricing Reduction Act of 2020). Unlike kindred measures such as the S.1505 Medicare Prescription Drug Fraud Prevention Act, the PDRPA has gotten insufficient news coverage.
General Remarks/Comments

In principle, the PDRPA law seeks to address the intertwined difficulties that characterize the United States’ prescription medication system. Streamlining the Part D benefits framework of the Medicare benefit provides the opportunity to increase the targeted recipient’s financial safeguards while correcting erroneous incentives that drive up prescription spending.
ORDER A FREE PLAGIARISM PAPER NOW

Part 2: Advocacy Statement/Legislative Testimony

Good day, everyone. I’m Janelle McEwen, a registered labor and delivery nurse (RN) at Northside Hospital in Georgia with an MSN and a BSN. Today, I am here not only as an RN, but also as a citizen, to ask for your support in co-sponsoring and proposing the S.2543 legislation titled the Prescription Drug Pricing Reduction Act of 2020, which was introduced on the floor of the House and is now on the Senate’s legislative agenda order No. 225. (Kanavos et al., 2020). Currently, the United States’ prescription drug system has various issues, the most significant of which is the exorbitantly high cost of prescription pharmaceuticals, particularly those deemed to be of minimal benefit by both medical plans and patients (Mathis, 2021). According to available information, industrialized countries receive lower actual (net) and list prices for practically all prescription pharmaceuticals and limit the use of treatments with minor therapeutic effects, resulting in significantly lower spending (Mathis, 2021). As a result, America accounts for roughly 80% of all worldwide pharmaceutical earnings (Adler et al., 2019). As a result, the preceding raises concerns about our prescription medicine spending, and the unmatched high costs result in affordability and accessibility issues that affect taxpayers and patients.

The ultimate purpose of the Prescription Drug Pricing Reduction Act of 2020 is to address the complicated issues that plague our prescription medicine system. Redesigning Medicare’s Part D coverage allows for the addition of fiscal safeguards for beneficiaries by correcting distorted inducements that increase prescription drug spending (Kang et al., 2019b). The proposal, in particular, will impose a $3,100 OOP limit on prescription spending, which will be a valuable consumer safety (Mathis, 2021). The policy’s benefit restructure includes components aimed at lowering fees for expensive medications, such as reducing the amount of federal reinsurance paid to Part D plans for high-cost patients and requiring brand drug companies to pay a novel 20% rebate off list costs for medications used by beneficiaries who have reached their OOP cap, rather than the 70% refund currently required in the Medicare Part D coverage gap (Rome & Kesselheim, 2021). Furthermore, as estimated by the Congressional Budget Office, your support for the plan would reduce Part D premiums by approximately $6 billion, beneficiary cost-sharing in Part D by nearly $25 billion, and deficits by more than $100 billion over the next decade (Adler et al., 2019). Testimony/Advocacy Statement and Legislation Grid Essay Sample for Assignment As a result, please join the more than 70% of US residents who favor cutting prescription medication costs by co-sponsoring the PDRPA bill.

References

L. Adler, P. Ginsburg, and S. Lieberman (2019, October 3). Understanding the Senate Finance Committee’s bipartisan prescription medication reform plan. Brookings, USC. https://www.brookings.edu/blog/usc-brookings-schaeffer-on-health-policy/2019/10/03/understanding-the-bipartisan-senate-finance-prescription-drug-reform-package/

S.2543 – Prescription Drug Pricing Reduction Act of 2019, (2019) 116th Congress (2019-2020) (testimony of Chuck Grassley). https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/senate-bill/2543

P. Kanavos, A. Ferrario, S. Vandoros, and G. F. Anderson (2020). Higher branded medicine pricing and spending in the United States relative to other nations may be due in part to the rapid adoption of new drugs. 753-761 in Health Affairs 32(4). https://doi.org/10.1377/HLTHAFF.2012.0920

S. Y. Kang, M. J. Distefano, M. P. Socal, and G. F. Anderson (2019a). The use of external reference pricing in Medicare Part D to eliminate drug price disparities with other countries. 804-811 in Health Affairs, 38(5). https://doi.org/10.1377/HLTHAFF.2018.05207

S. Y. Kang, M. J. Distefano, M. P. Socal, and G. F. Anderson (2019b). The use of external reference pricing in Medicare Part D to eliminate drug price disparities with other countries. Doi.Org/10.1377/Hlthaff.2018.05207, 38(5), 804-811.

R. Mathis (2021). Drugs and their worth, Health Affairs, 40(12), 1978-1978. https://doi.org/10.1377/HLTHAFF.2021.01728

B. N. Rome and A. S. Kesselheim (2021). Increased Medicaid rebates for medications with expedited approval. Health Affairs, vol. 40(12), pp. 1935-1942. https://doi.org/10.1377/HLTHAFF.2021.00762 Assignment Sample Essay: Legislation Grid and Testimony/Advocacy Statement
-2-
Assignment:Legislation Comparison Grid And Testimony Statement
Introduction
Health policies have a huge impact on the population of a country. This document includes a legislation grid and legislation testimony/advocacy statement for H.R 721 Mental Health Services for Students Act of 2021, a proposed health-related Bill. The legislation grid highlights the Bill’s subject matter and legislative objectives. Furthermore, the document highlights the Bill’s primary proponent and the target population. Finally, the legislation grid indicates where the Bill is in the parliamentary process. The legislation testimony/advocacy statement, on the other hand, includes a personal perspective on the proposed Bill. The section concludes with a summary of how opponents of the Bill will be dealt with.

The Statement of Purpose

The goal of this article is to advocate for the passage of mental health legislation for kids in American educational systems.

Part 1: Legislative Framework

Name of Health-Related Bill

2021 Mental Health Services for Students Act
Bill No. H.R. 721
Description
The Bill was introduced to promote student access to mental health treatments in US educational institutions. Fundamentally, the Bill recommends that sufficient resources be provided to schools in order to develop a viable relationship with certified mental health specialists. Such a collaboration would make it easier for students to receive mental health treatments in their local schools. The Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) is in charge of funding distribution (Congress.Gov, 2021). The funding from SAMHSA allows the Project Advancing Wellness and Resilience Education (AWARE) initiative to hire skilled mental health experts. Individuals are then assigned mental health duties in schools around the country.
State or federal?
State Legislative Intention To treat mental health situations among pupils in the United States’ schools
To seek the funds required for seamless collaboration between schools and mental health experts.

To give required therapy to students who may be suicidal or have a desire to engage in criminal activity.

To extend programs relating to the well-being of children by revising the Public Health Service Act

To make comprehensive mental health treatments more accessible to communities living near the target learning institutions.

To educate family members of children with mental problems about mental health.

To relieve teachers of the burden of caring for mentally challenged kids by delegating that responsibility to trained mental health experts.

Supporters and detractors

Grace Napolitano, a member of Congress. For the past 20 years, Grace has had considerable success with the mental health program in schools in her congressional district (Congress.Gov, 2021). There are 35 local schools that have adopted the concept and are Helping pupils with their mental health issues.
Opponents: N/A
Population Targeted
Students in American educational institutions
Status of the Bill (Is it in committees or hearings?)
The Bill is now in committee. The Bill was received and read twice in the Senate on May 13, 2021. It was then referred to the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee.
General Remarks/Comments
In terms of mental health, the Bill is at the best interests of pupils in various schools around the United States. As a result, passing the legislation would benefit the target population.
Part 2: Advocacy Statement/Legislative Testimony

I endorse H.R. 721, the Mental Health Services for Students Act of 2021. As a caregiver, I had firsthand contact with a 14-year-old male patient suffering from depression. The patient was in the eighth grade. The patient disclosed in one of the sessions that he had nearly committed suicide at one point. Existing data indicates that many adolescents suffer in silence from various mental health difficulties because there are no measures in schools to address such cases (Moon et al., 2017, p. 386). Since a result, instituting mental health services in schools is critical, as such legislation would have a positive impact on the lives of students suffering from various mental health issues. In addition, including health policies into educational institutions benefits in the promotion of effective school-based initiatives (Milstead & Short, 2019, p. 206). In the context of this discussion, the proposed Bill provides a framework for implementing successful on-site mental health services for kids across the country in their various schools.

I would respond to my opponent by emphasizing the benefits of the proposed Bill. For example, providing cash to schools to foster collaboration between institutions and mental health specialists benefits children and their families. On the contrary, if schools do not provide on-site mental health treatments, some parents may be unable to transport their children to private mental health facilities. In general, private entities are less expensive than government-sponsored entities. In this situation, the proposed legislation would relieve parents of the financial burden while also facilitating mental health care for children in various schools. Furthermore, some researchers have discovered a link between students’ mental health and their academic success (Kern et al., 2017, p. 208). As a result, the availability of mental health treatments within educational institutions is bound to bear fruit.

Conclusion

The H.R. 721 Mental Health Services for Students Act of 2021 would have a good influence on the target population. In essence, pupils in American school systems would have access to mental health doctors within their educational institutions. Furthermore, parents and other family members would gain because their children’s mental health would be cared for through government financing provided by the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHS).

References

Congress.Gov. (2021, May 13). (2021, May 13). Mental health services for students Act of 2021, H.R.721 – 117th Congress (2021-2022). https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/721/titles

L. Kern, S. R. Mathur, S. F. Albrecht, S. Poland, M. Rozalski, and R. J. Skiba (2017). The need for school-based mental health treatments, as well as implementation strategies. 205-217 in School Mental Health, 9(3). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12310-017-9216-5

N. M. Short, Milstead, and Short, N. M. (2019). Politics and health policy (6th ed.). Jones & Bartlett Education.

J. Moon, A. Williford, and A. Mendenhall (2017). Perceptions of youth mental health among educators: Implications for training and promotion of mental health services in schools. 384-391 in Children and Youth Services Review. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2017.01.006
-3-
Legislation Comparison Grid And Testimony Statement
Health-related Bill Name

Medicare For All Bill, S.1129 (Bernie Sanders Bill) and H.R. 1384

Description

Senator Sanders Bernard introduced the Bill on April 10, 2019. The Finance Committee was supposed to go over the Bills. Representative Jayapal introduced H.R. 1384 on February 27, 2019, and it was referred to the Energy and Commerce, Ways and Means, Education and Labor, Rules, Oversight and Reform, and Armed Services committees on December 10, 2019.

State or federal?

Federal

Legislative Purpose

Cover services including as vision, dental, preventative care, mental health, and prescriptions for all persons living in the United States; everyone has the freedom to pick their providers and eliminates deductibles, premiums, and copays, except for the same name brand prescription medications.

Proponents/Opponents

Proponents include 54% of Democrats, 14% of Republicans, and 31% of Independents (Levitt, Neuman, & Brodie, 2019, fig 13).
Opponents include 6% of Democrats, 57% of Republicans, and 28% of Independents (Levitt, Neuman, & Brodie, 2019, fig 13).
Population Targeted

Every American in the United States

Status of the Bill (Is it in committees or hearings? Is it getting press attention?)

The bills 1129 and 1384 had only been read twice as of 4/10/19. It was afterwards referred to the Finance Committee and is now at this level. The Bill was introduced about a year ago, and due to a lack of advancements, it has received insufficient press attention; now, this Bill is receiving limited press coverage, particularly in newspapers.

General Remarks/Comments

There are numerous instances of errors in healthcare, and whether they are deliberate or unintentional, access to healthcare and treatment can definitely reduce errors. Furthermore, the health of the target population, which is America as a whole, will improve, culminating in a healthy nation. The legislation should be passed.

Do you need help with a similar assignment? Our staff includes professional and qualified writers who can Help you with any of your jobs. Simply place an order (Assignment: Legislation Comparison Grid and Testimony/Advocacy Statement).
Influence of Legislators on Health Care

The Obama Administration passed the Affordable Care Act, popularly known as ACA or “ObamaCare,” in March 2010. According to HealthCare.gov, the health care reform law has three primary goals: “make affordable health insurance available to more people, expand the Medicaid program to cover all adults with income less than 138% of the federal poverty level, and support innovative medical care delivery methods designed to lower the overall costs of health care” (“Affordable Care Act (ACA)”, n.d.). This health care law was adopted to get us closer to the ultimate objective of universal health care, and it is delivered as a right rather than a privilege (Teitelbaum, 2018). According to the Economic Policy Institute, roughly 29.8 million people would lose their health insurance and approximately 1.2 million would lose their employment if the Affordable Care Act were repealed (“Repealing the ACA,” n.d.). With the repeal potentially affecting so many Americans, you’d think it would have a significant effect in the legislative leader’s standing in Congress. As a democracy, we have the ability to influence those in positions to enact laws and regulations that affect our daily lives. With the impact of this repeal, I believe it is reasonable to conclude that the legislative leaders would have to respond in order to save face and protect their position inside Congress. The Trump Administration introduced the Better Care Reconciliation Act in 2017 after legislators determined how many Americans would be affected by the repeal. This act would provide more Helpance to cover out-of-pocket costs, health savings accounts, additional resources to combat the opioid epidemic, more options for Americans to buy lower premium plans, as well as tax and Medicaid revisions (Senate Budget Committee, 2017). I believe that by making these changes to the Affordable Care Act, the legislative leaders were able to secure their position in Congress, and I can only hope that their intentions are to coexist.
Advocacy Statement/Legislative Testimony
I firmly endorse the Medicare for All Act of 2019 (S.119 and H.R. 1384), which would help provide comprehensive health coverage to all American people. The Bill provides coverage for primary human care with no deductibles or copays, giving patients the opportunity to choose their chosen doctors.

Various governments’ principal priority is to enhance individuals’ access to healthcare. However, the expense of healthcare and its availability for everybody is exorbitant. Fortunately, for the majority of people, various health insurance schemes are available and in place.

In the United States, particularly in the healthcare sector, most governments regard every citizen’s health insurance as a critical agenda item. As a result, governments are working to improve people’s access to quality healthcare, expand universal coverage, and improve access to healthcare data, particularly among the most vulnerable people.

The Medicare Initiative was formed in 1965 to Help those over the age of 65, those with disabilities, and those with renal diseases needing dialysis or transplant. Over time, the program increased its coverage options to include prescription pharmaceuticals, thereby supporting a large number of people, including low-income families, pregnant women, persons with disabilities of any age, and those in need of long-term healthcare Helpance. The Medicare For All Act, S.1129, and H.R. 1384 bills aim to improve and expand Americans’ access to palliative care.

The American healthcare system is considered as the most expensive and ineffective in the world, costing more than US$ 10,700 per capita. The Medicare for All Act of 2019 S.1129 and 1384 Bills offer to save low- and middle-income people a lot of money (Sanders.senate.gov, 2019). This discovery raises the question of why, if other countries across the world can offer health coverage to their residents while paying less per capita, America is not following suit.

Hospitals are the most vocal opponents of the Act, as the majority of their income come from the high charges charged by commercial palliative care programs. The addition of the Medicare for All Act of 2019 resulted in Medicare coverage and fewer commercial insurance holders, resulting in lower hospital revenues (Abraham, 2019). S.1129 and H.R. 1384 Medicare for All Act of 2019 would, on the other hand, require providers to spend more time on patients and their treatment and care, while spending even less time on paperwork as required by private carriers.

An amendment to the S.1129 and H.R. 1384 Medicare for All Act of 2019 would be to eliminate all copays for drugs, regardless of brand. Drugs are made up of a variety of chemicals, some of which may be detrimental to certain patients. Furthermore, the precise component may not even exist in the high-priced brand drug. Nonetheless, the presence of a copay may be the reason a patient cannot afford the required drug.

Conclusion
Advocating for patients’ needs and acting as their voice may be required after they leave the hospital. Assuming a position and supporting the passage of the S.1129 and H.R. 1384 Medicare for All Act of 2019 is the advocacy patients, particularly the most vulnerable in the population, and citizens in general deserve. The Medicare for All Act of 2019 eliminates all copays, ensuring that all U.S. residents receive the same care regardless of their financial condition.

Do you need help with a similar assignment? Our staff includes professional and qualified writers who can Help you with any of your jobs. Simply place an order (Assignment: Legislation Comparison Grid and Testimony/Advocacy Statement).

References
T. Abraham (2019, February 8). The hospital lobby intensifies its resistance to “Medicare for All.” Congress.gov, https://www.healthcaredive.com/news/hospital-lobby-ratchets-up-opposition-to-medicare-for-all/547678/. (2019, March 13a). 116th Congress (2019-2020): Medicare for All Act of 2019 from https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-bill/1384/actions
Congress.gov. (2019, April 10b) (2019, April 10b). S.1129 – 116th Congress (2019-2020): 2019 Medicare for All Act https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/senate-bill/1129

-4-
Legislation Comparison Grid
Health-related Bill Name
Protecting Americans with Preexisting Conditions Act of 2019
Bill Number
H.R. 986
Description
The measure proposes that Americans with preexisting conditions have unrestricted access to care. It opposes the Trump administration’s attempt to destroy the success of Obamacare in the healthcare sector (H.R. 986, 2019). The law also eliminates any restrictions on rejection of care. It also suggests that the federal government provide states with greater cash to help them successfully execute Obamacare.

State or federal?

Federal. The bill impacts the federal government and is funded in Congress by Rep. Kuster, Ann M.
Legislative Purpose
The goal is to reduce the cost of care and enhance access to care for Americans with preexisting conditions. It reduces care rejection and promotes the Affordable Care Act (H.R. 986, 2019).
Supporters and detractors
Proponents: Supporters argue that the law is important because it will protect Americans’ health regardless of their previous diseases. It advocates for the reduction of the additional costs of care for those with preexisting conditions (H.R. 986, 2019). It also opposes the Trump administration’s attempt to derail the Affordable Care Act. Opponents contend that the law provides more options for Americans and may raise costs for state individual health insurance. They also contend that increasing the availability of short-term healthcare plans would provide more options while decreasing costs (H.R. 986, 2019).

Population Targeted

People who have pre-existing medical issues.

The bill’s current status (Is it in committees or hearings? Is it getting press attention?)
On May 9th, 2019, the bill was adopted by the House. Under the general directions, it was presented to the Senate for further consideration (H.R. 986, 2019).
The measure is now garnering media attention because it addresses a number of issues that jeopardize the availability of care for those with preexisting conditions.
General Remarks/Comments
The bill offers an efficient way to alleviate disparities in the American healthcare system. It will also end the discrimination that prevents Americans with preexisting medical issues from receiving adequate treatment. It will also protect the Affordable Care Act from government sabotage.
Testimony on Legislation
I wholeheartedly support the law because it gives all Americans access to equal and high-quality care. The law also addresses existing prejudice that prevents Americans from getting quality care (Lyon, 2018). Millions of Americans, for example, have pre-existing ailments such as diabetes, cancer, or heart disease. It would be contrary to the spirit of equal opportunity for all if such persons could not obtain quality and equitable care. The majority of people with preexisting conditions are elderly people who would have to pay more money to get healthcare services (Lyon, 2018). Making such a population pay more would restrict their access to care. More people would eventually die each year as a result of preventable ailments. Low-income families are also taken into account in the law, which suggests that persons with previous conditions should not be charged extra money (Glied & Jackson, 2018). As a result, the bill is effective in increasing access to care for people of all ages in both urban and rural America. To avoid a national crisis, the government should offer healthcare services to all Americans while enhancing access. Proponents believe that allowing patients with preexisting diseases into the healthcare system will raise insurance prices. Although their point is legitimate, they do not believe that forcing the elderly to pay additional charges will cause a national disaster (Lyon, 2018). Insurance rates are a different issue that the government and other stakeholders can address. For example, the government regulated the ever-increasing cost of care with the Affordable Care Act. It is also vital to stress that there should be no bias or discrimination towards specific people in the healthcare system. Allowing hospitals to charge extra money to persons with prior ailments would also result in inconsistencies. Some hospitals charge more, while others charge less (Glied & Jackson, 2018). To avoid a crisis, it is critical to advocate a policy that promotes equality in the healthcare industry. The measure will also avoid additional increases in healthcare costs and reduce preventable deaths among Americans with varied health issues. One of the adjustments I would make to the bill is to provide customized care for elderly persons above a particular age as well as low-income households. For example, it should propose that older individuals aged 70 and up receive care at a reduced rate. The goal is to ensure that all Americans may enjoy a healthy lifestyle and follow their dreams (Lyon, 2018). Children from low-income families may not have the same possibilities as children from wealthy families. It would also give them opportunities to pursue their aspirations, thereby breaking the cycle of poverty. The aged, on the other hand, demand high-quality, easily accessible, and cheap care. They should spend their final days on Earth in dignity. Most older people have contributed to the nation in various ways, therefore it is appropriate to provide them with quality care as they age. Elderly folks wind up in nursing facilities, alone and waiting to die. They stay pessimistic when they cannot obtain proper care or when their relatives are unable to care for them (Glied & Jackson, 2018). Some die in a depressed state because they recognize that their attempts to serve the country were futile. As a result, the government should make every effort to offer quality care to all elderly and low-income households.

References
S. A. Glied and A. Jackson (2018). What would happen to Americans’ out-of-pocket payments if insurance companies were allowed to deny coverage for preexisting conditions? . Issue Brief (Commonwealth Fund), 1-9.
S. M. Lyon (2018). An Update on Healthcare Reform. American Thoracic Society Annals, 15(4), 417-419.
The Preexisting Conditions Protection Act of 2019, H.R. 986, 116th Cong (2019).

-5-
Legislation Comparison Grid
Part 1
Health-related Bill Name Medicare for All Act of 2019

Description The Bill seeks to offer medical health coverage for all citizens of the US without any discrimination (Congress. Gov, n.d). In particular, the bracket of persons traditionally covered under Medicare of 1965 is expanded to include all members of the society under a healthcare insurance framework for the entire country (Morgan & Campbell, 2011). The intention of the drafters of this Bill is to ensure that all citizens of the US access medical services without any hindrance arising from high costs of healthcare.
Federal or State? Federal legislation offering universal coverage for all citizens in the US
Legislative Intent The primary objective of the bill is to eradicate discriminatory practices by extending benefits of medical provision to all residents. Under it, the relevant state department is tasked with the role of laying down elaborate provisions towards identifying eligible citizens (Congress. Gov, n.d). Additionally, other individuals who are not qualified for the benefit may enjoy such services with the permission of the secretary of healthcare services thereby making sure that no person living in the US is denied healthcare because of the spiraling cost of service provision.
Target Population All people living within the US which includes both citizens and other persons categorized as eligible by the mandated secretary
Status of the bill (Is it in hearings or committees? Is it receiving press coverage?) The Bill was introduced into the congress on 27th February 2019 and is currently awaiting congressional approval before proceeding to the senate (Congress. Gov, n.d). Additionally, there has been a nationwide campaign to sensitize members of the public on the manner in which this bill may affect their healthcare plans upon its enactment. The publicity is majorly undertaken by mainstream media and through social media related posts by the congressional library department.
General Notes/Comments
The Bill is a positive step forward in averting health dangers such as high cost of medical services which may inhibit provision of care to citizens. Therefore, congressional delegates should take prompt action in passing the bill before its enactment into law because of the positive impact it will have on lives of US citizens.

Part 2
Notably, the Medicare for All Act of 2019 is a good progress for the US in terms of medical coverage for citizens. The main characteristic of this bill is that it seeks to expand the coverage gap by including all people living in the country thereby reducing any chances of deaths arising from financial conditions of poor members of the society (Congress. Gov, n.d). Important to note is that this bill is an essential departure from the coverage offered under the Social Security Services Act of 1965 which limited the groups which could access medical care in the country.
The opponents to this Bill would argue that it does not offer comprehensive measures for its implementation and will most likely fail in its attainment of objectives outlined under it. In response to the opponents, appropriate responses will include the fact that most congressional statutes are funded by the federal government through provision of grants in the implementation phases (Ghilarducci, James & Geithner, 2018). Therefore, the process of implementation of the Medicare for All Act of 2019 will be achieved through subsidized medical cost from the federal government to ensure that all citizens enjoy medical services without any concerns on the cost of such services.
Amendments to the Bill would include having provisions excluding persons who are not citizens of the US from enjoying medical services under the legislation in order to make the implementation process of the program easier.

References
Congress. gov. (n.d.) H.R. 1384-Medicare for All Act of 2019. Retrieved from https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-bill/1384/text?q=%7B%22search%22%3A%5B%22healthcare+insurance%22%5D%7D&r=7&s=2
Ghilarducci, T., James, T., & Geithner, T. (2018). Rescuing retirement. New York Columbia University Press.
Morgan, K. J., & Campbell, A. L. (2011). The delegated welfare state: Medicare, markets, and the governance of social policy. New York: Oxford University Press.

L. Levitt, T. Neuman, and M. Brodie (2019). Making Sense of Medicare-for-All and Other Public-Coverage Proposals [PowerPoint Slides]. URL: https://www.kff.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/KFF-Web-Briefing-Slides-5.21.19-1.pdf
-4-

-2-

Published by

Dissertations

View all posts