Politics and the Public Health Workforce: Lessons Suggested from a Five-State Study.

Policy Points The United States public health system relies on an inadequate and inefficient mix of federal, state, and local funding. Various state-based initiatives suggest that a promising path to bipartisan support for increased public health funding is to gain the support of local elected officials by providing state (and federal) funding directly to local health departments, albeit with performance strings attached. Even with more funding, we will not solve the nation's public health workforce crisis until we make public health a more attractive career path with fewer bureaucratic barriers to entry. CONTEXT: The COVID-19 pandemic exposed the shortcomings of the United States public health system. High on the list is a public health workforce that is understaffed, underpaid, and undervalued. To rebuild that workforce, the American Rescue Plan (ARP) appropriated $7.66 billion to help create 100,000 new public health jobs. As part of this initiative, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) distributed roughly $2 billion to state, local, tribal, and territorial health agencies for use between July 1, 2021, and June 30, 2023. At the same time, several states have enacted (or are considering enacting) initiatives to increase state funding for their local health departments with the goal of ensuring that these departments can deliver a core set of services to all residents. The differences in approach between this first round of ARP funding and theseparate state initiatives offer an opportunity to compare, contrast, and suggest lessons learned. METHODS: After interviewing leaders at the CDC and other experts on the nation's public health workforce, we visited five states (Kentucky, Indiana, Mississippi, New York, and Washington) to examine, by means of interviews and documents, the implementation and impact of both the ARP workforce funds as well as the state-based initiatives. FINDINGS: Three themes emerged. First, states are not spending the CDC workforce funding in a timely fashion; although the specifics vary, there are several organizational, political, and bureaucratic obstacles. Second, the state-based initiatives follow different political paths but rely on the same overarching strategy: gain the support of local elected officials by providing funding directly to local health departments, albeit with performance strings attached. These state initiatives offer their federal counterparts a political roadmap toward a more robust model of public health funding. Third, even with increased funding, we will not meet the nation's public health workforce challenges until we make public health a more attractive career path (with higher pay, improved working conditions, and more training and promotion opportunities) with fewer bureaucratic barriers to entry (most importantly, with less reliance on outdated civil service rules). CONCLUSION: The politics of public health requires a closer look at the role played by county commissioners, mayors, and other local elected officials. We need a political strategy to persuade these officials that their constituents will benefit from a better public health system.

Trump v. The ACA.

Before his incoherent response to the COVID-19 pandemic, the focus of President Trump's health policy agenda was the elimination of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA), which he has called a 'disaster'. The attacks on the ACA included proposals to repeal the law through the legislative process, to erode it through a series of executive actions, and to ask the courts to declare it unconstitutional. Despite these ongoing challenges, the ACA remains largely intact as the U.S. heads into the 2020 election. The longer term fate of the law, however, is uncertain and the outcome of the 2020 election is likely to have a dramatic effect on the direction of health policy in the U.S.

Why Did the ACA Co-Op Program Fail? Lessons for the Health Reform Debate.

The ACA created a new type of nonprofit health insurance entity, the "Consumer Operated and Oriented Plan" ("co-op"). Most of the newly created co-ops soon lost money, and only 4 of the original 23 remain. We interviewed key stakeholders and conducted in-depth case studies of 3 of these co-ops. We discovered that politicians and regulators made it unlikely the program could succeed, that most of the co-ops did not have the management capacity to overcome these political obstacles, and that even those with good managers lacked the needed fiscal resilience. We also considered lessons suggested for those proposing a newly created "public option." The main one is that a successful public option requires a supportive political environment, strong management, and significant fiscal capacity, none of which comes easily. A better route may be a quasi-public option in which the government subcontracts the operation of its newly created plan to a private firm. Although it is uncertain whether federal regulators have the capacity to hold such private for-profit firms accountable, pragmatism suggests that a combination of public-sector regulation and private-sector implementation may be the most direct path toward a US version of affordable universal coverage.

Federalism And The ACA: Lessons For The 2020 Health Policy Debate.

Establishing a balance of power between states and the federal government has defined the American Republic since its inception. This conflict has played out in sharp relief with the implementation of the Affordable Care Act. This article describes the interplay between state and federal governments in the implementation of the act in three areas: the expansion of eligibility for Medicaid, implementation of the insurance Marketplaces, and regulation of insurers. The experience shows that states are intimately involved in health care and that useful policy and fiscal advantages can result from that involvement. However, strong national standards are critical to preventing partisan politics from trumping the health policy process.

States as Policy Laboratories: The Politics of State-Based Single-Payer Proposals.

Although the focus for most single-payer advocates is in Washington, DC, and on proposals for Medicare for all, there are also efforts in a handful of states to enact a state-based single-payer program. Moreover, the odds of legislative passage are better in a state like New York than at the federal level.Even if enacted, however, state-based single-payer proposals face a distinct set of obstacles, including (1) the need to obtain federal permission (via waivers) to repurpose federal dollars, (2) the federal Employee Retirement Income and Security Act, and (3) the burden of state-only action in an interconnected 50-state economy.The most likely result of the energized single-payer movement will be incremental public insurance expansions at the federal and state levels, including state programs to permit the uninsured to buy into the Medicaid program. Such an outcome is consistent with the most plausible path (incrementalism) to a US version of universal coverage.

Medicaid At 50: Remarkable Growth Fueled By Unexpected Politics.

Medicaid has grown exponentially since the mid-1980s, during both conservative Republican and liberal Democratic administrations. How has this happened? The answer is rooted in three political variables: interest groups, political culture, and American federalism. First, interest-group support (from hospitals, nursing homes, and insurers) is more influential than the fragmented group opposition (from underpaid office-based physicians). Second, Medicaid provides a partial counterweight to conservative charges of a federal health care takeover because of the states' roles in administering the program. Third, Medicaid's intergovernmental fiscal partnership creates financial incentives for state and federal officials to expand enrollment-expansions that these policy makers often favor, given the program's increasingly important role in the nation's health care system. This institutional dynamic is here called catalytic federalism.

Inching toward incrementalism: federalism, devolution, and health policy in the United States and the United Kingdom.

In the United States, the recently enacted Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010 envisions a significant increase in federal oversight over the nation's health care system. At the same time, however, the legislation requires the states to play key roles in every aspect of the reform agenda (such as expanding Medicaid programs, creating insurance exchanges, and working with providers on delivery system reforms). The complicated intergovernmental partnerships that govern the nation's fragmented and decentralized system are likely to continue, albeit with greater federal oversight and control. But what about intergovernmental relations in the United Kingdom? What impact did the formal devolution of power in 1999 to Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland have on health policy in those nations, and in the United Kingdom more generally? Has devolution begun a political process in which health policy in the United Kingdom will, over time, become increasingly decentralized and fragmented, or will this "state of unions" retain its long-standing reputation as perhaps the most centralized of the European nations? In this article, we explore the federalist and intergovernmental implications of recent reforms in the United States and the United Kingdom, and we put forward the argument that political fragmentation (long-standing in the United States and just emerging in the United Kingdom) produces new intergovernmental partnerships that, in turn, produce incremental growth in overall government involvement in the health care arena. This is the impact of what can be called catalytic federalism.