To culminate a year rife with political turmoil, one final wildfire swept the nation at the close of 2017. After initial reports from inside the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) suggesting that it had received instruction to forbid the usage of seven words in its budget formulations, media outlets and the general public took en masse to declare a state of Orwellian emergency.
It has become more and more evident with time that the health care delivery system in the United States is riddled with issues, which have led to many disagreements about policy because there is no clear and universally acceptable solution to our problems.
This past summer, I was fortunate enough to be an intern for the government relations arm of a national medical society. Below is an attempt at recreating a “Hill Day” so that you, the reader, can get a better idea of how policy is influenced.
As another ACA repeal looms in the near future — after ACHA and BCRA — the Graham-Cassidy-Heller-Johnson (Graham-Cassidy) legislation makes me think back to a patient I took care of a few months ago.
“Telestroke,” a telemedicine approach to acute stroke care, is revolutionizing how we treat our country’s third leading cause of death. Leveraging modern communication technology and the combined experience of skilled neurologists, Telestroke aims to benefit patients in rural areas who are often at the highest risk of ischemic stroke but have the least access to treatment.
Her agitation was clearly apparent, plastered to her face like the smile she had worn moments ago. The phone was still clenched tightly in her hand as she paced the narrow hallway, muttering under her breath how travesties like this would not occur back in her native Ghana.
Intellectually, I understood the potential devastation that a lack of health insurance could bring to so many Americans. But it wasn’t until 2012 that I viscerally felt just how health care policies made in faraway Washington affected the lives of so many.
In the 2016 election cycle, millions of Americans elected a president who had never before held public office, believing they had “rejected the political establishment.” While the underlying idea of this perspective has its merits, there is a group even less represented — and more desperately needed — in the federal government than businessmen: scientists and physicians.
If you live in a home built before the 1970s, it likely contains pockets of asbestos used during its construction. Known for its durability and heat resistance, the material was used for decades in everything from pipe insulation and ceiling tiles, to shingles and furnace cement.
We are in agreement. A robust and intellectual discussion of health care reform requires knowledge of the factors in play. Yet, we are deeply troubled by the simplicity and lack of nuance in a number of your arguments. Here are some our responses.
We are each entitled to our own opinions, but not our own facts. In his op-ed, Mr. Barsouk makes a number of statements that contradict the facts, eroding the credibility of his arguments. I hope to address the six most problematic statements here.
Our Health Policy student-leaders Aishwarya Rajagopalan and Adam Barsouk dissect the major policy changes of the ACA and the AHCA, offering their perspectives on the state of American health care.