Home About us Contact
|
Home About us Contact | ||
|
|
||
Congressional Budget Office (congressional + budget_office)
Selected AbstractsThe Impact of CHIP on Children's Insurance Coverage: An Analysis Using the National Survey of America's FamiliesHEALTH SERVICES RESEARCH, Issue 6 2009Lisa Dubay Objective. To assess the impact of the Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP) on the distribution of health insurance coverage for low-income children. Data Source. The primary data for the study were from the 1997, 1999, and 2002 National Survey of America's Families (NSAF), which includes a total sample of 62,497 children across all 3 years, supplemented with data from other data sources. Study Design. The study uses quasi-experimental designs and tests the sensitivity of the results to using instrumental variable and difference-in-difference approaches. A detailed Medicaid and CHIP eligibility model was developed for this study. Balanced repeated replicate weights were used to account for the complex sample of the NSAF. Descriptive and multivariate analyses were conducted. Principle Findings. The results varied depending on the approach utilized but indicated that the CHIP program led to significant increases in public coverage (14,20 percentage points); and declines in employer-sponsored coverage (6,7 percentage points) and in uninsurance (7,12 percentage points). The estimated share of CHIP enrollment attributable to crowd-out ranged from 33 to 44 percent. Smaller crowd-out effects were found for Medicaid-eligible children. Conclusions. Implementation of the CHIP program resulted in large increases in public coverage with estimates of crowd-out consistent with initial projections made by the Congressional Budget Office. This paper demonstrates that public health insurance expansions can lead to substantial reductions in uninsurance without causing a large-scale erosion of employer coverage. [source] Interview with a Quality Leader,Karen Davis, Executive Director of The Commonwealth FundJOURNAL FOR HEALTHCARE QUALITY, Issue 2 2009Lecia A. Albright Dr. Davis is a nationally recognized economist, with a distinguished career in public policy and research. Before joining the Fund, she served as chairman of the Department of Health Policy and Management at The Johns Hopkins School of Public Health, where she also held an appointment as professor of economics. She served as deputy assistant secretary for health policy in the Department of Health and Human Services from 1977 to 1980, and was the first woman to head a U.S. Public Health Service agency. Before her government career, Ms. Davis was a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution in Washington, DC; a visiting lecturer at Harvard University; and an assistant professor of economics at Rice University. A native of Oklahoma, she received her PhD in economics from Rice University, which recognized her achievements with a Distinguished Alumna Award in 1991. Ms. Davis is the recipient of the 2000 Baxter-Allegiance Foundation Prize for Health Services Research. In the spring of 2001, Ms. Davis received an honorary doctorate in human letters from John Hopkins University. In 2006, she was selected for the Academy Health Distinguished Investigator Award for significant and lasting contributions to the field of health services research in addition to the Picker Award for Excellence in the Advancement of Patient Centered Care. Ms. Davis has published a number of significant books, monographs, and articles on health and social policy issues, including the landmark books HealthCare Cost Containment, Medicare Policy, National Health Insurance: Benefits, Costs, and Consequences, and Health and the War on Poverty. She serves on the Board of Visitors of Columbia University, School of Nursing, and is on the Board of Directors of the Geisinger Health System. She was elected to the Institute of Medicine (IOM) in 1975; has served two terms on the IOM governing Council (1986,90 and 1997,2000); was a member of the IOM Committee on Redesigning Health Insurance Benefits, Payment and Performance Improvement Programs; and was awarded the Adam Yarmolinsky medal in 2007 for her contributions to the mission of the Institute of Medicine. She is a past president of the Academy Health (formerly AHSRHP) and an Academy Health distinguished fellow, a member of the Kaiser Commission on Medicaid and the Uninsured, and a former member of the Agency for Healthcare Quality and Research National Advisory Committee. She also serves on the Panel of Health Advisors for the Congressional Budget Office. [source] Comparative Effectiveness Research Priorities at Federal Agencies: The View from the Department of Veterans Affairs, National Institute on Aging, and Agency for Healthcare Research and QualityJOURNAL OF AMERICAN GERIATRICS SOCIETY, Issue 6 2010Timothy J. O'Leary MD In the last year, attention has been focused on translating federally sponsored health research into better health for Americans. Since the passage of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) on February 17, 2009, ARRA funds to support Comparative Effectiveness Research (CER) have increased this focus. A large proportion of topical areas of interest in CER affects the older segment of the population. The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), the National Institute on Aging (NIA), and the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) have supported robust research portfolios focused on aging populations that meet the varying definitions of CER. This short article briefly describes the research missions of the AHRQ, NIA, and VA. The various definitions of CER as the Congressional Budget Office, the Institute of Medicine, and the ARRA-established Federal Coordinating Council have put forward, as well as important topics for which CER is particularly needed, are then reviewed. Finally, approaches in which the three agencies support CER involving the aging population are set forth and opportunities for future CER research outlined. [source] Determining if disease management saves money: an introduction to meta-analysisJOURNAL OF EVALUATION IN CLINICAL PRACTICE, Issue 3 2007Ariel Linden DrPH MS Abstract Disease management (DM) programmes have long been promoted as a major medical cost-saving mechanism, even though the scant research that exists on the topic has provided conflicting results. In a 2004 literature review, the Congressional Budget Office stated that ,there is insufficient evidence to conclude that disease management programs can generally reduce the overall cost of health care services'. To address this question more accurately, a meta-analysis was warranted. Meta-analysis is the quantitative technique used to pool the results of many studies on the same topic and summarize them statistically. This method is also quite suitable for individual DM firms to assess whether their programmes are effective at the aggregate level. This paper describes the elements of a rigorous meta-analytic process and discusses potential biases. A hypothetical DM organization is then evaluated with a specific emphasis on medical cost-savings, simulating a case in which different populations are served, evaluation methodologies are employed, and diseases are managed. [source] Inside the Sausage Factory: Improving Estimates of the Effects of Health Insurance Expansion ProposalsTHE MILBANK QUARTERLY, Issue 4 2002Sherry Glied Many policy proposals address the lack of insurance coverage, with the most commonly discussed being tax credits to individuals, expansions of existing public programs, subsidies for employers to offer coverage to their workers, and mandates for employers and individuals. Although some policy options may be favored (or disfavored) on theoretical or ideological grounds, many debates about policy center on empirical questions: How much will this option cost? How many people will obtain insurance coverage? Estimates of costs and consequences influence policy in three ways. First, the Office of Management and Budget, the Congressional Budget Office, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, the Treasury Department, and other government agencies incorporate estimates of the costs of proposals in their budget calculations. Particularly in times of fiscal restraint, the cost of a proposal is central to its legislative prospects. Second, recognizing the importance of final budget numbers, policy advocates include estimates in their advocacy. The fate of a proposal to expand health insurance is influenced by predictions of the proposal's effects on the number of newly insured and the cost of new coverage. Estimates vary widely, for reasons that are often hard to discern and evaluate. This article describes and compares the frameworks and parameters used for insurance modeling. It examines conventions and controversies surrounding a series of modeling parameters: how individuals respond to a change in the price of coverage, the extent of participation in a new plan by those already privately insured, firms' behavior, and the value of public versus private coverage. The article also suggests ways of making models more transparent and proposes "reference case" guidelines for modelers so that consumers can compare modeling results. [source] | ||||||||||