Dr. Brian Smedley spoke on the effect a federal government sequestration can and will have on health and other programs that assist a large number of people of color during a Joint Center panel discussion on February 28, 2013.

The U.S. Supreme Court decision upholding the constitutionality of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) represents a significant advancement in the effort to repair the deeply-broken U.S. healthcare system and promote equitable opportunities for good health for all.  As long as its provisions are fully funded by Congress, the law will improve access to health insurance for more than 32 million Americans, prevent insurance companies from cherry-picking enrollees and denying claims because of pre-existing conditions, and incentivize more health-care providers to work in medically underserved communities.

These are among the benefits that the law is already providing, in addition to what is expected as provisions of the ACA come into force over the next two years.

In addition to ruling that the law’s mandate requiring insurance coverage is constitutional, the Court’s decision ensures that other key provisions of the legislation remain intact, many of which hold great promise to address the needs of those who face the greatest barriers to good health—particularly people of color, who are the fastest-growing segment of the U.S. population.

Read more at thegrio.com.

The Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies is pleased to share an important new report, Minorities, Mobile Broadband, and the Management of Chronic Diseases, prepared by the Joint Center Media and Technology Institute and the Health Policy Institute with support from the UnitedHealth Group Foundation. This report considers the vast potential of mobile broadband technologies to help address some of the nation’s most pressing health concerns, and therefore is relevant and timely for policymakers’ consideration as the federal government implements the Affordable Care Act.

This week marks the second anniversary of the passage of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA).  It’s also the week that oral arguments begin before the U.S. Supreme Court to consider the constitutionality of the law.  At minimum, the court will consider whether the law’s requirement that individuals who can afford health insurance coverage should carry it exceeds federal authority to regulate interstate commerce, and whether the law’s provisions to expand the Medicaid program are “coercive” to states.  Years of effort to create legislation that will expand insurance coverage, contain health care costs, and improve the quality of health care hang in the balance, and all Americans will ultimately be affected by how the high court rules.

Many state governors and legislatures want to trim Medicaid and other public programs in an effort to balance budgets. But cutting Medicaid to the bone won’t reduce the demand for health care, and it certainly won’t help people be healthy enough to contribute to an economic recovery.

Instead, policymakers should make smart investments to help people to stay healthy in the first place. How can government do this when resources are so limited?

Read more at The Milwaukee Courier.

When President Barack Obama met with the nation's governors last month and offered to allow states to establish their own plans to reform health care in place of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, he insisted that states meet or exceed the same goals established in the health overhaul to expand insurance coverage, improve the quality of care and contain rapidly escalating healthcare costs.

The president might also insist that states show progress toward eliminating health inequities -- differences in the opportunity to have good health that exist between rich and poor Americans, and whites relative to most non-whites.

These health inequities exist literally from the cradle to the grave, in the form of higher rates of infant mortality; disease and disability; and earlier death for many people of color and the poor relative to whites and higher-income groups.

Read more at Kaiser Health News.

The U.S. House of Representatives plans to vote soon to repeal the health care reform law that was enacted last year. While that effort is unlikely to go any further for the time being, it is important to consider what repeal would mean for the largest-growing segment of the population, people of color, and for a nation that has struggled to address the mounting costs of its health care system.

Even the prospect of "chipping away" at key elements of health care reform — as some congressional leaders have vowed to do — would damage the new law's potential for addressing longstanding racial and ethnic health inequalities. But in addition to the social justice consequences of perpetuating these inequalities, there are strong fiscal reasons why policymakers should want to keep health care reform in place.

Read more at The Baltimore Sun.

The Director of the Joint Center’s Health Policy Institute, Dr. Brian D. Smedley, discusses the health implications of an Obama administration and the challenges to health care reform in trying economic times.

During the only televised debate of the major vice-presidential candidates in the 2004 election cycle, moderator Gwen Ifill asked Dick Cheney and John Edwards about the crisis among African-American women, and what they-if elected-would do about it.