Health Affairs, 26, no. 2 (2007): 355 doi: 10.1377/hlthaff.26.2.355 © 2007 by Project HOPE	New Online   Senate Health Reform Bill   Rewarding Providers   Public Option Policy Brief   Health Reform & Abortion   Delivery System Reform

This Article Extract Reprint (PDF) Submit a response to this article Alert me when this article is cited Alert me when Comments are posted Alert me if a correction is posted Services E-mail this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to My Personal Archive Download to Citation Manager Reprints & Permissions Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Search for Related Content Related Collections Access To Care Health Reform Insurance Coverage - Children Medicaid Business Of Health Health Spending Consumer Issues

Insurance Design

PROLOGUE

Insurance Design For Children’s Coverage

At the same time, the recent history of SCHIP and its parent program, Medicaid, reveals the perennial vulnerability of both. Both programs helped offset a loss of private coverage during the economic downturn of the early decade but encountered withering budget pressures along the way. More recently, despite improving state revenues, both face major constraints from the Deficit Reduction Act (DRA) of 2005 and the Democrats’ adoption of pay-as-you-go budget rules. As Genevieve Kenney and Justin Yee point out in the first of the following five papers on children’s coverage, SCHIP reauthorization will have to increase baseline funding just to maintain the program’s current level of effort; new DRA proof-of-citizenship regulations threaten to undercut Medicaid’s outreach and retention, according to the second of these papers, by Lisa Dubay, of the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School, and colleagues.

After tracing SCHIP’s growth over the program’s first ten years, Kenney and Yee, of the Urban Institute, outline additional challenges faced in this year’s reauthorization process. Dubay and colleagues appropriately set children’s coverage in the context of the larger, older, and complementary Medicaid program. The two papers detail the countercyclical budget dynamics that both programs have to contend with, when demand for public coverage rises at the same time that state revenues fall. The tension between Medicaid’s traditional foundation as a federal entitlement program and DRA provisions allowing the states greater flexibility in program design is highlighted in a penetrating historical analysis of Medicaid’s Early and Periodic Screening, Diagnosis, and Treatment (EPSDT) benefit, by Sara Rosenbaum and Paul Wise of George Washington and Stanford Universities, respectively. Next is a thoughtful exploration of the potential interaction between strategies for children’s and universal coverage initiatives by Stephen Berman of the University of Colorado. Len Nichols of the New America Foundation concludes the section with an urgent plea to consider the ultimate reasons for coverage policy.

                      What's this?