Laws and Regulation

Answer

Laws and Regulation

The health care industry is one of the most sensitive sectors in the United States that attracts detailed scrutiny from the public and the government, which often aims at ensuring better services for every American citizen. On this note, every regime usually makes an effort to improve the industry by enacting various laws aimed at filling the loopholes within the sector. The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010, commonly known as the Obamacare, is one of such that significantly changed the United States health system by making insurance available for nearly 95 per cent of the legal population. The act, which was signed into law on March 3, 2010, required that every American citizen have a health insurance coverage or face income tax surcharges, which were later abolished by the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act effective in 2019 (Quadagno & Lanford, 2019). Despite the controversies and the politics that surrounded the act, its costs highly depended on the age, family size, and income, among other factors.

The law had three primary goals, which would drastically change the health industry. At the helm of these was the need to make affordable health insurance available to more Americans. It aimed to achieve this through the provision of subsidies to the consumers in the form of premium taxes, which would, in turn, lower the housing costs for low-income households. Secondly, the law aimed at the expansion of the Medicaid program to include all the adults with an income of below 138 per cent of the federal poverty level. However, not all states complied toward this expansion program (Quadagno & Lanford, 2019). Lastly, there was the need to support the medical sector through innovations that would help in lowering the cost of health care and ensuring the success of the evidence-based practice.

Through the act, the United States’ health industry and the economy changed in various ways, including small businesses receiving tax credits that enabled them to cover for their employee premiums. The insurance companies were also unable to deny coverage for clients with pre-existing conditions, which including both children and adults. Besides, there was prevention from deductibles on Medicare-covered preventive services, which also linked with the elimination of the co-pay. Through the expansion of medical funds from the government, there was a boost in services through increase in the number of doctors and nurses (Roy, 2019), as well as the facilities to make the services as affordable and available to the citizens as possible.

The law has attracted numerous court cases and legal suits, which made a significant number of American citizens think it repealed. However, it has helped in broadening the scope of the American constitution as citizens have come to learn of the numerous provisions in the constitution that make it necessary for such acts to prevail. For instance, when lawsuits argued that forcing every U.S citizen to have medical coverage or pay the penalty was unconstitutional, the Supreme Court decided that under the Congress’ right to impose a tax, and such moves were constitutional even though the Congress later repealed that in 2018 under the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. Notwithstanding, the House of Representatives also made crucial legal fights against the law on numerous occasions with a failed attempt to the point of shutting down the government and threatening to default debt in case of defunding. Most interesting was the reaction of the wealthier lot that faced huge additional taxes. Their agitation and championing for the abolition of the law became evident as the legal pursuits intensified.

Nevertheless, such reactions and response are not only limited to Obamacare but also are often witnessed in nearly every law and regulation. This explains the role of the accreditation and regulatory agencies in such situations to ensure that these acts achieve their intended objectives. Some policy resistances often have political initiation, which is an expectation in a developed democracy like the United States (Greenfield & Pawsey, 2018). This makes it necessary to evaluate the processes involved in every act, especially when it touches on critical issues such as health care. The law should meet a threshold of predetermined criteria and national standards without accepting regulations for their federal benefits alone.

Moreover, the regulatory agencies must ensure the policies are free from extremism by conducting a cost-benefit analysis. These analyses, when done at the initial stages of the implementation of the policy, helps in the elimination of the numerous legal battles and potentially making it more friendly to the general public. For this course, it is essential for the management also to note the necessary accreditation mechanism in place for the policy, which in most cases do not attract the light of day leading to misunderstanding of legislations that otherwise aim to better the lives of the citizens. Therefore, every act, whether politically initiated or a result of the general goodwill of the regime, should propel the economy toward success and maintain the national values of the country. More precisely, where such policies affect the health sector, precaution is necessary. The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010 has achieved the much it could amidst the series of legal battles. However, this does not mean it offers the best that the American people need. Where there is room for improvement, such should occur without hesitation.