What Federalism Means for the US Response to Coronavirus Disease 2019

Gordon, Sarah H.; Huberfeld, Nicole; Jones, David K.

doi:10.1001/jamahealthforum.2020.0510

Cited by 31 publications

(27 citation statements)

References 4 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…For example, in the United States, the existing public health federalism allows flexibility for the State government officials to customize pandemic responses in accordance to the unique characteristics of state populations [ 8 ]. However, this creates complications in centralizing and coordinating manpower and resources across the states for implementing timely responses to address the pandemic [ 9 ]. In contrast, countries with similar infection trends such as Germany, Austria and Switzerland, who share similar federalism systems, were able to leverage state resources to implement protective policies efficiently [ 10 ].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Patterns of Psychological Responses among the Public during the Early Phase of COVID-19: A Cross-Regional Analysis

Chong

Chien

Cheng

et al. 2021

IJERPH

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study aimed to compare the mediation of psychological flexibility, prosociality and coping in the impacts of illness perceptions toward COVID-19 on mental health among seven regions. Convenience sampled online survey was conducted between April and June 2020 from 9130 citizens in 21 countries. Illness perceptions toward COVID-19, psychological flexibility, prosociality, coping and mental health, socio-demographics, lockdown-related variables and COVID-19 status were assessed. Results showed that psychological flexibility was the only significant mediator in the relationship between illness perceptions toward COVID-19 and mental health across all regions (all ps = 0.001–0.021). Seeking social support was the significant mediator across subgroups (all ps range = <0.001–0.005) except from the Hong Kong sample (p = 0.06) and the North and South American sample (p = 0.53). No mediation was found for problem-solving (except from the Northern European sample, p = 0.009). Prosociality was the significant mediator in the Hong Kong sample (p =0.016) and the Eastern European sample (p = 0.008). These findings indicate that fostering psychological flexibility may help to mitigate the adverse mental impacts of COVID-19 across regions. Roles of seeking social support, problem-solving and prosociality vary across regions.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Patterns of Psychological Responses among the Public during the Early Phase of COVID-19: A Cross-Regional Analysis

Chong

Chien

Cheng

et al. 2021

IJERPH

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…It would also begin moving the nation away from a federalist approach to a Medicaid policy in which states decide who and what is covered beyond limited federal standards. 2 For existing Medicaid enrollees and health care providers, a state's decision to move the expansion population into the public option would have important consequences. First, this change would likely mean Medicare-like reimbursement rates for providers.…”

Section: Implications For Medicaid Enrollees and Safety-net Providersmentioning

confidence: 99%

What the New Biden Administration May Mean for Medicaid

2021

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The Medicaid program provides health insurance coverage to more than 68 million low-income Americans. Over the past 4 years, the Trump administration aimed to reduce spending and enrollment in Medicaid through work requirements, monthly premiums, proposed block granting, and repealing the Affordable Care Act (ACA), upon which the authority and funding for Medicaid expansion rests. Although the upcoming Supreme Court ruling on the constitutionality of the ACA may have important consequences for Medicaid, recent Democratic victories in the Georgia Senate runoff elections, resulting in a narrow Senate majority, pave a more plausible path forward for Biden's health care agenda. Still, securing the necessary support from all Democratic senators remains challenging, as the narrow majority suggests legislators will likely rely on the budget reconciliation process, which can limit large-scale changes. However, the results of the Georgia runoff elections have opened new possibilities for how the incoming Biden administration could seek to reshape the federal government's approach to Medicaid, not only by counteracting the challenges it has endured during the Trump administration but by supporting policies to expand access to health care. If implemented, policy changes proposed by President-elect Biden could have far-reaching implications for the Medicaid program, millions of low-income Americans, and safety-net providers across the United States. Expanding Coverage, Reducing BarriersAt the heart of these proposed reforms would be a Medicare-like public option offered through the ACA Marketplace. People in the coverage gap, who earn too much to qualify for Medicaid in states that did not expand Medicaid but too little (less than the federal poverty level) to receive premium

show abstract

“…Many critics argue that a key U.S. failure was lack of a federally managed, presidentially led, national response (e.g., Gordon, Huberfeld, and Jones 2020). Given the emergency uncertainty accompanying the novel coronavirus, however, the best national policy response was not immediately evident.…”

Section: Policy Responses and Models Of Federalismmentioning

confidence: 99%

Partisan Fractures in U.S. Federalism’s COVID-19 Policy Responses

Kincaid

Leckrone

2020

State and Local Government Review

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The comparatively poor U.S. response to COVID-19 was not due to federal inaction or a flawed federal system per se but to party polarization and presidential and gubernatorial preferences that frustrated federalism’s capacity to respond more effectively. The U.S. response is examined in terms of four models: coercive or regulatory federalism, nationalist cooperative federalism, non-centralized cooperative federalism, and dual federalism--finding that state-led dual federalism was the predominant response. The crisis also raised questions about interpretations of “federal inaction” because party divisions led some to regard the federal government’s response as inadequate while others viewed it as appropriate.

show abstract

What Federalism Means for the US Response to Coronavirus Disease 2019

Cited by 31 publications

References 4 publications

Patterns of Psychological Responses among the Public during the Early Phase of COVID-19: A Cross-Regional Analysis

Patterns of Psychological Responses among the Public during the Early Phase of COVID-19: A Cross-Regional Analysis

What the New Biden Administration May Mean for Medicaid

Partisan Fractures in U.S. Federalism’s COVID-19 Policy Responses

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About