Introduction
The current U. S. health policy is undergoing some changes. There is a great number of controversies around The Patience Protection and Affordable Care Act, which underlies the health care legislation. The policy faced opposition during Barack Obama’s presidential term which became more active after the inauguration of the current U.S President Donald Trump who has made attempts to remove so-called Obamacare. The legislation mentioned above was initially intended to make medical treatment affordable and approachable, and supporters of such policy still exist. To this day, various amendments to the legislative program are introduced, and the Medical Coverage for Addiction Recovery Expansion Act is among them. The purpose of this paper is to analyze its content, the necessity of enactment, and its possible effectiveness.
Identification of the Bill and its Summary
Medical Coverage for Addiction Recovery Expansion Act (H. R. 2687) was introduced in the House of Representatives during the 1st session of the 155th Congress on 25th June 2017. The bill’s sponsor is a representative of Bill Foster, a member of a Democratic party. As the Act regards a wide spectrum of society, it was discussed on the federal level. Although the draft legislation was supported by a great number of Democratic party members, at the moment, the bill has not gained further momentum. The last action for its development and elaboration was made on 26th June 2017, when it was referred to the Subcommittee of Health (Congress.Gov, 2017). This way, Medical Coverage for Addiction Recovery Expansion Act still is not completed and stays in the Subcommittee.
As for the content, the draft legislation appears to be the amendment to the Title XIX of the Social Security Act. According to the bill, the citizenry is allowed to receive a facility service of addiction treatment at the place of residence as a part of the Medicaid program. The facility service is intended to include inpatient services which are essential to overcome substance use disorder. Moreover, while receiving addiction treatment facility service, an individual must not be restricted in delivering other healthcare treatments. In the context of specific circumstances, for instance, pregnancy, a woman can be eligible for both proper medical assistance and residential addiction treatment. Also, the legislative program includes financing to develop infrastructure and capabilities of addiction treatment facilities for youth. Under the bill, Medicaid should provide the Children’s Health Insurance Program (Congress.Gov, 2017). To summarize, the legislative draft covers a significant number of aspects connected to addiction treatment.
Stakeholders
As mentioned above, two opposing points of view to the legislative project and Medicaid as a whole exist. The benefits of Medicaid are apparent; the health care and insurance have become much more accessible, followed by improvements in health and economic outcomes. The primary supporter of such a policy is the American Democratic Party. The most extensive healthcare policy changes happened during Barak Obama’s presidential term, who was a leader of the Democratic Party. His policy was named Obamacare and appeared to be extremely beneficial to society. Nowadays, the stakeholders of further development of health care policy, as well as Medicaid, are the Democratic party representatives. Predominantly they introduce some bills and express the wiliness to continue Obama’s direction.
Donald Trump, the USA president and the leader of the Republican Party, does not share such a position. Like two sides of the same coin, Medicaid presents some disadvantages. The most crucial of them is that funding this program appeared to be a significant budget expenditure. The more people participate in Medicaid, the more money the government should spend. The government’s losses have been estimated as more than 20 million dollars (Wilensky, 2018). The current president treats such a health care policy with prejudice, and, for this reason, he tends to cancel it and substitute it with cheaper ones. Despite the strong support of Medicaid, as Wilensky (2018) marks, the public realizes the need to change. However, citizenry advocates for Medicaid beneficiaries and drug testing requirements and appears to be less supportive of the idea of reducing funding. In this case, by contrast with the leading party and the current president, democrats and the U. S. population are the primary stakeholders for the expansion of Medicaid.
Personal Opinion and the Possible Effectiveness of the Bill
Despite controversies in governmental circles, the project was met with recognition from the population. According to Grogan and Park (2017), “since the 1980s the Medicaid enrollment has expanded so dramatically that by 2014 two-thirds of Americans had some connection to the program” (p. 749). This way, the program has become an advantageous option for the population. Furthermore, citizenry below the poverty line has received an opportunity to be rendered medical services. As for Medical Coverage for Addiction Recovery Expansion Act, it addresses the American hot-button issue, namely the relevance of various forms of addiction. For instance, Ku et al. (2017) has explored how Medicaid provides significant help for smokers. They claim that smoking is “the leading cause of preventable morbidity and mortality in the United States” (Ku et al, 2017, p. 164). Thus, the program does succeed in preventing people from destructive habits.
Based on these figures, I would bend to the continuance of Medicaid in case of reviewing and comparing the budget. If I had a chance, I would vote for The Medical Coverage for Addiction Recovery Expansion Act. As for the local authorities, my residence of living is Virginia’s 6th Congressional District in the USA, and Ben Cline represents the interests of locals in the House of Representatives. I hope that he will advance the idea of Medicaid Expansion in the context of addiction recovery treatment.
The Bill’s Impact
Undoubtedly, the passing of the bill would influence nursing practice. In general, the requirements to nurse and health care services are changing and tend to be more demanding, and that would regard addiction recovery therapy too (Chattopadhyay et al., 2017). As the addiction treatment would become comprehensive and accessible, consequently, medical standards would undergo some beneficial changes. Also, increasing funding would be followed by installing modern equipment in local hospitals. The treatment would become more accredited, and the theme of addiction would attract a considerable number of medical researchers.
Further exploration in the field of addiction recovery therapies would result in the innovation of new and extremely effective treatment methods. Moreover, according to Chattopadhyay et al. (2017), “Medicaid and marketplace insurance expansions suggest that there will be an increased need for health care services” (p. 171). This would influence the addiction treatment field too. As a result, addictions of different forms would become more durable as compared to the current situation.
Furthermore, modern nurses would be required to pass particular staff development and gain new skills, as addiction therapy is closely connected with phycology. Community service is an essential part of the therapy. Nurses would be expected to treat patients not as weak and incurable people who harm their families and the whole society. Nursing staff should not regard the addicted as criminals, alcohol, or drug addicts. It is a matter of extreme importance to provide patients with the commitment to succeed, and it is a skill that modern nurses would be required to gain.
Also, the changes in society after the bill’s passing are worth mentioning, as different forms of addiction, such as smoking, alcohol, and drug addictions are the diseases of the century. Addictions are widespread worldwide, and this regards the United States too (Wilensky, 2018). The accessibility of qualified treatment would enable people to save their lives. Nowadays, most of the addicted cannot afford the proper therapy, as it requires comprehensive and cost-intensive treatment. Medical Coverage for Addiction Recovery Expansion Act would contribute to the reduction of addiction fatal outcomes and, in the long term, would be preventing more people from substance use. Moreover, the passing of the bill would reduce the crime rates and violence. Nationwide, Medical Coverage for Addiction Recovery Expansion Act would not only improve the population’s health and living standards but also raise the health care system and economics which are essential attributes of a developed state.
Conclusion
Despite being just introduced in the House of Representatives and staying in the Subcommittee for several years, the bill addresses pressing concerns in the USA society, and the possible impacts of its passing cannot be underestimated. Its influence applies to nurse practice, healthcare development, overcoming society issues, and living standards. However, Medical Coverage for Addiction Recovery Expansion Act meets the major challenges. It involves vast sums of money spent on health care needs and the necessity of their reduction. All in all, both issues are equally significant and deserve special attention. The possible solution exists and presents the compromise between the budget and the bill. Medical Coverage for Addiction Recovery Expansion Act is worth passing but only on conditions that the expenditures are accurately counted and administrated.
References
Chattopadhyay, A., Zangaro, G. A., White K. M. (2015). Practice patterns and characteristics of nurse practitioners in the United States. Journal for Nurse Practitioners, 11(2), pp. 170-177.
H.R.2687 – Medicaid Coverage for Addiction Recovery Expansion Act. (2017) Congress.Gov. Web.
Grogan, C., & Park, S. (2017). The Politics of Medicaid: Most Americans are connected to the program, support its expansion, and do not view it as stigmatizing. The Milbank Quarterly, 95(4), pp. 749-782.
Ku, L., Steinmetz E., Bysshe T. (2017). Crossing boundaries: Medicaid and public health collaborations to help smokers quit’, Public Health Reports, 132(2), pp. 164-170.
Wilensky, G. (2018). Old Medicaid is gone; expanded Medicaid is here to stay. The Milbank Quarterly, 96(1), pp. 17-20.