Reference no: EM133326349

The Affordable Care Act (ACA) was established to expand the number of people who are covered with health insurance, raise the standard of care, and reduce healthcare costs. The main goal of legislators is to win votes, and it is essential to investigate how the public understands healthcare policy. I noticed some surprising statistics while reading a cost-benefit study of the Affordable Care Act in much more detail. The 6 million individuals who have lost their health insurance benefits are less usually noted because the majority of the insurance growth was based on Medicaid expansion (Manchikanti et al. 2017). As a result, the working class and middle class, specifically those who make up more than 400% of the federal poverty limit and makeup 40% of the population, suffer from a lack of benefits (Manchikanti et al. 2017). Many middle-class individuals lost access to high-priced subsidies. If you are a single person making more than $47,000, you can forget about seeking assistance with covering your monthly premium. And if she earns minimum wage or less, she probably won't qualify for cost-sharing subsidies.

Republicans contend that the Affordable Care Act (ACA) directly harms many Americans, whereas Democrats contend that the legislation should have been kept because it benefits many Americans are at the center of most of the debate in Congress over its repeal or revision of the ACA program. Because of the polarization in Congress, it is very difficult to pass bills, and it appears that this is one particular thing. A recent example of this type of argument, such as during the second wave of Covid-19 relief, which was constantly in the news, did not get done when Mitch McConnell and Nancy Pelosi criticized each other, and the public suffered, therefore as a consequence. The reduction of health care costs was one of Obamacare's main targets. Obama asserted that costs would have been significantly higher if it weren't for the ACA, but his claim overlooked the recession, increasing out-of-pocket costs, increasing prescription drug prices, and lowering insurer reimbursements for coverage (Manchikanti et al. 2017). While the statistics show that more people typically have insurance, the effectiveness of the Affordable Care Act is controversial because it has affected a significant amount of people and has not ultimately resulted in more access to higher-quality healthcare.

The cost of smoking affects society more significantly than direct healthcare spending, with the USA experiencing an estimated $107.6 billion in annual indirect expenses due to productivity loss. Smoking adds a lot to healthcare costs, and another cost-benefit analysis to address is the use of prescription smoking cessation (SC) medicines and the related effect on overall healthcare costs. According to a recent study that looked at the return on investment of delivering the Affordable Care Act recommended prescription Smoking Cessation medications, commercial, Medicaid, and Medicare plans may save $1.18, $2.50, and $3.22 for every dollar spent on Smoking cessation prescriptions over ten years. (Baker et al 2017). More than 60% of the costs associated with smoking were covered by public programs, including $24 billion from other federal healthcare programs (32.8%), $45 billion from Medicare (9.6%), and $40 billion from Medicaid (15.2%) (Baker et al. 2017). Although smoking is the primary cause of avoidable disease, these statistics show that government investment in Smoking Cessation prescription plans can reduce lowered healthcare spending and save lives. It is significant to notice how lobbyists and big tobacco can affect decision-making in this case. The tobacco companies have attempted to block legislation restricting smoking in public places, raising cigarette taxes, restricting marketing, or encouraging research or control programs. They fight to undermine or delay the policy-making process after the failure to repeal legislation. Companies do this by making contributions to political races, promoting public campaigns, trying to stir up debates about well-known facts, and hiring lobbyists.

Question

Provide example that supports the above explanation or challenge the explanation and provide an example.