USC-Brookings Schaeffer on Health Policy
Featured Topics
Lead story
Other featured articles
-
Comments on No Surprises Act Rulemaking: Part I
Schaeffer Initiative experts offer comments on an interim final rule (IFR) issued by the Departments of Health and Human Services, Labor, and the Treasury implementing provisions of the No Surprises Act.
-
A Framework for Categorizing and Analyzing Prescription Drug Pricing Reform Options
Schaeffer Initiative experts present a framework for categorizing and analyzing a wide range of proposed policy reforms for prescription drug pricing.
Posted in -
Government Regulated or Negotiated Drug Prices: Key Design Considerations
Americans pay much higher prices for brand drugs than do people who live in other industrialized nations. Most Americans—79 percent—consider U.S. prescription drug prices to be unreasonable, with almost 3 in 10 reporting they go without prescribed medications because of cost. With 70 percent of Americans reporting that lowering drug costs is their highest healthcare priority, the Congress and the Biden Administration are considering how to lower US drug prices
Posted in -
“Equal Weighting” is a Poor Framework for Arbitration Decisions Under the No Surprises Act
If arbitrator are required to consider or weigh the various factors “equally” under the No Surprises Act, it would be close to meaningless and leave arbitrators without an actionable framework for making decisions. A lack of clear guidance would be costly—resulting in excessive use of arbitration, excessive payments to providers, and, in turn, excessive premiums.
About this section
On this blog, experts from the USC-Brookings Schaeffer Initiative for Health Policy advance the national health policy conversation through innovative ideas and timely, evidence-based analysis. These posts offer policymakers practical recommendations and analysis for solving the health care issues of today.
More from USC-Brookings Schaeffer on Health Policy Blog
-
The Case for Replacing “Silver Loading”
An analysis of how a public option may or may not reduce healthcare costs in the U.S.
-
Designing a Public Option that Would Reduce Healthcare Provider Prices
An analysis of how a public option may or may not reduce healthcare costs in the U.S.
-
Congress Should End Dialysis Companies’ Third-Party Games with Insurance Coverage
A new op-ed in STAT highlights practices by dialysis facilities where they try to push patients into individual market plans by financing patients’ premiums for those plans
-
The American Rescue Plan’s Premium Tax Credit Expansion—State Policy Considerations
Premium Tac Credit (PTC) expansion has profound implications for state health policy, aiding state efforts to make coverage more affordable and accessible.
-
“Vaccine Passport” Certification — Policy and Ethical Considerations
An analysis of the policy and ethical considerations of implementing vaccine passports broadly.