USC-Brookings Schaeffer Initiative for Health Policy
Featured Topics
Lead story
Other featured articles
-
CMS’ Positive Step on Site-Neutral Payments and the Case for Going Further
The authors argue that site-neutral payment under the CMS proposed rule should ultimately be applied to a much broader set of clinical services.
Posted in -
Improving Bundled Payments in the Medicare Program
John Romley and Paul Ginsburg look at three ways to improve the effectiveness of bundled payment systems.
Posted in -
The Case for Reforming Competitive Bidding in Medicare Advantage
Schaeffer Initiative experts propose reforming the way that fixed monthly payments to MA plans are determined, replacing the current, overly complex structure with one that would enhance competition, simplify beneficiary choice through standardization, and save an estimated $10 billion annually.
Posted in -
How Would Individual Market Premiums Change in 2019 in a Stable Policy Environment?
Matthew Fielder examines how premiums would change in 2019 absent recent policy changes that are set to take effect.
Posted in
About this section
A partnership between the Center for Health Policy at Brookings and the Leonard D. Schaeffer Center for Health Policy & Economics, the USC-Brookings Schaeffer Initiative for Health Policy aims to inform the national health care debate with rigorous, evidence-based analysis leading to practical recommendations using the collaborative strengths of USC and Brookings.
Experts
Work from the USC-Brookings Schaeffer Initiative for Health Policy
-
Comments on CMS’s Proposed Rule, “Medicare Shared Savings Program; Accountable Care Organizations–Pathways to Success”
Schaeffer fellow Matthew Fiedler submitted a comment letter to Centers the for Medicare and Medicaid Services on proposed rule changes to the Medicare Shared Savings Program. Some proposals may result in cost-savings and greater efficiencies, Fiedler recommends additional analysis in a number of areas.
-
Stabilizing and Strengthening the Individual Health Insurance Market
Mark Hall examines the causes of instability in the individual market and identifies measures to help improve stability based off of interviews with key stakeholders in 10 states.
-
Cultivating a Vibrant U.S. Market for Biosimilars: a Conversation with FDA’s Scott Gottlieb
Biosimilars have been a major focus of the FDA’s efforts to increase competition and choice for patients and the U.S. healthcare system.
-
Can MIPS Be Salvaged?
The goal of the Merit-Based Incentive Payment System, or MIPS, was to encourage clinicians to deliver more efficient, higher-quality care, but many observers have raised concerns that MIPS will fail.
-
(De)stabilizing the ACA’s Individual Market: A View from the States
Market stabilization is currently the most critical regulatory issue that public policy officials are facing. We present strategies for stabilizing the individual market.
-
Coverage Gains Among Higher-Income People Suggest the ACA’s Individual Mandate Had Big Effects on Coverage
Matthew Fielder discusses the effects of the Affordable Care Act’s individual mandate and potential consequences of it’s repeal.