- ACA Implementation & State Health Reform
- Coverage and Access
- Federal/State Issues
- Medicaid and CHIP
- Population and Public Health
- Providers and Services
- Acute Care
- Assisted Living
- Behavioral Health
- Case Management
- Child Development Services
- Chronic Care Management
- Community Health Centers
- Developmental Screening
- Early Childhood Services
- Emergency Care
- EPSDT
- Family Planning
- Federally Qualified Health Centers
- Home & Community Based Services
- Hospitals
- Long Term Services & Supports
- Medical Homes & Health Homes
- Mental Health
- Nursing Homes
- Oral Health
- Preventive Care
- Primary Care
- Safety Net Providers
- Quality, Cost, and Health System Performance
- ACOs
- Adverse Event Reporting
- Care Transitions
- Comparative Effectiveness
- Cost Sharing
- Delivery System Reform
- Fraud and Abuse
- Health Care Workforce
- Health Information Technology
- Managed Care
- Medical Homes & Health Homes
- Medical Malpractice
- Patient Safety
- Payment Reform
- Performance Measurement
- Provider Payment Policy
- Quality Oversight
- Specific Populations
- Adolescents
- Childless Adults
- Children
- Children with Special Health Care Needs
- Dual Eligibles
- Elders
- Families
- Low Income People
- Parents
- People with Chronic Conditions
- People with Developmental Disabilities
- Transitional Youth
- Vulnerable Populations
- Young Adults
- Youth
- Youth in Foster Care System
- Youth in Juvenile Justice System
-
Breakthrough or Barrier? The ADA and State Health Reform
The question of how state and national health reforms affect people with disabilities was raised to public consciousness by the 1992 rejection by the Federal government of Oregon's request to revise its Medicaid program on the grounds that the proposal might violate the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). In subsequently granting the request in March 1993, the Clinton Administration continued to cite concerns about possible violations of the ADA posed by Oregon's proposal. That proposal would increase the numbers of persons served, but limit Medicaid reimbursement to those services identified as priorities on a ranking list. Based upon a January 19, 1993 opinion by the Department of Justice, Oregon was asked to make additional modifications in the rankings of priority services. The Justice Department opinion determined that Oregon could use medical effectiveness criteria in developing its rankings, but it could not condition coverage on whether the treatment completely eliminates a person's symptoms for that condition or allows that person to perform certain functions.
May 1993 -
Alan Weil, Executive Director
Alan Weil has been executive director of the National Academy for State Health Policy (NASHP) since September 1, 2004. NASHP is a non-partisan, non-profit organization with a mission of helping states achieve excellence in health policy and practice. NASHP’s 55-person staff, located in offices in Portland, Maine and Washington, D.C., conducts policy analysis, convenes meetings, and provides technical assistance to state officials in the executive and legislative branches.
Before coming to NASHP, Alan Weil was the director of the Assessing the New Federalism (ANF) project at the Urban Institute. One of the largest privately funded social policy research projects ever undertaken in the United States, ANF monitors, describes and assesses the effects of changes in federal and state health, welfare, and social services programs. Mr. Weil was formerly the executive director of the Colorado Department of Health Care Policy and Financing. This cabinet position is responsible for Colorado’s Medicaid and Medically Indigent programs, health data collection and analysis functions, health policy development, and health care reform.
