Date of Award
Master of Public Administration (MPA)
Healthcare has been an ongoing conversation throughout the formation of America's sense of values and rights based on its Constitution. The role that the state plays in ensuring access to care based on legislation passed by the United States Congress is crucial for the public administrator to understand. This paper attempts to review the nature of the relationship between two states, Georgia and Massachusetts, and the federal government since the passage of the Healthcare Reconciliation Act of 2010 and the politics surrounding the controversy that has since ensued since the Act’s enactment.
Access to healthcare is an important part of the lives of all American’s and one would assume, based on the Constitution of the United States of America, that access to care is an infallible right which the federal government is responsible for upholding. Equity is the most prevailing democratic theme behind the passage of this Act and would seem to supersede the other democratic values of efficiency and effectiveness, though all democratic values are important. Equity is more important than profits, more important than personal politics or positional stature. As the administrators of the new Act step forward to implement its provisions it will be important to understand how they can succeed with its implementation. This paper will cover several recommendations regarding the successful enactment and highlight a few obstacles that will be faced. At the conclusion of this paper one should have a reasonable understanding of the role that the aforementioned states play in the implementation of the new healthcare act.
Stansberry, Jason, "Healthcare Reform in Two States: A Comparative Analysis of Georgia and Massachusetts" (2010). Dissertations, Theses and Capstone Projects. 424.