JLF Research Archive
Showing items 1 to 25 of 38
What the healthcare industry needs is a strong dose of disruptive innovation — relaxing regulations that will increase provider competition, force downward pressure on costs, and enhance patient choice. CON ultimately picks who gets to compete within the health care sector. Reforming the law will by no means untangle the complexities of health care, but state lawmakers should capitalize on an opportunity to make one of the most highly regulated industries a little less heavy on the red tape and a little more patient friendly.
Overall, North Carolina ranks 23rd in the nation and 5th among the 12 states of the Southeast in freedom. North Carolina ranks 16th in fiscal freedom, 18th in educational freedom, 36th in regulatory freedom, and 46th in health care freedom.
Medicaid’s fundamental flaws stem from the way in which it is funded, as both state and federal government share the total bill. If Medicaid’s federal share was transferred to North Carolina as an annual block grant, it would allow lawmakers to exercise more control over the program and create a stronger incentive to sort out system waste and abuse.
Every two years since 1996, coinciding with North Carolina's races for the General Assembly, the John Locke Foundation has published a revised edition of Agenda, our public policy guide for candidates and voters. Typically as we enter the campaign season, candidates for public office in North Carolina are faced with a daunting task: to develop informed positions on dozens of public policy issues. In the pages of Agenda 2014 we provide a concise and easily digestible guide covering a wide range of specific issues, from taxes and spending to energy policy and education.
Despite it's promises, the federal health care law will bring premium increases to many due to community rating provisions, increased regulation and mandates, and problems with premium and cost-sharing subsidies.
Four decades’ worth of data and research into CON laws have shown that they fail to lower health care costs; if anything, they raise them. Despite this, North Carolina hosts one of the most restrictive CON programs in the country. State leaders could best prevent unnecessary increases in health care costs by repealing CON.
The debate over NC’s Medicaid program pits defenders of the status-quo Community Care of North Carolina (CCNC) model against reformers touting Governor McCrory’s proposed Partnership for a Healthy North Carolina. This report identifies and explains CCNC’s flaws and shows how the Partnership for a Healthy North Carolina is a far more effective approach to not only improve patient health, but also rein in Medicaid spending and save taxpayer dollars.
Gov McCrory’s Partnership for a Healthy North Carolina is an innovative approach to redesign the state’s Old Medicaid system. This report explains the strategies and provisions included in the Partnership that help to ensure North Carolina’s Medicaid reform does not replicate Kentucky’s failings.
The Partnership for a Healthy North Carolina infuses the Medicaid program with winning market-based strategies of competition, accountability, transparency and a common-sense funding structure. Although policymakers should explore additional ways to make the Governor’s proposal even stronger, the Partnership for a Healthy North Carolina represents a major step forward in transforming Medicaid into an affordable and successful health care safety net.
Medicaid’s ineffective utilization of its unpredictable budget has left the state facing a budget overrun of more than $248 million. Consumer-driven Medicaid reform emphasizes principles of choice, competition, and fiscal responsibility for beneficiaries and providers, giving patients would be able to choose benefits and services that best fit their medical needs from multiple health plans with defined block grants.
North Carolina forcibly sterilized approximately 7,600 individuals in the 20th Century as part of its eugenics program. Many eugenics victims are still alive in North Carolina. This report offers five ways that North Carolina should compensate the victims before it is too late.
When North Carolina lawmakers return to budget work next year, they should consider compensation for more than 2,900 living victims of the state's forced sterilization program.
Medicaid is a national problem, not just a state problem. All states are faced with the same incentive to grow their Medicaid programs because of the federal match. Unsustainable Medicaid spending is exacerbating the debt crisis at the federal level. It is paramount that state policymakers put pressure on Washington to reform Medicaid and willingly trade the open-ended federal reimbursement of state spending for freedom from federal roadblocks to make common-sense reforms to their programs.
North Carolina has one of the most expensive Medicaid programs in the Southeast, and Obamacare will expand enrollment from 1.3 million people to potentially over 2 million people in 2014. Without Medicaid reform or tighter eligibility, North Carolina will need to cut some services and payments to doctors. Both options will mean worse care for every person on Medicaid. Gov. Bev Perdue and the General Assembly need to push Washington for exemptions from Medicaid restrictions and greater ability to innovate with premium support and encourage patient control of their own care.
This report highlights eleven action items that North Carolina’s new General Assembly should seek to implement in the first 100 days of the 2011 legislative session. These items touch upon a cross section of public policy areas, including education, economic development, property rights, energy and the environment, health care, the budget, and transparency. We at the John Locke Foundation believe that these items represent straightforward actions that would greatly enhance the liberty and prosperity of North Carolina’s citizens.
There has been significant public attention and concern regarding a proposal by the North Carolina Sheriffs' Association that would allow sheriffs to have access to patients' prescription information for painkillers and controlled substances. The bigger issue is that the state already collects this information and law enforcement, specifically the State Bureau of Investigation, already has access to it. North Carolina should eliminate the database. The incredible intrusion into the lives of citizens greatly outweighs its limited, if any, benefit.
North Carolina policymakers should eliminate provider licensing, certificate-of-need laws, and mandated health insurance benefits. Short of this, the state can accept alternative forms of credentialing and ensure consumers have the right to purchase optional benefits at additional cost. These regulations limit access to health care providers and health insurance by artificially constraining markets.
North Carolina Attorney General Roy Cooper decided not to join a lawsuit challenging whether the recently enacted federal health care bill is constitutional. The Attorney General's legal analysis used to justify not taking action avoided the primary legal questions regarding the law's constitutionality.
Mental health reform began in 2001, but has had disappointing results. This paper examines major areas of the mental health system – care management, criminal justice, provider networks, supplemental services, and payment. It offers some evolutionary steps toward improvement.
Sixteen percent of all jail and prison inmates have serious mental illness. One in every 10 police encounters involves a mentally ill individual.
Long-term care in nursing homes, assisted living facilities, or an individual’s own home, is the largest portion of North Carolina’s Medicaid budget. It is also the fastest growing portion of that budget. As the state’s population ages, it will drive even more demand for these services. Medicaid was not meant to be inheritance insurance for baby boomers, but current policy in North Carolina allows it to be exactly this. Encouraging more people to rely on private payment options, such as reverse mortgages or long-term care insurance, will mean lower state costs for care and better results for individuals. This paper examines the state of long-term care in North Carolina, current abuses of the system, and private payment options.
North Carolina’s 2001 mental health reform was ambitious and well intentioned but flawed.
Many proven ideas did not make the final version of reform and lawmakers immediately raided the mental health trust fund to cover a General Fund fiscal crisis in 2001.
Health insurance should act like insurance, not a payment plan for regular medical needs. It should also be available for individuals to purchase in a deregulated market. A high-risk pool for health insurance, as in other insurance markets, would keep premiums affordable for the small percentage of those with significant care needs without raising costs for the entire market. The state of North Carolina should finance any high-risk pool entirely through the General Fund and existing taxes, rather than assessments on insurers or other hidden taxes. Money for a high-risk pool can come from Medicaid savings.
Health care is again a top priority for most Americans. Health savings accounts offer promise and are growing in popularity among companies and individuals. Three states will soon begin consumer-directed Medicaid pilot programs. These are more realistic approaches than proposals by the NC Institute of Medicine and others to expand Medicaid or to force employers to provide health insurance. Individuals, not companies or the state, are best equipped to manage their own health care. Health care reform should start from this premise.
HSAs are a form of medical savings account, similar to the now-familiar IRAs. These accounts are the property of the employee and can accumulate interest and dividends like other savings vehicles. Funds that are not used for health care-related expenses can be used for retirement living and can also be willed to one’s heirs. When combined with a high-deductible health insurance policy, an HSA replaces traditional health insurance coverage – and does so in a way that results in a more consumer-driven approach to health care.