Two events that are prominent in the nation’s annual political pageant enable voters to obtain a glimpse of the kinds of policies that may be concealed behind the curtain. One is the President’s State of the Union Address, which makes it possible to boast of past achievements and describe in broad terms anticipated future legislative initiatives. While members of the President’s party cheer vigorously at each utterance, Congressional members of the opposition party typically are more reticent. The second noteworthy event is the release by the Administration of its federal budget for the next fiscal year. Stock full of details on how money should be allocated, it’s relatively easy to determine which budgetary elements are destined to undergo some exceptionally rough legislative sledding based on who cheered wildly at the State of the Union address and who remained silent.
Lobbyists and leaders of special interest groups pay close attention to the proposed federal budget. Each year, the plot lines in the drama are reasonably clear. Many liberals tend to fret that important discretionary social programs involving health care and education will be seriously underfunded, while proclaiming that some military programs are too bloated and either should be eliminated outright or undergo significant reductions in spending. Many conservatives view matters differently and it is rare for them to fail to acknowledge what they perceive as redundant and wasteful amounts of money allocated for ineffective social programs.
The budget sent to Congress on February 10, 2020 contained some of the following items:
The administration proposes funding $38.7 billion for the National Institutes of Health (NIH) in FY 2021, which amounts to $3 billion less money or more than a 7% cut below the FY 2020 enacted program level.
The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) would be funded as a new institute within the NIH in the amount of $257 million, representing an $82 million (24%) reduction below AHRQ’s current funding level.
On the plus side, the budget proposes a nearly $900 million increase in career and technical education funding.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) would obtain a small budget increase in FY 2021 ($25 million, for a total of $3.29 billion).
Apart from legislation that involves spending, bipartisan cooperation has aided in producing efforts aimed at protecting patients from surprise medical billing. House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Richard Neal (D-MA) and Ranking Member Kevin Brady (R-TX) on February 7, 2020 announced the Consumer Protections Against Surprise Medical Bills Act of 2020 while Education and Labor Committee Chairman Robert “Bobby” Scott (D-VA) and Ranking Member Virginia Foxx (R-NC) revealed their surprise billing legislation, the Ban Surprise Billing Act.
More Articles from February 2020 TRENDS
GEOGRAPHIC INFLUENCE ON HEALTH DISPARITIES
Indicates how inhabitants of rural parts of the U.S. have poorer health outcomes than their urban counterparts and reduced access to health care resources. Read more
PRESIDENT’S CORNER
President Phyllis King discusses the newly revised ASAHP Strategic Plan. Read more
PULLING BACK THE CURTAIN
Depicts federal government funding initiatives revealed in the President’s 2020 State of the Union Address and in the Administration’s Fiscal Year 2021 Budget. Read More
HEALTH REFORM DEVELOPMENTS
Points out some challenges in financing the steady growth of health care costs and efforts to curb waste in the provision of services. Read More
DEVELOPMENTS IN HIGHER EDUCATION
Describes a regulatory step by the federal government to address violations of free speech rights of students and a bipartisan proposal to reauthorize the Higher Education Act (ACE). Read More
QUICK STAT (SHORT, TIMELY, AND TOPICAL)
2020 Patient Data Breach Barometer
Self-Reported Marijuana Use In Electronic Cigarettes Among U.S. Youth
· Light-Adapted Electroretinogram Difference In Autism Spectrum Disorder
Evolving Magnetically Levitated Plasma Proteins Detect Opioid Use Disorder As A Model Disease Read More
AVAILABLE RESOURCES ACCESSIBLE ELECTRONICALLY
Clinical Prevention And Population Health Curriculum Framework
Precarious Work Schedules And Population Health
Quantification Of U.S. Neighborhood-Level Social Determinants Of Health Read More
THE ROAD TO IMMORTALITY IS PAVED WITH EPONYMS
Mentions historical trends in the production of health eponyms and views of a sample of neurology residents about the continued use of these naming devices. Read More
QUANTIFYING HEALTH SYSTEMS’ INVESTMENTS IN SOCIAL DETERMINANTS OF HEALTH
Refers to an investigation of the extent to which U.S. health systems are investing in housing-focused interventions, employment, education, food security, transportation, and social and community endeavors. Read More