The Effects of Sequestration on Indian Health

Bibliographic Data

ID20337902
AuthorsMarilynn Malerba (corresponding author)
Year2013
Volume43
Issue6
Pages17-21
Publication date2013-11-01
Open AccessYes
TypeARTICLE
VenueThe Hastings Center Report (JOURNAL)
Journal identifiersISSN: 0093-0334 • E-ISSN: 1552-146X
PublisherWiley (PUBLISHER • GB)
DOI10.1002/hast.229
PMID24249470
OpenAlexW2027145785
LanguageEN
References cited10

The budget battles have hit the Indian Health Service hard: sequestration forced a 5 percent reduction in funds, followed by an additional 0.2 percent rescission in the recently passed Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act. Exempted from sequestration (and rightly so) were other very important health care programs such as the Veterans Administration Health Programs, the State Children's Health Insurance Programs, and Medicaid. Medicare has been reduced by only 2 percent, with that cut targeted to provider reimbursement so as to avoid a reduction in service to beneficiaries. In March 2013, Representatives Betty McCollum, Tom Cole, and Michelle Lujan Grisham introduced a bill to reduce the impact of sequestration on the IHS to 2 percent (H.R. 1371). This bill was referred to the Committee on the Budget, but to date, there has been no movement on it . Why was the IHS susceptible to sequestration? Why is it considered a “discretionary” line item in the federal budget? Why is there not parity for Indians, whose health status remains far below that of mainstream America? As a matter of legal requirement, social contract, and moral obligation, the United States should fundamentally change how Indian Health is funded

Administration (probate law) · Business · Federal budget · Fiscal year · Health care · Medicaid · Moral obligation · Obligation · Political science · Reimbursement · Rescission · Finance · Healthcare Policy and Management · Healthcare Systems and Reforms · Law · Primary Care and Health Outcomes · Public Administration

Tools

Open DOISci-Hub