David K. Jones – författare

The Affordable Care Act (ACA) contained a threat that any state refusing to set up a health insurance exchange would lose control to the federal government. Republicans had supported the concept before it became part of Obamacare, and so virtually every state was expected to cooperate and implement this core part of the law through which millions would receive financial assistance to buy health insurance. However, 34 states refused to participate, using their flexibility as an opportunity to try to bring down the entire law. This is a stunning miscalculation by the Obama administration. This book tells the story of what happened in the final two states to choose state control (Idaho and New Mexico) and the two that came the closest but did not (Michigan and Mississippi). Contrary to how it is typically described in the media, the most intense split was not between Republicans and Democrats, but within the Republican Party. Governors were the most important people in the fight over exchanges, but did not always get their way. The Tea Party was amazingly successful at defeating the most powerful interest groups. State-level and national conservative think tanks were important allies to the Tea Party. The relative power of these groups was shaped by differences in institutional design and procedures, such as whether a state has term limits and the length of legislative sessions. Opposition was more easily overcome in states whose conditions facilitated the development of legislative "pockets of expertise." This is a dramatic example of opponents using federalism to block national reform and serves as a warning of the challenge of inducing state cooperation in other policy domains such as the environment and education.

The Affordable Care Act (ACA) contained a threat that any state refusing to set up a health insurance exchange would lose control to the federal government. Republicans had supported the concept before it became part of Obamacare, and so virtually every state was expected to cooperate and implement this core part of the law through which millions would receive financial assistance to buy health insurance. However, 34 states refused to participate, using their flexibility as an opportunity to try to bring down the entire law. This is a stunning miscalculation by the Obama administration. This book tells the story of what happened in the final two states to choose state control (Idaho and New Mexico) and the two that came the closest but did not (Michigan and Mississippi). Contrary to how it is typically described in the media, the most intense split was not between Republicans and Democrats, but within the Republican Party. Governors were the most important people in the fight over exchanges, but did not always get their way. The Tea Party was amazingly successful at defeating the most powerful interest groups. State-level and national conservative think tanks were important allies to the Tea Party. The relative power of these groups was shaped by differences in institutional design and procedures, such as whether a state has term limits and the length of legislative sessions. Opposition was more easily overcome in states whose conditions facilitated the development of legislative "pockets of expertise." This is a dramatic example of opponents using federalism to block national reform and serves as a warning of the challenge of inducing state cooperation in other policy domains such as the environment and education.

The contributors to this issue investigate the complex ways that policies of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) have diffused through the states over seven years of implementation. When the ACA was passed in 2010, states were given the option to set up their own health care exchanges, expand their Medicaid programs, and reform both their local public health and their health care delivery systems. These reforms significantly impacted citizens’ access to insurance. Contributors examine how local conditions account for variation in enrollment across states, analyze the evolution of Medicaid waivers in Republican-led states, show how early-adopting states affected later adopters, explore the role of public opinion in the diffusion of ACA policies, and argue for the importance of rhetorical framing when advocating in favor of the ACA.Contributors. Frederick J. Boehmke, Timothy Callaghan, Rena Conti, Bruce A. Desmarais, Colleen M. Grogan, Jeffrey J. Harden, Lawrence Jacobs, David K. Jones, Andrew Karch, Elizabeth Maltby, Julianna Pacheco, Aaron Rosenthal, Abigail A. Rury, Phillip McMinn Singer, Craig Volden

The late David K. Jones spent four years visiting the Mississippi Delta conducting primary research with residents and local leaders to explore the connections between race, place, and health. He weaves their insights with data analysis to show how local, state, and national policies and structures, whether intentional or not, constrain or expand the daily choices of individuals that affect health. In order to remedy the complex problem of health disparities, Jones argues that a new approach to creating health equity policy is needed. Through firsthand narratives, Jones elevates the voices of people living and working in the Delta to guide the discovery of which community-led ""ripples of hope"" efforts have already been effective and should be nourished and what policy changes are still needed to support healthy lives. In this mix of ethnography, policy, and social science, Jones offers a roadmap for creating a community-led, goal-based, deficit and asset approach to charting a health policy agenda to health equity in the Delta and beyond.