The process by which Congress considers legislation rarely affords the public an opportunity to examine how the outcomes might change if components of the law were structured differently. We evaluated how the recently enacted health reform law performed relative to a large number of alternative designs on measures of effectiveness and efficiency. We found that only a few different approaches would produce both more newly insured people and a lower cost to the government. However, these are characterized by design options that seemed political untenable, such as higher penalties, lower subsidies, or less generous Medicaid expansion.
This report is part of the RAND Corporation External publication series. Many RAND studies are published in peer-reviewed scholarly journals, as chapters in commercial books, or as documents published by other organizations.
Our mission to help improve policy and decisionmaking through research and analysis is enabled through our core values of quality and objectivity and our unwavering commitment to the highest level of integrity and ethical behavior. To help ensure our research and analysis are rigorous, objective, and nonpartisan, we subject our research publications to a robust and exacting quality-assurance process; avoid both the appearance and reality of financial and other conflicts of interest through staff training, project screening, and a policy of mandatory disclosure; and pursue transparency in our research engagements through our commitment to the open publication of our research findings and recommendations, disclosure of the source of funding of published research, and policies to ensure intellectual independence. For more information, visit www.rand.org/about/principles.
The RAND Corporation is a nonprofit institution that helps improve policy and decisionmaking through research and analysis. RAND's publications do not necessarily reflect the opinions of its research clients and sponsors.