| Story Views | |
| Now: | |
| Last Hour: | |
| Last 24 Hours: | |
| Total: | |
To be or not to be? The Prevention and Public Health Fund [The Pump Handle]
by Kim Krisberg
“We will pay for this by taking money from one of the slush funds in the president’s health care law.”
That’s an April quote from U.S. House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, on how Republicans plan to offset the cost of stopping scheduled hikes in student loan interest rates. And the “slush fund” in question? The Prevention and Public Health Fund, the historic $15 billion investment in prevention authorized via the Affordable Care Act (ACA).
The April move by House Republicans wasn’t the first attempt to raid the fund. Several tries have been made to repeal the fund entirely or shift its funds to non-health related activities. Many have been unsuccessful, but not all. For instance, earlier this year — and to the disappointment of many public health advocates — President Obama agreed to take $5 billion from the fund to stop cuts to Medicare reimbursement rates (more on that here).
Despite the fact that the fund addresses very real problems — like out-of-control health care spending and rising chronic disease rates — it’s become a favored whipping boy for health reform opponents, who like to use the fund as an example of wasteful government spending (even though research shows that every $1 invested in proven community-based programs yields a return of $5.60). Unfortunately, the fund’s future seems to be perpetually and frustratingly in limbo.
And it all begs the question: Can the Prevention and Public Health Fund survive? Of course, the fund’s fate is tied to the (nerve-wracking) fate of the overall health reform law, which is now in the hands of the Supreme Court. But even if the law does endure, there’s no guarantee that the fund will stick around.
Read the rest of this post… | Read the comments on this post…
Also check out the featured ScienceBlog of the week: Inside the Outbreaks on the ScienceBlogs Book Club
Source:
