Search results

Among the many issues in the national health care debate is the role of the states. Some have asked whether the states can tackle health care on their own and have answered with a resounding "no." Deborah Stone (1992), for example, argues that health care is too big a challenge for the states to handle: they lack sufficient autonomy from the federal government in certain areas and sufficient power over private interests in others.But apparently, states are undeterred by such thinking. In the early 1990s, three states—Minnesota, Washington, and Florida—passed comprehensive bills incorporating elements of managed competition. Massachusetts, Oregon, and Vermont had already enacted (but not implemented) major reforms based upon different philosophies. And Hawaii led the way in 1974 with its enactment of an employer mandate.Today, reform activity is everywhere. In 1993, 1,850 health care reform proposals were introduced in state legislatures; this year virtually every governor is working on some health care initiative. Even Lowell Weicker, Jr., governor of Connecticut, home to the nation's largest insurance companies, has announced his intention to provide universal coverage by 1997. The states are definitely not waiting around to see what the feds will do.

EXAMINATION OF 'PROGRESSIVISM' AMONG STATES REVEALS THAT STATES ARE NOT UNILATERALLY 'PROGRESSIVE' IN ALL POLICY AREAS. THE DATA INCLUDE 3 MEASURES OF WELFARE & EDUCATION EXPENDITURES OVER SEVERAL DECADES IN RANK ORDER & ADOPTIONS OF LAWS RELATING TO WELFARE, EDUCATION, & CIVIL RIGHTS OVER VARYING HISTORICAL PERIODS CORRELATED WITH EACH OTHER & WITH EXPENDITURES. A STATE'S EXPENDITURES FOR EDUCATION ARE INDEPENDENT OF A STATE'S WELFARE SPENDING; INNOVATION (ADOPTION OF A NEW LAW) IN ONE AREA IS INDEPENDENT OF INNOVATION BY STATES IN OTHER AREAS; INNOVATION IN ONE FUNCTIONAL AREA IS ONLY MODERATELY RELATED TO SPENDING BY STATES FOR THAT FUNCTION. POLICY STUDIES SHOULD DIFFERENTIATE ACCORDING TO SUBSTANCE & DIMENSION. 3 TABLES. MODIFIED HA.