Medicaid serves vulnerable populations that experience deep health inequities and significant health-related social needs. In recent years, reforms to Medicaid have sought to respond to those needs, with mixed results. Value based payment methods, which in theory link payment to outcome metrics, are emerging in commercial insurance markets and can be adapted to the needs of Medicaid programs and their beneficiaries. These methods seek to tie payment for services to the forging of connections between medical and social care including housing supports and nutrition services for vulnerable populations. This paper describes the merits and some pitfalls of the attempt to turn Medicaid from its roots as a medical insurance program to a broader health insurance program. It describes the benefits of employing community care hubs – intermediaries between community-based organizations and large payers and hospital systems – as a way to spur the move to social care in Medicaid. It also addresses some of the barriers to this move, including the perceived danger of “medicalizing” society’s failures and the apparent turn by the current federal administration away from commitment to health equity.

Medicaid has been called the “workhorse” of the American health care system, but one would hardly see that in the tenor of political debates. The Program perennially faces political headwinds that at times build to hurricane force with proposals for dramatic structural changes and spending cuts, most recently the draconian cuts enacted by Congress in 2025. In 2024, Medicaid covered more than seventy million Americans, and another ten million were covered by its companion program, the Children’s Health Insurance Program. As formidable as these numbers are, the Program’s impact runs much deeper, affecting the lives of almost everyone in the United States. It serves as an essential support for the entire health care system and, in doing so, helps to sustain almost every hospital, nursing home, and a range of other providers. This support, in turn, generates population-wide benefits that can be seen as public goods on which everyone relies, whether they realize it or not, that the private sector could not provide. These include peace of mind from knowing there is access to inpatient hospital care, emergency rooms, and long-term care when needed, protection from public health threats, improved health care based on continual innovation, greater social stability, enhanced economic productivity, and reduced health inequities. As devastating as proposals to shrink Medicaid would be for millions of low-income Americans who rely on it for access to health care, these repercussions would cause hardship for almost everyone.

This article explains Medicaid’s role in sustaining the overall health care system, the nature of the public goods it produces in doing so, and the widespread harm that would be caused were these public goods to be diminished. By characterizing public debates in this way, the Program’s supporters could reframe political discourse as a matter of universal self-interest.

The catchphrase “if you build it, they will come,” from the movie “Field of Dreams,” described an audacious plan to build a small baseball stadium in a remote cornfield. It could also describe the government infrastructure which has drawn in the ever-growing American health care business sector. A series of increasingly complex and expensive programs, first launched just after World War II, continue to provide essential funding and regulatory support for a multitude of private companies that have revolutionized medical care and, in the process, built an industry that represents more than 18% of the country’s economy. This parade of programs includes the Hill-Burton Act of 1946, Medicare and Medicaid in 1965, the initiation of the Human Genome Project in 1990, and 2010’s Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, all of which created platforms on which private entities rely to provide medical services and products. In the process, these private entities have made and continue to generate substantial profits. And while many of them have improved public wellbeing dramatically, many have also degraded the system’s integrity through fraud and anticompetitive behavior. In its role of keeping this huge and essential private enterprise on track, health law has become an indispensable part of the system, with health lawyers serving as the foundation of its effective operation.

This piece takes as a given that we are stuck with our fragmented, inefficient, multi-payor health care system for at least the short run. It then analyzes the deficiencies of three payment mechanisms whereby regulators (including Congress) have invited private sector providers to help ameliorate perceived problems. The first concerns an inadequate supply of nursing home beds in the early ‘70s, the next focuses on Medicare Advantage as a supposedly superior cost containment alternative to traditional Medicare, and the final one involves the ‘devil’s bargain’ struck with the pharmaceutical industry to get prescription drug coverage added to Medicare. All three teach the same lesson: the government needs to be more vigilant not to give away the store when it invites the private sector in.

Braidwood Management, Inc. v. Becerra challenges the Affordable Care Act free preventive coverage guarantee. Community health centers serve over 30 million residents of medically underserved urban and rural communities. Their limited federal grant funding makes them reliant on insurance revenue for their operations, Medicaid and subsidized marketplace coverage in particular, both of which are implicated by the case. To understand these implications, we developed an analytic model that crosswalks the preventive services potentially affected by Braidwood and the preventive care that all health centers must furnish. Of the 193 preventive services now covered under the guarantee, only forty-eight would survive were the Braidwood plaintiffs to prevail. In underserved communities, health centers are a principal source of the nearly 150 affected services, as evidenced by the care they are required to furnish under federal law, the quality metrics they are expected to meet, and the health diagnoses and treatments identified in federal performance reporting requirements. Thus, the impact on access, quality, patient health, and health center finances and care capability will likely be substantial.

Bigotry distractions are strategic invocations of racism, transphobia, or negative stigma toward other marginalized groups to shape political discourse. Although the vast majority of Americans agree on large policy issues ranging from reducing air pollution to prosecuting corporate crime, bigotry distractions divert attention from areas of agreement toward divisive identity issues. This article explores how the nefarious targeting of identity groups through bigotry distractions may be the tallest barrier to health reform, and social change more broadly. The discussion extends the literature on dog whistles, strategic racism, and scapegoating.

This tribute compares Charity Scott to Fred Rogers, highlighting how Charity nurtured health law colleagues’ unique gifts and built community. Continuing the neighborhood theme, it highlights encouraging developments relating to health, housing, and place: Medicaid housing supports and potential reparations for redlining-related health inequities.

This article proposes ethical — and legal — accountability for lawyers representing clients such as private equity (PE) firms who create ownership structures for nursing home systems. Using PE ownership as a case study, I will show that nursing home residents are often harmed and Medicaid costs inflated. I propose private law provides tools to compel such accountability, through (1) aiding and abetting doctrines and (2) fiduciary doctrines that require that the fiduciary be responsible for its vulnerable beneficiaries, not just ethically but for damages and equitable relief. I further propose that the teaching of Professional Responsibility needs to be changed to force law students to consider the effect of legal practice on third parties in situations like health care financing.

Expansions of Medicaid family planning services have been associated with decreases in pregnancy rates. Access to a broader range of medical, non-family planning services may influence pregnancy rates as well if the increased exposure to medical services spills over to other kinds of behaviour. Using a difference-in-difference approach, I examine the impact of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) Medicaid expansions on the propensity of low-income, single women to become single mothers. Previous expansions of Medicaid family planning services allow us to also investigate the influence of access to other medical services (i.e. non-family planning). I find that although access to contraceptives is associated with a reduction in the propensity of becoming a single mother among adult, low-income women, medical services beyond access to contraceptives can provide additional impacts.

Policies to decrease low-acuity emergency department (ED) use have traditionally assumed that EDs are a substitute for unavailable primary care (PC). However, such policies can exacerbate ED overcrowding, rather than ameliorate it, if patients use EDs to complement, rather than substitute, their PC use. We tested whether Medicaid managed care enrolees visit the ED for nonemergent and PC treatable conditions to substitute for or to complement PC. Based on consumer choice theory, we modelled county-level monthly ED visit rate as a function of PC supply and used 2012–2015 New York Statewide Planning and Research Cooperative System (SPARCS) outpatient data and non-linear least squares method to test substitution vs complementarity. In the post-Medicaid expansion period (2014–2015), ED and PC are substitutes state-wide, but are complements in highly urban and poorer counties during nights and weekends. There is no evidence of complementarity before the expansion (2012–2013). Analyses by PC provider demonstrate that the relationship between ED and PC differs depending on whether PC is provided by physicians or advanced practice providers. Policies to reduce low-acuity ED use via improved PC access in Medicaid are likely to be most effective if they focus on increasing actual appointment availability, ideally by physicians, in areas with low PC provider supply. Different aspects of PC access may be differently related to low-acuity ED use.

The overturn of Roe v. Wade has resulted in fewer rights and resources for people seeking abortion care, particularly in the South. The Hyde Amendment has historically restricted abortion access for those enrolled in Medicaid. We argue here that its guarantees of minimum abortion coverage should be leveraged to offset harms where possible.

Many people who experience opioid use disorder rely on Medicaid. The high penetration of managed care systems into Medicaid raises the importance of understanding states’ expectations regarding coverage, access to care, and health system performance and effectively elevates agreements between states and plans into blueprints for coverage and care. Federal law broadly regulates these structured agreements while leaving a high degree of discretion to states and plans. In this study, researchers reviewed the provisions of 15 state Medicaid managed care contract related to substance use disorder (SUD) treatment to identify whether certain elements of SUD treatment were a stated expectation and the extent to which the details of those expectations varied across states in ways that ultimately could affect evaluation of performance and health outcomes. We found that while all states include SUD treatment as a stated contract expectation, discussions around coverage of specific services and nationally recognized guidelines varied. These variations reflect key state choices regarding how much deference to afford their plans in coverage design and plan administration and reveal important differences in purchasing expectations that could carry implications for efforts to examine similarities and differences in access, quality, and health outcomes within managed care across the states.