ReviewAnnual review of medicine2018
Refinement of the Affordable Care Act: A Progressive Perspective.
Review in Annual review of medicine, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Healthcare Equity for Latinos: Political Inaction in Addressing Fundamental Flaws of the US Health System.Journal of general internal medicine · 2025Article
- An action research partnership in an urban Texas county to explore barriers and opportunities for collaborative community health needs assessments.Frontiers in public health · 2023Article
- COVID-19: Social Work's Opportunity to Revitalize Advocacy for a Universal, Single-Payer Healthcare System.Journal of human rights and social work · 2021Article
- Making America Great.Journal of general internal medicine · 2019Article
- Engaging Biomedical Engineering in Health Disparities Challenges.Journal of community medicine & health education · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The Affordable Care Act (ACA) was the most significant expansion of health coverage since Medicare and Medicaid were enacted. The law resulted in approximately 13-20 million uninsured persons gaining coverage. Despite these gains, the ACA has numerous shortcomings. For progressives, the ACA was a unique opportunity to provide access to high-quality, comprehensive, equitable health coverage to all persons living in the United States. Using this perspective as our framework, in this review we highlight some of the limitations of the ACA and potential areas for refinement. We conclude that the ACA fell far short of the goal of achieving universal coverage and that the coverage made available through the ACA was not equitable. In addition, the ACA expanded coverage by building onto a highly fragmented, inefficient, and costly health system. Thus, it did little to control health costs. A more fiscally prudent approach would have been built upon more successful existing programs, such as a Medicare for All.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.