Federalism allows state politicians opportunities to undermine or support for federal policies. As a result, voters often have varied impressions of the same federal programmes. To test how this dynamic affects voting behaviour, I gather data on the severity of the opioid epidemic from 2006–2016. I exploit discontinuities between states that expanded Medicaid and those that did not to gain causal leverage over whether expansion affected the severity of the epidemic and whether these policy effects affected policy feedback. I show that the decision to expand Medicaid reduced the severity of the opioid epidemic. I also show that expanding Medicaid and subsequent reductions in the severity of the opioid epidemic increased support for the Democratic Party. The results imply that the Republican Party performed better in places where voters did not have access to Medicaid expansion and where the epidemic worsened, demonstrating an unintended consequence of federalism on policy feedback.

We investigated the impacts of Medicaid expansion on New York county total health spending and specifics of health spending, including health services, public health facilities and public health administration. Little research considered the financial effect of Medicaid expansion on local governments while well reported are its influences on uninsured rates and health services utilization. New York counties have contributed to health in their boundaries by providing or funding public health services, and supporting a part of the non-federal share of Medicaid expenditures and uncompensated care. Medicaid expansion can reduce the size of county expenditures for health by enrolling more previously uninsured population in the program and offering more generous federal funding for the expanded Medicaid. We offer empirical evidence that Medicaid expansion was associated with reduced county health spending.

The 2012 Supreme Court decision in National Federation of Independent Business v Sebelius gave states the option to adopt the Medicaid expansion as part of the Affordable Care Act. Many states, especially those under Republican control, have since grappled with their decision to implement the expansion. We conduct a comparative analysis of how Republican governors framed their stance on the Medicaid expansion. We analyze public statements on the Medicaid expansion published in two major in-state newspapers from all Republican governors from June 2012 through June 2018. In total we collected, coded and analyzed 3277 statements from 66 newspapers. Several key themes emerge from our analysis. While every Republican governor used oppositional framing as part of their rhetorical response to the Medicaid expansion, the policy had a destabilizing effect on the previously unified opposition to health reform. We find that Republican framing split after the results of the 2012 election and that overall Republican governors shifted towards more supportive framing prior to the 2016 presidential election. Republican governors transformed how they framed their stance towards Medicaid expansion after Donald Trump was elected in 2016, with both supportive and oppositional moral-based framing of expansion increasing. These findings inform how policymakers use rhetoric to support their stance on controversial policies in a hyper-partisan and polarized political environment.

There has been a growing discussion in recent years about rising inequality in the U.S. Yet, this discourse, in focusing on the fortunes of the top 1%, distracted attention from the design of policy initiatives aimed at improving socio-economic conditions for the poor. This paper examines the development of anti-poverty politics and policy in the US during the Obama era. It analyses how effective the strategies and programmes adopted were and asks how they fit with models of policy change. The paper illustrates that the Obama administration did adopt an array of anti-poverty measures in the stimulus bill, but these built on existing programmes rather than create new ones and much of the effort was stymied by institutional obstacles. The expansion of the Medicaid program, which was part of the ACA, was also muted by institutional opposition, but it was a more path breaking reform than is often appreciated.