Bill Overview
Title: AHEAD Act of 2022
Description: This bill requires the Department of Health and Human Services to enter into an agreement with the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (National Academies) to study, and make certain recommendations concerning, the use of health impact assessments or other tools to evaluate the effect of proposed federal legislation on health and health disparities. When developing recommendations to incorporate these tools into the federal legislative process, the National Academies must consult with the Government Accountability Office, the Congressional Budget Office, and the Congressional Research Service.
Sponsors: Sen. Cardin, Benjamin L. [D-MD]
Target Audience
Population: Individuals potentially affected by US federal health-related legislation
Estimated Size: 333000000
- The bill addresses the evaluation of proposed federal legislation on health and health disparities, implying it targets all individuals potentially affected by US federal laws.
- Health impact assessments aim to assess how proposed laws may affect health outcomes, so those in varied health conditions are considered.
- Health disparities indicate an impact on different demographic groups, particularly those historically experiencing health inequities, such as minorities and low-income populations.
- All US citizens may be affected since federal legislation applies nationwide.
- Other countries might look at US legislation for guidance, potentially affecting global practices, though indirectly.
Reasoning
- The AHEAD Act of 2022 primarily involves gathering and studying data to advise on future health legislation rather than implementing immediate changes. Therefore, its direct impact on individuals' day-to-day lives might be limited in the short term, potentially affecting long-term health policy decisions.
- While implementation costs are significant, the policy effectively sets a framework for future legislation to consider health impacts, which could lead to indirect long-term benefits.
- The target population is incredibly broad as it encompasses all individuals affected by US federal laws. However, certain demographics such as minorities and low-income groups may experience more significant changes over time if health disparities are addressed.
- Given budget constraints, the immediate impact on wellbeing scores might not be significant, but the potential for future improvements in legislation could justify incremental improvements in wellbeing over time.
Simulated Interviews
nurse (rural Alabama)
Age: 25 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The idea of more thorough evaluation of health impacts on legislation gives me hope that my community will be better considered in future health policies.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 6 |
software engineer (San Francisco, CA)
Age: 40 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy seems neutral to my personal situation, but I think it's important to consider health impacts on broader legislation.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 8 |
retail worker (New York City, NY)
Age: 55 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 14/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I worry about my health and my parent's, so any policy that considers health more is a good move.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
unemployed (Detroit, MI)
Age: 30 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I think this could be good if it gets more healthcare changes in the future.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 4 | 4 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 4 |
retired (Phoenix, AZ)
Age: 70 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Better health policies benefit everyone, but it might not change much for me with this specific bill.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 7 |
healthcare policy analyst (Austin, TX)
Age: 45 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm hopeful this will guide better health legislation in the future, addressing disparities I've seen in my work.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 7 |
high school teacher (Chicago, IL)
Age: 60 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 11/20
Statement of Opinion:
- If this results in better health policies, it could be beneficial to myself and my students.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 6 |
lawyer (Miami, FL)
Age: 36 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I expect little direct impact on my life, but it's good for society if health is considered more in laws.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 8 |
artist (Portland, OR)
Age: 50 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Policies like this might eventually lead to more considerations of people like me without insurance.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
college student (Boston, MA)
Age: 19 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm studying public health, so seeing policies aimed at health disparities is encouraging.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 7 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $12000000 (Low: $10000000, High: $15000000)
Year 2: $12000000 (Low: $10000000, High: $15000000)
Year 3: $12000000 (Low: $10000000, High: $15000000)
Year 5: $12000000 (Low: $10000000, High: $15000000)
Year 10: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Year 100: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Key Considerations
- Successful implementation of recommendations depends on cooperation across several government agencies.
- The number of assessments conducted annually and their depth directly influence ongoing costs.
- Long-term cost savings could be realized if health impacts are mitigated through informed legislation.