|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
|Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17|
|The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.|
|This article is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. Click [show] for further details.|
Semi-protected edit request on 3 October 2019
|This edit request has been answered. Set the |
I wanted to edit the medicaid expansion part of the page to include information from a study published in 2018 that showed the impact of the medicaid expansion on buprenorphine prescriptions with naloxone and opioid pain relievers. The study showed that states that had the medicaid expansion had significantly higher buprenorphine with naloxone prescriptions per 100,000 county residents, which suggested that there was increased access to opioid use disorder treatment due to the expansion. Additionally, the expansion allowed more people taking opioid pain relievers to be covered under Medicaid, but the total number of these prescriptions did not increase. This study highlights the importance of Medicaid in pain management and addiction recovery. There was information in this section about the impact of the expansion on states that did and not expand, like Kansas, so I thought that adding another example of the Medicaid impact would be valuable to the page.  18.104.22.168 (talk) 17:00, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
- Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Melmann 17:04, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
I may have stepped in something (did not examine Talk before editing). However, I bulldozed through this piece. Feedback encouraged. Changes:
- 20% word count reduction
- removed excess detail
- various updates of older material
- restructured various sections (including the notorious Problems) to put info where it belongs. e.g., moved descriptive information to the descriptive sections
- added some detail on lawsuits
- briefly mentioned fates of CLASS and co-ops
- (hopefully) moved in direction of NPOV
- noted lie of the year
- High praise for the bulldozer! Your copy edits and other changes are major improvements to the article. Superb work! - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) (I am a man. The traditional male pronouns are fine.) 16:53, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
- Editing note: I learned something new today. Isaidnoway made an edit on 7 Jan 2020 (diff), for which he wrote the following:
Good to know. - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) (I am a man. The traditional male pronouns are fine.) 22:47, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
removed MULTIPLE unused refs creating cite errors after mass removal of content — list-defined references must be removed or commented out — use show preview after mass removal of content and check the references section for possible cite errors — refs can be found in the page history if needed for further use here or elsewhere
Talk page references
I edited the article's short description (diff) from "United States federal statute" to "Obamacare, ACA - U.S. federal statute". John B123 had recently edited the short description (importing the Wikidata version). In retrospect, I should have started this Talk page section first, and not edited the short description. I apologize for jumping the gun.
Short descriptions are relatively new to Wikipedia and it seems we are still sorting out best practices. For example, from Wikipedia:Short description#Content, "Wikidata has English descriptions of a significant fraction of Wikipedia articles. Where these are good, they may be copied to the relevant article." At the same time, Wikipedia:Short description#Content's first four guidelines (suggestions) indicate (to me) that greater specificity is better than generic descriptions. I included "Obamacare" and "ACA" because these are two terms visitors likely use to find information about the Act.
- As you point out, short descriptions are in their infancy and what guidelines that exist are pretty broad, more objectives than specific "rules". As such, nothing it really right or wrong until discussions such as this evolve a more specific set of guidelines. Most legislation articles, where they have short descriptions, use "United States federal statute" or similar, dependant on jurisdiction, but I suspect that is simply because they have been imported from Wikidata. This doesn't necessarily mean this is the format that should be adopted. --John B123 (talk) 23:38, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
Pageviews Analysis for this article
Line graph, logarithmic scale, using Bézier curve showing 2019 monthly pageviews (all platforms; user agents) for the Wikipedia article, Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. | Image file information | Pageviews Analysis information | Pageviews Analysis FAQ | What is a "page view"? | This article (Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act) was viewed 814,467 times during 2019 (monthly average: 67,872). - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) (I'm a man—traditional male pronouns are fine.) 03:16, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
Anti-discrimination Provisions of ACA
I would like to add information about the anti-discrimination provisions in ACA, specifically Section 1557, which prevents discrimination in the provision of health care services under ACA, and some other provisions that affect people with disabilities. DisabilityAdvocacy4U (talk) 03:11, 5 April 2020 (UTC)