Name: Dr. Jamaji Nwanaji-Enwerem
Affiliations: ¹ Center for Health Justice, Department of Emergency Medicine, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA 19104, USA; ² Center of Excellence in Environmental Toxicology, Department of Emergency Medicine, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA 19104, USA
Interests: disease prevention and health promotion; emergency care; population health; social drivers of health

“U.S. Federal and State Medicaid Spending: Health Policy Patterns by Political Party Leadership and Census Demographics”
by Jamaji C. Nwanaji-Enwerem and Pamaji Nwanaji-Enwerem.
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2025, 22(7), 1074; https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph22071074
Article Link: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/22/7/1074

1. Congratulations on your recent publication! Could you briefly introduce yourself and your current research focus?
Hi, my name is Dr. Jamaji Nwanaji-Enwerem. I’m an emergency medicine physician and a researcher at the University of Pennsylvania, USA, where I’m a Presidential Assistant Professor. My research spans a broad range of areas, but I would describe it as exploring both physical and social factors that influence health and working to understand how we can use insights from that work to not only help people live healthier lives, but also to inform people of the policies that can help facilitate healthy living. I approach this work through a range of topics from biological aging to environmental exposures to healthcare access.

2. What inspired you to focus on this topic?
As mentioned, I’m deeply interested in understanding how both physical and social factors affect health. At the time of this research, Medicaid was a major issue in the United States new cycles.
A series of legislative efforts were being discussed to reform Medicaid, but there was widespread concern that these changes might not adequately consider their real impact on people’s lives.
While there were many news stories and research articles on the topic, I felt most of the work was not presented in a way that was easily understandable to the public.
So, my team and I focused on analyzing publicly available data in a way that was both simple and rigorous—to show that this isn’t just a left-wing or right-wing issue, but one that affects everyone.
By making this information clear and meaningful, we hoped to contribute to the ongoing dialogue.

3. Could you share your vision for the future of your research and the contributions you aspire to make in your field?
As mentioned in our article, we recognize that neither Medicaid nor any public social program is perfect—there will always be room for improvement. However, we hope that reforms are approached comprehensively, considering both funding and efficiency, while never losing sight of the fact that these programs support millions of people in caring for their families and loved ones. If this human impact is overlooked, we miss what truly matters. We hope others also maintain this humanistic focus in their research, as we will continue to do.
There is value in examining data and numbers, but the stories behind them are equally meaningful and must not be lost in the process. Moreover, the impacts of legislation are often not immediate. It’s not only the stories we hear today, but also those we will hear months and years from now, that will remain meaningful as we continue to engage in these issues.

4. What was the biggest challenge you faced while writing this paper, and how did you overcome it?
One of our biggest hurdles was figuring out how to deliver the message in a highly understandable way. I think that’s something that we always have in mind with any type of research. Yes, you know, there’s an academic style of writing and you want to meet that, but you always hope that your research is read by many and read far. Yes, you want other scientists to read it. But you also want doctors to read it. You want policymakers to read it; you want someone who’s sitting at home who is interested in the topic but doesn’t have a background in research to be able to read it and get something from it. So, making sure, especially with the important issue of Medicaid, that it was written in an accessible way was the greatest – but a welcome – challenge.

5. Based on your experience publishing with us, what aspects of our editorial process most impacted your author’s experience?
It was a smooth process from submission all the way through revisions. I felt like we got very useful feedback from the editors, and we were able to incorporate that feedback to make the article even stronger than it was.
One of the things that I appreciated a lot was the timeliness of the whole process. I think it’s important to recognize that you can be rigorous in reviewing research but also realize that often people are studying topics that are being acted on in real time. Thus, being able to get research at a high standard out in a timely manner is very, very significant. I appreciate IJERPH for making that possible.

6. What advice would you give to young scholars seeking to get into academia or publish their work?
For many of us, the reason why we start doing research or science is because we’ve been inspired by something in our lives. Either we’ve been sick, or a family member’s been sick, or we were excited about science very early in life. Whenever we made our first rocket ship, or we spent time with a loved one in a museum, or experienced the benefits of engineering, or saw an experiment in a lab, there was some experience that drew us to science and research. I think it’s important to keep that in mind and to continue to use real life experiences to inspire you. The topic of this work remains very important to the lived experiences of many, and it was a timely issue that a lot of folks were speaking about. Being able to say, ‘hey, this is something that seems to matter. I’m interested in it. Is there a way that I can look at this, apply the scientific method, and produce something that I think could be meaningful and could help move the conversation forward?’ was what we did here and is a framework that I would advise future or younger scientists to consider as they decide what they want to work on next.

We are profoundly grateful to Dr. Jamaji Nwanaji-Enwerem for taking the time to share his expertise with us today. His insights into the intersection of healthcare policy, social drivers of health, and scientific communication were truly invaluable. We are confident that he will continue to make groundbreaking contributions to the field. We wish him the very best in his future endeavors.