'Reform' of the British national health service after the election of a labour government: Understanding the policy development process

The policy development process leading to the Labour government's white paper of December 1997—The new NHS: Modern, Dependable—is the focus of this project and the public policy development literature is used to aid in the understanding of this process. Policy makers who had been involved in the development of the white paper were interviewed in order to acquire a thorough understanding of who was involved in this process and how they produced the white paper. A theoretical framework is used that sorts policy development models into those that focus on knowledge and experience, and those which focus on politics and influence. This framework is central to understanding the evidence gathered from the individuals and associations that participated in this policy development process. The main research question to be asked in this project is to what extent do either of these sets of policy development models aid in understanding and explicating the process by which the Labour government's policies were developed. The interview evidence, along with published evidence, show that a clear pattern of policy change emerged from this policy development process, and the Knowledge-Experience and Politics-Influence policy making models both assist in understanding this process. The early stages of the policy development process were characterized as hierarchical and iterative, yet also very collaborative among those participating, with knowledge and experience being quite prevalent. At every point in the process, however, informal networks of political influence were used and noted to be quite prevalent by all of the individuals interviewed. The later stages of the process then became increasingly noninclusive, with decisions made by a select group of internal and external policy makers. These policy making models became an important tool with which to understand the policy development process. This Knowledge-Experience and Politics-Influence dichotomy of policy development models could therefore be useful in analyzing other types of policy development. ^

The emergence of the social determinants of health on the policy agenda in Britain: A case study, 1980--2003

Numerous theories have been advanced in the effort to explain how a given policy issue manages to take root in the public sphere and subsequently move forward on the public legislative agenda—or not. This study examined how the social determinants of health (SDOH) came to be part of the legislative policy agenda in Britain from 1980 to 2003. ^ The specific objectives of the research were: (1) to conduct a sociopolitical analysis grounded in alternative agenda-setting theories to identify the factors responsible for moving the social determinants health perspective onto the British policy agenda; and (2) to determine which of the theories and related dimensions best accounted for the emergence of this perspective. ^ A triangulated content and context analysis of British news articles, historical accounts, and research commentaries of the SDOH movement was conducted guided by relevant agenda-setting theories set within a social movement framework to chronicle the emergence of the SDOH as a significant policy issue in Britain. ^ The most influential social movement and agenda setting elements in the emergence of the SDOH in Britain were issue generation tactics, framing efforts, mobilizing structures, and political opportunities grounded in social movement and agenda setting theories. Policy content or the details of the policy had comparatively little impact on the successful emergence of the SDOH. Despite resistance by the government, from 1980 to 1996 interest groups created a political understanding of the SDOH utilizing a framing package encompassing notions of inequality, fairness, and justice. This frame transmitted a powerful idea connected to a core set of British values and beliefs. After 1996, a shift in political opportunities cemented the institutional arrangements needed to sustain an environment conducive to the development and implementation of SDOH policies and programs. ^ This research demonstrates that the U.S. emergence of the SDOH on the policy agenda will depend upon: (1) U.S. ideals and values regarding poverty, inequality, race, health, and health care that will determine issue framing; (2) political opportunities that will emerge—or not—to advance the SDOH policy agenda; and (3) the mobilizing structures that support or oppose the issue. ^

The medical malpractice insurance "crises" and federal medical malpractice tort reform: Collection and analysis of bills passed by the United States House of Representatives from 1995--2005

There have been three medical malpractice insurance "crises" in the United States over a time spanning roughly the past three decades (Poisson, 2004, p. 759-760). Each crisis is characterized by a number of common features, including rapidly increasing medical malpractice insurance premiums, cancellation of existing insurance policies, and a decreased willingness of insurers to offer or renew medical malpractice insurance policies (Poisson, 2004, p. 759-760). Given the recurrent "crises," many sources argue that medical malpractice insurance coverage has become too expensive a commodity—one that many physicians simply cannot afford (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services [HHS], 2002, p. 1-2; Physician Insurers Association of America [PIAA], 2003, p. 1; Jackiw, 2004, p. 506; Glassman, 2004, p. 417; Padget, 2003, p. 216). ^ The prohibitively high cost of medical liability insurance is said to limit the geographical areas and medical specializations in which physicians are willing to practice. As a result, the high costs of medical liability insurance are ultimately said to affect whether or not people have access to health care services. ^ In an effort to control the medical liability insurance crises—and to preserve or restore peoples' access to health care—every state in the United States has passed "at least some laws designed to reduce medical malpractice premium rates" (GAO, 2003, p.5-6). More recently, however, the United States has witnessed a push to implement federal reform of the medical malpractice tort system. Accordingly, this project focuses on federal medical malpractice tort reform. This project was designed to investigate the following specific question: Do the federal medical malpractice tort reform bills which passed in the House of Representatives between 1995 and 2005 differ in respect to their principle features? To answer this question, the text of the bills, law review articles, and reports from government and private agencies were analyzed. Further, a matrix was compiled to concisely summarize the principle features of the proposed federal medical malpractice tort reform bills. Insight gleaned from this investigation and matrix compilation informs discussion about the potential ramifications of enacting federal medical malpractice tort reform legislation. ^