'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. ^

A critical assessment of the National Institutes of Health Consensus Development Program against the eras which shaped it

This research study offers a critical assessment of NIH's Consensus Development Program (CDP), focusing upon its historical and valuative bases and its institutionalization in response to social and political forces. The analysis encompasses systems-level, as well as interpersonal factors in the adoption of consensus as the mechanism for resolving scientific controversies in clinical practice application. Further, the evolution of the CDP is also considered from an ecological perspective as a reasoned adaptation by NIH to pressures from its supporters and clients for translating biomedical research into medical practice. The assessment examines federal science policy and institutional designs for the inclusion of the public interest and democratic deliberation.^ The study relies on three distinct approaches to social research. Conventional historical methods were utilized in the interpretation of social and political influences across eras on the evolution of the National Institutes of Health and its response to demands for accountability and relevance through its Consensus Development Program. An embedded single-case study was utilized for an empirical examination of the CDP mechanism through five exemplar conferences. Lastly, a sociohistorical approach was taken to the CDP in order to consider its responsiveness to the values of the eras which created and shaped it. An exploration of organizational behavior with considerations for institutional reform as a response to continuing political and social pressure, it is a study of organizational birth, growth, and response to demands from its environment. The study has explanatory import in its attempt to account for the creation, timing, and form of the CDP, relative to political, institutional, and cultural pressures, and predictive import thorough its historical view which provides a basis for informed speculation on the playing out of tensions between extramural and intermural scientists and the current demands for health care reform. ^