A model of factors determining levels of public support for health care policy in the United States

Public preferences for policy are formed in a little-understood process that is not adequately described by traditional economic theory of choice. In this paper I suggest that U.S. aggregate support for health reform can be modeled as tradeoffs among a small number of behavioral values and the stage of policy development. The theory underlying the model is based on Samuelson, et al.'s (1986) work and Wilke's (1991) elaboration of it as the Greed/Efficiency/Fairness (GEF) hypothesis of motivation in the management of resource dilemmas, and behavioral economics informed by Kahneman and Thaler's prospect theory. ^ The model developed in this paper employs ordered probit econometric techniques applied to data derived from U.S. polls taken from 1990 to mid-2003 that measured support for health reform proposals. Outcome data are four-tiered Likert counts; independent variables are dummies representing the presence or absence of operationalizations of each behavioral variable, along with an integer representing policy process stage. Marginal effects of each independent variable predict how support levels change on triggering that variable. Model estimation results indicate a vanishingly small likelihood that all coefficients are zero and all variables have signs expected from model theory. ^ Three hypotheses were tested: support will drain from health reform policy as it becomes increasingly well-articulated and approaches enactment; reforms appealing to fairness through universal health coverage will enjoy a higher degree of support than those targeted more narrowly; health reforms calling for government operation of the health finance system will achieve lower support than those that do not. Model results support the first and last hypotheses. Contrary to expectations, universal health care proposals did not provide incremental support beyond those targeted to “deserving” populations—children, elderly, working families. In addition, loss of autonomy (e.g. restrictions on choice of care giver) is found to be the “third rail” of health reform with significantly-reduced support. When applied to a hypothetical health reform in which an employer-mandated Medical Savings Account policy is the centerpiece, the model predicts support that may be insufficient to enactment. These results indicate that the method developed in the paper may prove valuable to health policy designers. ^

Sequential updating via dynamic hierarchical models: A Bayesian approach to longitudinal data analysis

Most statistical analysis, theory and practice, is concerned with static models; models with a proposed set of parameters whose values are fixed across observational units. Static models implicitly assume that the quantified relationships remain the same across the design space of the data. While this is reasonable under many circumstances this can be a dangerous assumption when dealing with sequentially ordered data. The mere passage of time always brings fresh considerations and the interrelationships among parameters, or subsets of parameters, may need to be continually revised. ^ When data are gathered sequentially dynamic interim monitoring may be useful as new subject-specific parameters are introduced with each new observational unit. Sequential imputation via dynamic hierarchical models is an efficient strategy for handling missing data and analyzing longitudinal studies. Dynamic conditional independence models offers a flexible framework that exploits the Bayesian updating scheme for capturing the evolution of both the population and individual effects over time. While static models often describe aggregate information well they often do not reflect conflicts in the information at the individual level. Dynamic models prove advantageous over static models in capturing both individual and aggregate trends. Computations for such models can be carried out via the Gibbs sampler. An application using a small sample repeated measures normally distributed growth curve data is presented. ^