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. ^

The public health applications of law enforcement medical direction: A practical experience with the Dallas Police Department

In 2008, 132 law enforcement officers were killed in the line of duty in The United States. Additionally, some have explored both the public health implications of interactions with law enforcement as well as the potential benefits of the use of law enforcement officers as public health and emergency healthcare providers. By virtue of these novel analyses and techniques, professional medical direction of the emerging specialty of law enforcement medicine is needed. This paper, an analysis of law enforcement medical direction through a look at the Dallas Police Medical Direction Program, seeks to examine origins of law enforcement medicine through a comprehensive literature review, as well as begin to define to core competencies of law enforcement medical direction. ^ The unique intersection of public health, medicine and law enforcement, and the subsequent specialty that is developing to manage this interface, is in its relative infancy. An analysis of this nature is in order to begin to lay down the foundations necessary for future study and improvements in the field. ^

Effects of congressional modernization laws on public access to innovative medical device technologies

The Federal Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid (CMS) play key roles in making Class III, medical devices available to the public, and they are required by law to meet statutory deadlines for applications under review. Historically, both agencies have failed to meet their respective statutory requirements. Since these failures affect patient access and may adversely impact public health, Congress has enacted several “modernization” laws. However, the effectiveness of these modernization laws has not been adequately studied or established for Class III medical devices. ^ The aim of this research study was, therefore, to analyze how these modernization laws may have affected public access to medical devices. Two questions were addressed: (1) How have the FDA modernization laws affected the time to approval for medical device premarket approval applications (PMAs)? (2) How has the CMS modernization law affected the time to approval for national coverage decisions (NCDs)? The data for this research study were collected from publicly available databases for the period January 1, 1995, through December 31, 2008. These dates were selected to ensure that a sufficient period of time was captured to measure pre- and post-modernization effects on time to approval. All records containing original PMAs were obtained from the FDA database, and all records containing NCDs were obtained from the CMS database. Source documents, including FDA premarket approval letters and CMS national coverage decision memoranda, were reviewed to obtain additional data not found in the search results. Analyses were conducted to determine the effects of the pre- and post-modernization laws on time to approval. Secondary analyses of FDA subcategories were conducted to uncover any causal factors that might explain differences in time to approval and to compare with the primary trends. The primary analysis showed that the FDA modernization laws of 1997 and 2002 initially reduced PMA time to approval; after the 2002 modernization law, the time to approval began increasing and continued to increase through December 2008. The non-combined, subcategory approval trends were similar to the primary analysis trends. The combined, subcategory analysis showed no clear trends with the exception of non-implantable devices, for which time to approval trended down after 1997. The CMS modernization law of 2003 reduced NCD time to approval, a trend that continued through December 2008. This study also showed that approximately 86% of PMA devices do not receive NCDs. ^ As a result of this research study, recommendations are offered to help resolve statutory non-compliance and access issues, as follows: (1) Authorities should examine underlying causal factors for the observed trends; (2) Process improvements should be made to better coordinate FDA and CMS activities to include sharing data, reducing duplication, and establishing clear criteria for “safe and effective” and “reasonable and necessary”; (3) A common identifier should be established to allow tracking and trending of applications between FDA and CMS databases; (4) Statutory requirements may need to be revised; and (5) An investigation should be undertaken to determine why NCDs are not issued for the majority of PMAs. Any process improvements should be made without creating additional safety risks and adversely impacting public health. Finally, additional studies are needed to fully characterize and better understand the trends identified in this research study.^

Policy implications of public health workforce development for disaster preparedness in the United States

Public health efforts were initiated in the United States with legislative actions for enhancing food safety and ensuring pure drinking water. Some additional policy initiatives during the early 20th century helped organize and coordinate relief efforts for victims of natural disasters. By 1950's the federal government expanded its role for providing better health and safety to the communities, and its disaster relief activities became more structured. A rise in terrorism related incidents during the late 1990's prompted new proactive policy directions. The traditional policy and program efforts for rescue, recovery, and relief measures changed focus to include disaster preparedness and countermeasures against terrorism.^ The study took a holistic approach by analyzing all major disaster related policies and programs, in regard to their structure, process, and outcome. Study determined that United States has a strong disaster preparedness agenda and appropriate programs are in place with adequate policy support, and the country is prepared to meet all possible security challenges that may arise in the future. The man-made disaster of September 11th gave a major thrust to improve security and enhance preparedness of the country. These new efforts required large additional funding from the federal government. Most existing preparedness programs at the local and national levels are run with federal funds which is insufficient in some cases. This discrepancy arises from the fact that federal funding for disaster preparedness programs at present are not allocated by the level of risks to individual states or according to the risks that can be assigned to critical infrastructures across the country. However, the increased role of the federal government in public health affairs of the states is unusual, and opposed to the spirit of our constitution where sovereignty is equally divided between the federal government and the states. There is also shortage of manpower in public health to engage in disaster preparedness activities, despite some remarkable progress following the September 11th disaster.^ Study found that there was a significant improvement in knowledge and limited number of studies showed improvement of skills, increase in confidence and improvement in message-mapping. Among healthcare and allied healthcare professionals, short-term training on disaster preparedness increased knowledge and improved personal protective equipment use with some limited improvement in confidence and skills. However, due to the heterogeneity of these studies, the results and interpretation of this systematic review may be interpreted with caution.^

Should Texas use public funding for bariatric surgery?

Background. Obesity in America has increased exponentially since the 1970s with no sign of slowing down. It is a major public health problem, and is currently the second leading cause of preventable deaths in America (Flegal et al., 2010). Bariatric surgery is currently the only approved therapy that has shown to have a lasting impact on obese patients. While the initial cost of the surgery remains high, numerous cost-benefit analyses have demonstrated an overall cost saving within two to five years (McEwen et al., 2010). Only three states, including Texas, do not currently fund bariatric surgery through Medicare and Medicaid. ^ Objectives. To determine whether the current data on the cost-benefit analysis of bariatric surgery supports Texas' decision to not publicly fund bariatric surgery through its Medicare and Medicaid programs. ^ Methods. We conducted literature reviews to determine the current cost of obesity in Texas as well as the methods being employed to treat obesity currently. We then analyzed the history of bariatric surgery and its current implementation, looking at safety and the future benefits of bariatric surgery. We then looked at key cost-benefit analyses and meta-analyses to determine the cost effectiveness of bariatric surgery. We then analyzed both direct medical expenditures and indirect benefits of bariatric surgery. ^ Conclusions. If the obesity epidemic continues unabated, it will become one of the leading health expenditures in Texas within decades. Given that surgery is currently the only approved therapy for obesity that has been shown to be effective in the majority of patients, Texas' decision not to publicly fund bariatric surgery is short sighted.^

Analytical frame for public policy implementation

"I don't think we truly understand how to implement. What does it mean to truly implement? Not the command center type that our culture is very good at, but a thorough planned systematic approach" (HP, 9.28.2011). This important question is asked by a clinician who works in a health care setting and who has experienced the implementation of a public policy. This case study applied the lessons learned from three generations of public policy research to a health care setting. As a result of the study an analytical frame was created as a guide to assess an organization's readiness for the implementation of a public policy.^