The Ryan White CARE Act : 20 years of transition

The Ryan White CARE Act has undergone substantial changes in the past 20 years. Today it serves over 500,000 persons living with HIV/AIDS in the United States. The purpose of this project was to update the history and content Ryan White CARE Act and to consider how changes since the 2006 CARE Act reauthorization have affected the Ryan White Planning Council in Harris County. The results of the 2008 Houston Area HIV/AIDS Needs Assessment were reviewed and compared to responses to access of service questions of the 2005 Houston Area HIV/AIDS Needs Assessment. The results of the comparison show that informational barriers continue to be the leading barriers in persons living with HIV/AIDS to accessing services. In conclusion the strength of the Ryan White CARE Act is its ability to respond to a changing epidemic and its weakness lies in its vulnerability to shifting political sentiments. ^

Campaign contributions to congressional candidates by the healthcare sector from 1990 to 2008

Stakeholder groups with special interests as donors to finance congressional campaigns have been a controversial issue in the United Sates. While previous studies concentrated on whether a connection existed between the campaign contributions provided by stakeholder groups and the voting behavior of congressional members, there is little evidence to show the trend of allocation of their campaign contributions to their favorite candidates during the elections. This issue has become increasingly important in the health sector since the health care reform bill was passed in early 2010.^ This study examined the long-term trend of campaign contributions offered by various top healthcare stakeholder groups to particular political parties (i.e. Democrat and Republican). The main focus of this paper was to observe and describe the financial donations provided by these healthcare stakeholder groups in the congressional election cycles from 1990 to 2008 in order to obtain an overview of their patterns of campaign contributions. Their contributing behaviors were characterized based on the campaign finance data collected by the Center for Responsive Politics (CRP). Specifically, I answered the questions: (1) to which political party did specific healthcare stakeholder groups give money and (2) what was the pattern of their campaign contributions from 1990 to 2008?^ The findings of my study revealed that the healthcare stakeholder groups had different political party preferences and partisanship orientations regarding the Democratic or Republican Party. These differences were obvious throughout the election cycles from 1990 to 2008 and their distinct patterns of financial contribution were evident across industries in the health sector as well. Among all the healthcare stakeholder groups in this study, physicians were the top contributors in the congressional election. The pharmaceutical industry was the only group where the majority of contribution funds were allocated to Republicans in every election period studied. This study found that no interest group has succeeded in electing the preferred congressional candidate by giving the majority of its financial support to the winning party in every election. Chiropractors, hospitals/nursing homes, and health services/HMOs performed better than other healthcare stakeholder groups by supporting the electoral winner 8 out of 9 election cycles.^