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 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. ^