Implementation analysis of the Texas Vendor Drug Program

An agency is accountable to a legislative body in the implementation of public policy. It has a responsibility to ensure that the implementation of that policy is consistent with its statutory objectives.^ The analysis of the effectiveness of implementation of the Vendor Drug Program proceeded in the following manner. The federal and state roles and statutes pursuant to the formulation of the Vendor Drug Program were reviewed to determine statutory intent and formal provisions. The translation of these into programmatic details was examined focusing on the factors impacting the implementation process. Lastly, the six conditions outlined by Mazmanian and Sabatier as criteria for effective implementation, were applied to the implementation of the Vendor Drug Program to determine if the implementation was effective in relation to consistency with statutory objectives.^ The implementation of the statutes clearly met four of the six conditions for effective implementation: (1) clear and consistent objectives; (2) a valid causal theory; (3) structured the process to maximize agency and target compliance with the objectives; and (4) had continued support of constituency groups and sovereigns.^ The implementation was basically consistent with the statutory objectives, although the determination of vendor reimbursement has had and continues to have problems. ^

A discourse-theoretic approach to negotiated rulemaking

In 1996 and in 1997, Congress ordered the Secretary of Health and Human Services to undertake a process of negotiated rulemaking, which is authorized under the Negotiated Rulemaking Act of 1990, on three separate rulemaking matters. Other Federal agencies, including the Environmental Protection Agency and the Occupational Health and Safety Administration, have also made use of this procedure. As part of the program to reinvent government, President Clinton has issued an executive order requiring federal agencies to engage in some negotiated rulemaking procedures. I present an analytic, interpretative and critical approach to looking at the statutory and regulatory provisions for negotiated rulemaking as related to issues of democratic governance surrounding the problem of delegation of legislative power. The paradigm of law delineated by Jürgen Habermas, which sets law the task of achieving social or value integration as well as integration of systems, provides the background theory for a critique of such processes. My research questions are two. First, why should a citizen obey a regulation which is the result of negotiation by directly interested parties? Second, what is the potential effect of negotiated rulemaking on other institutions for deliberative democracy? For the internal critique I argue that the procedures for negotiated rulemaking will not produce among the participants the agreement and cooperation which is the legislative intent. For the external critique I argue that negotiated rulemaking will not result in democratically-legitimated regulation. In addition, the practice of negotiated rulemaking will further weaken the functioning of the public sphere, as Habermas theorizes it, as the central institution of deliberative democracy. The primary implication is the need to mitigate further development of administrative agencies as isolated, self-regulating systems, which have been loosened from the controls of democratic governance, through the development of a robust public sphere in which affected persons may achieve mutual understanding. ^

Texas Department of Health organizational structure changes: A reflection of public health policy and agency expansion, September 1, 1946--June 30, 1994

The premise of this study is that changes in the agency's organizational structure reflect changes in government public health policy. Based on this premise, this study tracks the changes in the organizational structure and the overall expansion of the Texas Department of Health to understand the evolution of changing public health priorities in state policy from September 1, 1946 through June 30, 1994, a period of growth and new responsibilities. It includes thirty-seven observations of organizational structure as depicted by organizational charts of the agency and/or adapted from public documents. ^ The major questions answered are, what are the changes in the organizational structure, why did they occur and, what are the policy priorities reflected in these changes in and across the various time periods. ^ The analysis of the study included a thorough review of the organizational structure of the agency for the time-span of the study, the formulation of the criteria to be used in ascertaining the changes, the delineation of the changes in the organizational structure and comparison of the observations sequentially to characterize the change, the discovery of reasons for the structural changes (financial, statutory - federal and state, social and political factors), and the determination of policy priorities for each time period and their relation to the expansion and evolution of the agency. ^ The premise that the organizational structure of the agency and the changes over time reflect government public health policy and agency expansion was found to be true. ^

The movement toward patient safety: State action related to reporting and disclosure of healthcare-associated infections

Increasing attention has been given to the problem of medical errors over the past decade. Included within that focused attention has been a strong interest in reducing the occurrence of healthcare-associated infections (HAIs). Acting concurrently with federal initiatives, the majority of U.S. states have statutorily required reporting and public disclosure of HAI data. Although the occurrence of these state statutory enactments and other state initiatives represent a recognition of the strong concern pertaining to HAIs, vast differences in each state’s HAI reporting and public disclosure requirements creates a varied and unequal response to what has become a national problem.^ The purpose of this research was to explore the variations in state HAI legal requirements and other state mandates. State actions, including statutory enactments, regulations, and other initiatives related to state reporting and public disclosure mechanisms were compared, discussed, and analyzed in an effort to illustrate the impact of the lack of uniformity as a public health concern.^ The HAI statutes, administrative requirements, and other mandates of each state and two U.S. territories were reviewed to answer the following seven research questions: How far has the state progressed in its HAI initiative? If the state has a HAI reporting requirement, is it mandatory or voluntary? What healthcare entities are subject to the reporting requirements? What data collection system is utilized? What measures are required to be reported? What is the public disclosure mechanism? How is the underlying reported information protected from public disclosure or other legal release?^ Secondary publicly available data, including state statutes, administrative rules, and other initiatives, were utilized to examine the current HAI-related legislative and administrative activity of the study subjects. The information was reviewed and analyzed to determine variations in HAI reporting and public disclosure laws. Particular attention was given to the seven key research questions.^ The research revealed that considerable progress has been achieved in state HAI initiatives since 2004. Despite this progress, however, when reviewing the state laws and HAI programs comparatively, considerable variations were found to exist with regards to the type of reporting requirements, healthcare facilities subject to the reporting laws, data collection systems utilized, reportable measures, public disclosure requirements, and confidentiality and privilege provisions. The wide variations in state statutes, administrative rules, and other agency directives create a fragmented and inconsistent approach to addressing the nationwide occurrence of HAIs in the U.S. healthcare system. ^

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.^

THE IMPLEMENTATION OF FEDERAL FAMILY PLANNING POLICY: AN ANALYSIS OF FACTORS AFFECTING STATE EXPENDITURES, FISCAL YEARS 1976-1981 (WOMEN, BUDGET, POPULATION)

The purpose of this study was to analyze the implementation of national family planning policy in the United States, which was embedded in four separate statutes during the period of study, Fiscal Years 1976-81. The design of the study utilized a modification of the Sabatier and Mazmanian framework for policy analysis, which defined implementation as the carrying out of statutory policy. The study was divided into two phases. The first part of the study compared the implementation of family planning policy by each of the pertinent statutes. The second part of the study identified factors that were associated with implementation of federal family planning policy within the context of block grants.^ Implemention was measured here by federal dollars spent for family planning, adjusted for the size of the respective state target populations. Expenditure data were collected from the Alan Guttmacher Institute and from each of the federal agencies having administrative authority for the four pertinent statutes, respectively. Data from the former were used for most of the analysis because they were more complete and more reliable.^ The first phase of the study tested the hypothesis that the coherence of a statute is directly related to effective implementation. Equity in the distribution of funds to the states was used to operationalize effective implementation. To a large extent, the results of the analysis supported the hypothesis. In addition to their theoretical significance, these findings were also significant for policymakers insofar they demonstrated the effectiveness of categorical legislation in implementing desired health policy.^ Given the current and historically intermittent emphasis on more state and less federal decision-making in health and human serives, the second phase of the study focused on state level factors that were associated with expenditures of social service block grant funds for family planning. Using the Sabatier-Mazmanian implementation model as a framework, many factors were tested. Those factors showing the strongest conceptual and statistical relationship to the dependent variable were used to construct a statistical model. Using multivariable regression analysis, this model was applied cross-sectionally to each of the years of the study. The most striking finding here was that the dominant determinants of the state spending varied for each year of the study (Fiscal Years 1976-1981). The significance of these results was that they provided empirical support of current implementation theory, showing that the dominant determinants of implementation vary greatly over time. ^