From trust to political power: interest groups, public choice, and health care

A Draconian Law: Examining the Navigation of Coalition Politics and Policy Reform by Health Provider Associations in Karnataka, India

A comprehensive picture of provider coalitions in health policy making remains incomplete because of the lack of empirically driven insights from low- and middle-income countries. The authors examined the politics of provider coalitions in the health sector in Karnataka, India, by investigating policy processes between 2016 and 2018 for developing amendments to the Karnataka Private Medical Establishments Act. Through this case, they explore how provider associations function, coalesce, and compete and the implications of their actions on policy outcomes. They conducted in-depth interviews, document analysis, and nonparticipant observations of two conferences organized by associations. They found that provider associations played a major role in drafting the amendments and negotiating competing interests within and between doctors and hospital associations. Despite the fragmentation, the associations came together to reinterpret the intentions of the amendments as being against the interests of the profession, culminating in a statewide protest and strike. Despite this show of strength, provider associations only secured modest modifications. This case demonstrates the complex and unpredictable influence of provider associations in health policy processes in India. The authors' analysis highlights the importance of further empirical study on the influence of professional and trade associations across a range of health policy cases in low- and middle-income countries.

The role of stigma in U.S. primary care physicians' treatment of opioid use disorder

OBJECTIVES

To characterize primary care physicians' (PCPs) attitudes and beliefs about people with opioid use disorder (OUD) and to understand the association between PCPs' stigmatizing attitudes and their OUD treatment practices, beliefs about treatment effectiveness, and support for policies designed to improve access to OUD medications.

METHODS

We conducted a national postal survey of U.S. PCPs from January to August 2019. Survey items measured respondents' attitudes, beliefs, and current treatment practices. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics and logistic regression.

RESULTS

Of the original 1000 PCPs in the survey sample, 668 were deemed eligible to participate in the study. The survey was completed by 361 PCPs for an adjusted response rate of 54 %. PCPs reported high levels of stigmatizing attitudes. Less than 30 % of PCPs reported that they were willing to have a person taking medication for OUD as a neighbor or marry into their family, even if that person was being treated with medication. Greater stigma was associated with an 11 percentage point lower likelihood that PCPs prescribed OUD medication and lower support for policies intended to increase access to OUD medication.

CONCLUSIONS

Addressing OUD stigma among PCPs is a public health priority in addressing the ongoing opioid crisis.

A framework for medical power in two case studies of health policymaking in India and Niger

Medical professionals influence health policymaking but the power they exercise is not well understood in low- and middle-income countries. We explore medical power in national health policymaking for child survival in Niger (late 1990s-2012) and emergency medicine specialisation in India (early 1990s-2015). Both case studies used document review, in-depth interviews and non-participant observation; combined analysis traced policy processes and established theoretical categories around power to build a conceptual framework of medical power in health policymaking. Medical doctors, mainly specialists, utilised their power to shape policy differently in each case. In Niger, a small, connected group of paediatricians pursued a policy of task-shifting after a powerful non-medical actor, the country's president, shifted the debate by enacting broad health systems improvements. In India, a more fragmented group of specialists prioritised tertiary-level healthcare policies likely to benefit only a small subset of the population. Compared to high-income settings, medical power in these cases was channelled and expressed with greater variability in the profession's ability to organise and influence policymaking. Taken together, both cases provide evidence that a concentration of medical power in health policymaking can result in the medicalisation of public health issues.

Going for the cure: patient interest groups and health advocacy in the United States

Citizen groups, though celebrated during their sudden arrival on the lobbying scene, are vastly outnumbered by groups representing elite, occupationally based interests. Sensitive to the odds that nonoccupational groups face, this study asks what factors have allowed patient groups to form and become active in federal politics. Using three distinct data sets--a survey of patient groups, content analysis of group websites, and in-depth interviews with group representatives and policy makers in Washington, DC--this study assesses the activities of patient groups in the United States and argues that patient advocacy organizations garner stability from the relatively easy provision of selective and solidary benefits. Larger patient groups are especially likely to make use of these structural advantages to pursue congressional lobbying strategies. However, even these groups seek out noncompetitive, distributive political environments. Moreover, the study finds that patient groups rarely form coalitions across diseases, forgoing the potential to collectively speak for shared patient interests.

Niche players in health policy: medical specialty societies in Congress 1969-2002

Scholars and commentators alike have long used 'organized medicine' as shorthand for the American Medical Association (AMA). However, organized medicine has increasingly shown signs of fragmentation into specialty societies over the last two decades. While the AMA remains the largest association of physicians, and wields a great deal of influence in political circles, its use as a proxy for organized medicine may warrant reevaluation due to the changing political organization of medicine. We developed a unique database of specialty medical society appearances before all Congressional committees by combining records from Lexis-Nexis Congressional and the Policy Agendas database. Descriptive statistics were used to evaluate the participation of specialty societies by committee and by hearing type. The Herfindahl-Hirschman Index (HHI) was used to measure whether specialty societies develop niche roles with specific committees, and the Chi-Square Goodness of Fit test was used to study the distribution of specialty society testimonies in health hearings more formally. We found that although the AMA participates in Congressional hearings at a higher rate than any other individual medical specialty society, it accounts for a decreasing percentage of all specialty society appearances over time. In addition, specialty societies have developed niche and monopoly roles in health policymaking as well as relationships with particular congressional committees over time. We conclude that the increasing participation of specialty medical societies in the policymaking process is important because medical societies do not testify solely to promote the economic self-interest of their members. Specialization in medicine has segmented lobbying roles, such that specialty societies have a different focus than the AMA. Thus, 'organized medicine' and the AMA are no longer synonymous.

The politics of public health policy

Politics, for better or worse, plays a critical role in health affairs. The purpose of this article is to articulate a role for political analysis of public health issues, ranging from injury and disease prevention to health care reform. It begins by examining how health problems make it onto the policy agenda. Perceptions regarding the severity of the problem, responsibility for the problem, and affected populations all influence governmental responses. Next, it considers how bounded rationality, fragmented political institutions, resistance from concentrated interests, and fiscal constraints usually lead political leaders to adopt incremental policy changes rather than comprehensive reforms even when faced with serious public health problems. It then identifies conditions under which larger-scale transformation of health policy can occur, focusing on critical junctures in policy development and the role of policy entrepreneurs in seizing opportunities for innovation. Finally, it reviews the challenges confronting officials and agencies who are responsible for implementing and administering health policies. Public health professionals who understand the political dimensions of health policy can conduct more realistic research and evaluation, better anticipate opportunities as well as constraints on governmental action, and design more effective policies and programs.

Is the doctor in? The evolving role of organized medicine in health policy

Until recently, physicians were viewed as the dominant player in health policy. Now, however, they compete with many other effective interest groups. This article analyzes this changing role, and specifically how organized medicine has changed its approach to influencing health policy. The essay begins with a review of the reasons for the growth and subsequent decline of physicians' influence. This is followed by a case study of physician payment reform under Medicare, which illustrates the ways in which organized medicine chooses when and when not to cooperate with government. The article concludes with a discussion of where physicians are likely to continue to be influential in future health policy reform. Three such areas are noted: payment policy, quality and clinical innovation, and medical education and training.