Healthcare Reform Repeal Efforts in the United States in 2017: An Inquiry into Public Advocacy Efforts by Key Interest Groups
Autor(a) principal: | |
---|---|
Data de Publicação: | 2018 |
Outros Autores: | , , |
Tipo de documento: | Artigo |
Idioma: | eng |
Título da fonte: | Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos) |
Texto Completo: | https://doi.org/10.17645/pag.v6i3.1507 |
Resumo: | The Affordable Care Act (ACA) was subjected to repeated repeal and replace efforts in the United States Congress in 2017. Attempts to repeal and replace the law failed, but penalties for not complying with its mandate that individuals purchase health insurance were removed in tax legislation passed late in the year and administrative actions taken by President Trump yielded additional concerns about the stability of the law’s reform approach and the expanded health insurance access that it created. This article explores public advocacy efforts by key interest groups from three major policy sectors—health providers, the insurance industry, and the business community—that had served as an “axis of opposition” to past American healthcare reform efforts. It identifies resource and incentive policy feedback effects that appear likely to influence these groups due to design features of the ACA and assesses whether patterns of advocacy efforts in 2017 are consistent with what might be expected if these design features had their predicted effects. Our assessment reveals patterns of interest group advocacy that are consistent with what might be expected to arise from resource and incentive based policy feedback effects, and interest group political dynamics that differ from what was in place prior to passage of the ACA. It also reveals advocacy patterns that are not well explained by resource and incentive based policy feedback effects, and—in so doing—yields insights that are relevant to the design of policy reforms and future research. |
id |
RCAP_3dd91aa97573d2f61e3e533bc555884f |
---|---|
oai_identifier_str |
oai:ojs.cogitatiopress.com:article/1507 |
network_acronym_str |
RCAP |
network_name_str |
Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos) |
repository_id_str |
7160 |
spelling |
Healthcare Reform Repeal Efforts in the United States in 2017: An Inquiry into Public Advocacy Efforts by Key Interest GroupsAffordable Care Act; Obamacare; policy feedback; policy design; policy reform; resource-incentives; resource effects; sustainability of policy reformsThe Affordable Care Act (ACA) was subjected to repeated repeal and replace efforts in the United States Congress in 2017. Attempts to repeal and replace the law failed, but penalties for not complying with its mandate that individuals purchase health insurance were removed in tax legislation passed late in the year and administrative actions taken by President Trump yielded additional concerns about the stability of the law’s reform approach and the expanded health insurance access that it created. This article explores public advocacy efforts by key interest groups from three major policy sectors—health providers, the insurance industry, and the business community—that had served as an “axis of opposition” to past American healthcare reform efforts. It identifies resource and incentive policy feedback effects that appear likely to influence these groups due to design features of the ACA and assesses whether patterns of advocacy efforts in 2017 are consistent with what might be expected if these design features had their predicted effects. Our assessment reveals patterns of interest group advocacy that are consistent with what might be expected to arise from resource and incentive based policy feedback effects, and interest group political dynamics that differ from what was in place prior to passage of the ACA. It also reveals advocacy patterns that are not well explained by resource and incentive based policy feedback effects, and—in so doing—yields insights that are relevant to the design of policy reforms and future research.Cogitatio2018-10-19info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersioninfo:eu-repo/semantics/articleapplication/pdfhttps://doi.org/10.17645/pag.v6i3.1507oai:ojs.cogitatiopress.com:article/1507Politics and Governance; Vol 6, No 3 (2018): Multidisciplinary Studies in Politics and Governance; 190-2042183-2463reponame:Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos)instname:Agência para a Sociedade do Conhecimento (UMIC) - FCT - Sociedade da Informaçãoinstacron:RCAAPenghttps://www.cogitatiopress.com/politicsandgovernance/article/view/1507https://doi.org/10.17645/pag.v6i3.1507https://www.cogitatiopress.com/politicsandgovernance/article/view/1507/1507https://www.cogitatiopress.com/politicsandgovernance/article/downloadSuppFile/1507/354https://www.cogitatiopress.com/politicsandgovernance/article/downloadSuppFile/1507/355https://www.cogitatiopress.com/politicsandgovernance/article/downloadSuppFile/1507/356Copyright (c) 2018 John Hoornbeek, Bethany Lanese, Mutlaq Albugmi, Joshua Fillahttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessHoornbeek, JohnLanese, BethanyAlbugmi, MutlaqFilla, Joshua2022-10-21T16:04:09Zoai:ojs.cogitatiopress.com:article/1507Portal AgregadorONGhttps://www.rcaap.pt/oai/openaireopendoar:71602024-03-19T16:13:52.170389Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos) - Agência para a Sociedade do Conhecimento (UMIC) - FCT - Sociedade da Informaçãofalse |
dc.title.none.fl_str_mv |
Healthcare Reform Repeal Efforts in the United States in 2017: An Inquiry into Public Advocacy Efforts by Key Interest Groups |
title |
Healthcare Reform Repeal Efforts in the United States in 2017: An Inquiry into Public Advocacy Efforts by Key Interest Groups |
spellingShingle |
Healthcare Reform Repeal Efforts in the United States in 2017: An Inquiry into Public Advocacy Efforts by Key Interest Groups Hoornbeek, John Affordable Care Act; Obamacare; policy feedback; policy design; policy reform; resource-incentives; resource effects; sustainability of policy reforms |
title_short |
Healthcare Reform Repeal Efforts in the United States in 2017: An Inquiry into Public Advocacy Efforts by Key Interest Groups |
title_full |
Healthcare Reform Repeal Efforts in the United States in 2017: An Inquiry into Public Advocacy Efforts by Key Interest Groups |
title_fullStr |
Healthcare Reform Repeal Efforts in the United States in 2017: An Inquiry into Public Advocacy Efforts by Key Interest Groups |
title_full_unstemmed |
Healthcare Reform Repeal Efforts in the United States in 2017: An Inquiry into Public Advocacy Efforts by Key Interest Groups |
title_sort |
Healthcare Reform Repeal Efforts in the United States in 2017: An Inquiry into Public Advocacy Efforts by Key Interest Groups |
author |
Hoornbeek, John |
author_facet |
Hoornbeek, John Lanese, Bethany Albugmi, Mutlaq Filla, Joshua |
author_role |
author |
author2 |
Lanese, Bethany Albugmi, Mutlaq Filla, Joshua |
author2_role |
author author author |
dc.contributor.author.fl_str_mv |
Hoornbeek, John Lanese, Bethany Albugmi, Mutlaq Filla, Joshua |
dc.subject.por.fl_str_mv |
Affordable Care Act; Obamacare; policy feedback; policy design; policy reform; resource-incentives; resource effects; sustainability of policy reforms |
topic |
Affordable Care Act; Obamacare; policy feedback; policy design; policy reform; resource-incentives; resource effects; sustainability of policy reforms |
description |
The Affordable Care Act (ACA) was subjected to repeated repeal and replace efforts in the United States Congress in 2017. Attempts to repeal and replace the law failed, but penalties for not complying with its mandate that individuals purchase health insurance were removed in tax legislation passed late in the year and administrative actions taken by President Trump yielded additional concerns about the stability of the law’s reform approach and the expanded health insurance access that it created. This article explores public advocacy efforts by key interest groups from three major policy sectors—health providers, the insurance industry, and the business community—that had served as an “axis of opposition” to past American healthcare reform efforts. It identifies resource and incentive policy feedback effects that appear likely to influence these groups due to design features of the ACA and assesses whether patterns of advocacy efforts in 2017 are consistent with what might be expected if these design features had their predicted effects. Our assessment reveals patterns of interest group advocacy that are consistent with what might be expected to arise from resource and incentive based policy feedback effects, and interest group political dynamics that differ from what was in place prior to passage of the ACA. It also reveals advocacy patterns that are not well explained by resource and incentive based policy feedback effects, and—in so doing—yields insights that are relevant to the design of policy reforms and future research. |
publishDate |
2018 |
dc.date.none.fl_str_mv |
2018-10-19 |
dc.type.status.fl_str_mv |
info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion |
dc.type.driver.fl_str_mv |
info:eu-repo/semantics/article |
format |
article |
status_str |
publishedVersion |
dc.identifier.uri.fl_str_mv |
https://doi.org/10.17645/pag.v6i3.1507 oai:ojs.cogitatiopress.com:article/1507 |
url |
https://doi.org/10.17645/pag.v6i3.1507 |
identifier_str_mv |
oai:ojs.cogitatiopress.com:article/1507 |
dc.language.iso.fl_str_mv |
eng |
language |
eng |
dc.relation.none.fl_str_mv |
https://www.cogitatiopress.com/politicsandgovernance/article/view/1507 https://doi.org/10.17645/pag.v6i3.1507 https://www.cogitatiopress.com/politicsandgovernance/article/view/1507/1507 https://www.cogitatiopress.com/politicsandgovernance/article/downloadSuppFile/1507/354 https://www.cogitatiopress.com/politicsandgovernance/article/downloadSuppFile/1507/355 https://www.cogitatiopress.com/politicsandgovernance/article/downloadSuppFile/1507/356 |
dc.rights.driver.fl_str_mv |
Copyright (c) 2018 John Hoornbeek, Bethany Lanese, Mutlaq Albugmi, Joshua Filla http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0 info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess |
rights_invalid_str_mv |
Copyright (c) 2018 John Hoornbeek, Bethany Lanese, Mutlaq Albugmi, Joshua Filla http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0 |
eu_rights_str_mv |
openAccess |
dc.format.none.fl_str_mv |
application/pdf |
dc.publisher.none.fl_str_mv |
Cogitatio |
publisher.none.fl_str_mv |
Cogitatio |
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv |
Politics and Governance; Vol 6, No 3 (2018): Multidisciplinary Studies in Politics and Governance; 190-204 2183-2463 reponame:Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos) instname:Agência para a Sociedade do Conhecimento (UMIC) - FCT - Sociedade da Informação instacron:RCAAP |
instname_str |
Agência para a Sociedade do Conhecimento (UMIC) - FCT - Sociedade da Informação |
instacron_str |
RCAAP |
institution |
RCAAP |
reponame_str |
Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos) |
collection |
Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos) |
repository.name.fl_str_mv |
Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos) - Agência para a Sociedade do Conhecimento (UMIC) - FCT - Sociedade da Informação |
repository.mail.fl_str_mv |
|
_version_ |
1799130591950536704 |