Healthcare Reform Repeal Efforts in the United States in 2017: An Inquiry into Public Advocacy Efforts by Key Interest Groups

Detalhes bibliográficos
Autor(a) principal: Hoornbeek, John
Data de Publicação: 2018
Outros Autores: Lanese, Bethany, Albugmi, Mutlaq, Filla, Joshua
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