Policy entrepreneurship in the Social Transformation of American Medicine: the rise of managed care and managed competition

Crisis and Change: The Making of a French FDA

Policy Points: Introducing a recent special issue of The Lancet on the health system in France, Horton and Ceschia observe that "the dominance of English as the language of science and, increasingly, global health too often closes the door on the history and experiences of others."1 In that spirit, this manuscript presents a detailed case study of public health policy transformation in France in the early 1990s. It casts light on processes of policy change in a political and cultural environment very different from that of the United States, showing how the public health policy process is shaped by multiple contingencies of history, ideology, and politics. More specifically, we describe the transformation of a disease catastrophe into a political crisis and the deployment of that crisis to precipitate reform of the French public health system.

CONTEXT

Until the last decade of the 20th century, France had no equivalent to the US Food and Drug Administration. In this paper we describe and interpret the complex series of events that led to the passage by the French Parliament in December 1992 of a law incorporating such an agency, the Agence du Médicament (literally, "medicines agency"). The broad aim of this project was to learn how public health policy change comes about by detailed analysis of a specific instance. More specifically, we aimed to better understand the circumstances under which public health crisis leads to significant public health policy reform.

METHODS

This paper is based on detailed analysis of primary documents (eg, archived French health ministry papers, recorded parliamentary debates, government reports, newspaper articles) and oral history interviews covering a period from 1988 to 1993. Thematic analysis of these materials was initially grounded in theories of organizational change, moving to constructs that emerged from the data themselves.

FINDINGS

Policy entrepreneurs positioned to frame adverse events and seize opportunities are key to public health policy reform. However, whether these entrepreneurs will have the requisite institutional power is contingent both on political structure and on the power of competing institutional actors. Health crises may catalyze institutional reform, but our analysis suggests that whether reform occurs, or even whether adverse episodes are labeled as crises, is highly contingent on circumstances of history, political structure, and political ideology and is extremely difficult to predict or control.

CONCLUSIONS

Actors positioned to shape public health policy need to have a detailed understanding of the circumstances that facilitate or impede policy reform. Health crises are now more often global than not. Comparative, theoretically grounded, cross-national research that looks in detail at how different countries respond to similar health crises would be extremely valuable in informing both policymakers and researchers.

Assessing entrepreneurship in governmental public health

OBJECTIVES

We assessed the feasibility and desirability of public health entrepreneurship (PHE) in governmental public health.

METHODS

Using a qualitative case study approach with semistructured interview protocols, we conducted interviews between April 2010 and January 2011 at 32 local health departments (LHDs) in 18 states. Respondents included chief health officers and senior LHD staff, representatives from national public health organizations, health authorities, and public health institutes.

RESULTS

Respondents identified PHE through 3 overlapping practices: strategic planning, operational efficiency, and revenue generation. Clinical services offer the strongest revenue-generating potential, and traditional public health services offer only limited entrepreneurial opportunities. Barriers include civil service rules, a risk-averse culture, and concerns that PHE would compromise core public health values.

CONCLUSIONS

Ongoing PHE activity has the potential to reduce LHDs' reliance on unstable general public revenues. Yet under the best of circumstances, it is difficult to generate revenue from public health services. Although governmental public health contains pockets of entrepreneurial activity, its culture does not sustain significant entrepreneurial activity. The question remains as to whether LHDs' current public revenue sources are sustainable and, if not, whether PHE is a feasible or desirable alternative.

Reform and the politics of hybridization in mature health care states

This article examines the cases of three health care states -- two of which (Britain and the Netherlands) have undergone major policy reform and one of which (Canada) has experienced only marginal adjustments. The British and Dutch reforms have variously altered the balance of power, the mix of instruments of control, and the organizing principles. As a result, mature systems representing the ideal-typical health care state categories of national health systems and social insurance (Britain and the Netherlands, respectively) were transformed into distinctive national hybrids. These processes have involved a politics of redesign that differs from the politics of earlier phases of establishment and retrenchment. In particular, the redesign phase is marked by the activity of institutional entrepreneurs who exploit specific opportunities afforded by public programs to combine public and private resources in innovative organizational arrangements. Canada stands as a counterpoint: no window of opportunity for major change occurred, and the bilateral monopoly created by its prototypical single-payer model provided few footholds for entrepreneurial activity. The increased significance of institutional entrepreneurs gives greater urgency to one of the central projects of health policy: the design of accountability frameworks to allow for an assessment of performance against objectives.

Breaking gridlock: the determinants of health policy change in Congress

Prior to the 2010 health care reforms, scholars often commented that health policy making in Congress was mired in political gridlock, that reforms were far more likely to fail than to succeed, and that the path forward was unclear. In light of recent events, new narratives are being advanced. In formulating these assessments, scholars of health politics tend to analyze individual major reform proposals to determine why they succeeded or failed and what lessons could be drawn for the future. Taking a different approach, we examine all health policies proposed in the U.S. House of Representatives between 1973 and 2002. We analyze these bills' fates and the effectiveness of their sponsors in guiding these proposals through Congress. Setting these proposed policies against a baseline of policy advancements in other areas, we demonstrate that health policy making has indeed been far more gridlocked than policy making in most other areas. We then isolate some of the causes of this gridlock, as well as some of the conditions that have helped to bring about health policy change.

Understanding evidence-based public health policy

Public health policy has a profound impact on health status. Missing from the literature is a clear articulation of the definition of evidence-based policy and approaches to move the field forward. Policy-relevant evidence includes both quantitative (e.g., epidemiological) and qualitative information (e.g., narrative accounts). We describe 3 key domains of evidence-based policy: (1) process, to understand approaches to enhance the likelihood of policy adoption; (2) content, to identify specific policy elements that are likely to be effective; and (3) outcomes, to document the potential impact of policy. Actions to further evidence-based policy include preparing and communicating data more effectively, using existing analytic tools more effectively, conducting policy surveillance, and tracking outcomes with different types of evidence.

The political management of managed care: explaining variations in state health maintenance organization regulations

In the 1990s, strong incentives for managed care organizations to control costs, once regarded as a fortuitous confluence of interests, came to be seen as antithetical to consumers' interests in quality of care. In response to this change in political climate, many states have greatly increased their regulatory control of managed care organizations since the mid-1990s. This activity is surprising in an era when public policy on health care issues is usually described as frozen, gridlocked, and/or stalemated as a result of intense activity on the part of organized interests. We take advantage of the variation in state regulations of health maintenance organizations (HMOs) to discover why some governments are able to address policy problems that are often perceived as intractable in a political if not in a true policy sense. From the history of HMOs, the backlash against managed care, and state responses to that backlash, we first extract a number of hypotheses about state regulatory activity. We then test these hypotheses with data on regulatory adoptions by states during the late 1990s and the early 2000s. Last, we discuss the findings with special attention to the role of politics in health care.

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.