Nav: Home

Americans say political candidates are not listening to their health concerns

July 13, 2016

ALEXANDRIA, Va.--July 13, 2016-- A strong majority of Americans (81%) say medicines available today have improved their quality of life and even more (91%) say it is important to develop better medicines for conditions we currently treat, according to a new national public opinion survey commissioned by Research!America. But many respondents say candidates for President and Congress have done a poor job relating to the health expectations of Americans. Less than a quarter of respondents say candidates running for Congress listen to and understand the health concerns of Americans, and one-third say the same for presidential candidates. A majority of African-Americans, Hispanics, Asians and non-Hispanic whites all agree that candidates are not paying attention to the health concerns of people like them.

"While voters overwhelmingly believe policymakers should take action to drive faster medical progress, most don't know whether their candidates agree with them that faster medical progress is a priority," said Mary Woolley, president and CEO of Research!America. "This adds up to an empathy gap. Voters simply do not believe candidates are upholding their best interests. They don't see candidates fighting for new lifesaving treatments for deadly, disabling diseases. The urgency of finding cures and new preventions must be a shared American value supported by candidates and voters alike."

Nearly 80% of respondents say it is important for the next President and the next Congress to assign a high priority to putting health research and innovation to work to assure continued medical progress. The view is shared by a majority of Democrats, Republicans, Independents, minority groups and non-Hispanic whites. But very few Americans know where the candidates stand on public or private sector research. In a September 2015 survey, 17% recalled hearing any of the presidential candidates discuss science in the last 30-60 days, but that number has dropped. In the new survey, just 12% of those surveyed remember hearing a presidential candidate discuss medical research in the last 30-60 days. The results are still lower for congressional candidates - only 9% remember hearing them talk about research. These low percentages are true across the board, with very few Democrats, Republicans and Independents, minority groups and non-Hispanic whites recalling presidential and congressional candidates discuss medical research in the past two months.

Many Americans are willing to pay more to advance research. A majority of respondents, including Hispanics (74%), African-Americans (68%), Asians (67%) and non-Hispanic whites (60%) say they would support paying additional taxes - $1 per week - if they knew for sure the money would go towards the U.S. investing more in research to improve health. This finding holds true across party lines: Democrats (75%), Independents (55%) and Republicans (54%). When asked whether medical research and development is part of the problem or part of the solution to rising health care costs, opinions were split across party lines and among minority groups and non-Hispanic whites, and significant percentages of all responded "not sure."

"Even as they express concern about health care costs, Americans understand that medical progress requires sufficient resources and a commitment from our elected officials to find solutions to what ails us," added Woolley. "Candidates have an opportunity before Election Day to close the empathy gap with Americans by discussing their plans to advance public and private sector research."

Among other survey results:
  • 84% of respondents say it is important that the U.S. remains the global leader in bringing new medicines to patients.
  • 81% of respondents say it is important for the federal government to invest in health care delivery research.
  • 77% of respondents say it is important for them to know whether their candidates for Congress believe the government should invest more in medical research.
  • 73% of respondents say it is important for the federal government to support incentives for private sector investment in new treatments and cures.
  • Nearly half (48%) of respondents say we are not making enough progress in developing new medicines.
  • Only 25% of respondents say there is enough collaboration between academics, government and industry scientists on research projects to discover and develop new medicines.
-end-
Research!America's national voter education initiative, Campaign for Cures, encourages all candidates to share their views and articulate their plans to speed medical progress with voters. For more information visit http://www.campaignforcures.org.

The survey of 1,001 U.S. adults, conducted by Zogby Analytics in June 2016, has a margin of error of +/- 3.2 percentage points. The minority oversampling of 407 African-Americans has a margin of error of +/-4.9 percentage points, 419 Hispanics, +/-4.9 percentage points, and 305 Asians, +/-5.7 percentage points. To view survey results, click here.

About Research!America Surveys

Research!America began commissioning surveys in 1992 in an effort to understand public support for medical, health and scientific research. The results of Research!America's surveys have proven invaluable to our alliance of member organizations and, in turn, to the fulfillment of our mission to make research to improve health a higher national priority. In response to growing usage and demand, Research!America has expanded its portfolio, which includes state, national and issue-specific polling. Survey data is available by request or at http://www.researchamerica.org.

About Research!America

Research!America is the nation's largest nonprofit public education and advocacy alliance working to make research to improve health a higher national priority. Founded in 1989, Research!America is supported by member organizations representing 125 million Americans. Visit http://www.researchamerica.org.

Research!America

Related Medical Research Articles:

Sex, gender, or both in medical research
Only a minority of medical studies take sex and gender into account when analyzing and reporting research results.
Research!America to honor medical and health research advocacy leaders
Research!America's 21st annual Advocacy Awards will honor outstanding advocates for research whose contributions to health and medicine have saved lives and improved quality of life for patients worldwide.
Ohioans say it is important for the state to lead in education and medical research
An overwhelming majority of Ohio residents say it is important for the state to be a leader in education (89 percent) and in medical and health research (87 percent), according to a state-based public opinion survey commissioned by Research!America.
Medical research influenced by training 'genealogy'
By analyzing peer-reviewed scientific papers that examined the effectiveness of a surgical procedure, researchers at University of California, San Diego School of Medicine provide evidence suggesting that the conclusions of these studies appear to be influenced by the authors' mentors and medical training.
Diversity in medical research is a long way off, study shows
Despite Congressional mandates aimed at diversifying clinical research, little has changed in the last 30 years in both the numbers of studies that include minorities and the diversity of scientists being funded, according to a new analysis by researchers at UCSF.
Research!America to honor leaders in medical and health research advocacy
Research!America's 20th annual Advocacy Awards will honor exceptional advocates for research whose achievements in their fields have brought hope to patients worldwide.
10th-century medical philosophy and computer simulation in research
Dr. Mona Nasser, Clinical Lecturer in Evidence-Based Dentistry at Plymouth University Peninsula Schools of Medicine and Dentistry, is to present a lecture at an international conference in Barcelona which links the writings of a 10th-century medical philosopher to the use of computer simulation as an alternative to using animals in medical research.
Research on medical abortion and miscarriage may change international routines
Two scientific studies led by researchers at Sweden's Karolinska Institutet are expected to form the basis of new international recommendations for the treatment of medical abortions and miscarriages.
What do medical journalists think about cancer research?
Researchers at the University of Tokyo, Japan sent self-administered questionnaires to 364 medical journalists, who described their experiences in selecting stories, choosing angles, and performing research when creating cancer-centered news pieces.
Rate of investment in medical research has declined in US, increased globally
From 2004 to 2012, the rate of investment in medical research in the US declined, while there has been an increase in research investment globally, particularly in Asia, according to a study in the Jan.

Related Medical Research Reading:

Best Science Podcasts 2019

We have hand picked the best science podcasts for 2019. Sit back and enjoy new science podcasts updated daily from your favorite science news services and scientists.
Now Playing: TED Radio Hour

Digital Manipulation
Technology has reshaped our lives in amazing ways. But at what cost? This hour, TED speakers reveal how what we see, read, believe — even how we vote — can be manipulated by the technology we use. Guests include journalist Carole Cadwalladr, consumer advocate Finn Myrstad, writer and marketing professor Scott Galloway, behavioral designer Nir Eyal, and computer graphics researcher Doug Roble.
Now Playing: Science for the People

#529 Do You Really Want to Find Out Who's Your Daddy?
At least some of you by now have probably spit into a tube and mailed it off to find out who your closest relatives are, where you might be from, and what terrible diseases might await you. But what exactly did you find out? And what did you give away? In this live panel at Awesome Con we bring in science writer Tina Saey to talk about all her DNA testing, and bioethicist Debra Mathews, to determine whether Tina should have done it at all. Related links: What FamilyTreeDNA sharing genetic data with police means for you Crime solvers embraced...