Nav: Home

Political polarization among voters likely to have effect on future health policy

October 26, 2016

Boston, MA - An in-depth analysis of results from 14 national public opinion polls that looked at how Republican and Democratic likely voters in the 2016 presidential election view the health policy issues raised during the election campaign shows that the two parties' voters have markedly different values, priorities, and beliefs about the future of health policy.

The article, which examines the potential effect of the 2016 election on the future of health policy in the United States, will appear in the October 27, 2016 issue of the New England Journal of Medicine.

"Narrow discussions of policy that appear in the media often miss these widespread differences in views," says Robert J. Blendon, Richard L. Menschel Professor of Health Policy and Political Analysis at Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health and lead author of the article. "With the country polarized over health care issues, future policies will be heavily influenced by which party holds the presidency and a majority in Congress."

The political parties fundamentally differ over the role the federal government should play in intervening in the U.S. health care system and working to achieve universal health insurance coverage in the future, how great an effort should be made to try to narrow health care gaps between rich and poor, and the future role of the federal government in funding abortion services.

These broad divisions can be seen when focusing on the future of the Affordable Care Act (ACA). Based on the reported statements by each of the political parties' leaders, the following would likely happen. If the Democrats have control of both Congress and the presidency, they will continue implementation of the ACA and try to expand the number of currently uninsured people covered by the program. They will also probably try to fix many of its insurance actuarial problems. In addition, Democrats are likely to seriously consider pursuing the addition of a public option, a government-sponsored health insurance program that would compete with private health insurance plans and would be available only for those eligible for subsidized health insurance through the ACA. If the Republicans win, they are not likely to see their mission as making the ACA work. They are not likely to replace the ACA in total, but would be likely to attempt to reduce the scale and scope of the law, reduce or eliminate mandates of all types, and decrease federal subsidies. In addition, Republicans are likely to attempt to give much more authority to states to develop or oversee their own health insurance and Medicaid programs, even if this leads to less insurance coverage.

Because there is more bipartisan agreement on the issue of pharmaceutical prices, we are likely to see action on a number of policies in this area. This may lead to the federal government being involved with price review, negotiation of the price of prescription drugs, and faster Food and Drug Administration drug-review procedures.

In terms of abortion, if either party has the presidency and the majority in both houses of Congress, there is likely to be a shift in abortion-related policies. As was discussed in the parties' campaigns, if Republicans have control, they are likely to continue efforts to curtail federal funding for Planned Parenthood and access to abortion more generally. If Democrats do, they are likely to use their majority support to ensure that Planned Parenthood continues to receive federal funding and to try to expand access to abortion. In the coming years, the Supreme Court will be dealing with a number of key abortion-related cases, and newly appointed judges' prior decisions on abortion-related issues may affect the outcome of these deliberations. Party control of the presidency and Congress also matters a great deal because it will affect future appointments to the Court and presidential candidates have said that if they hold the presidency they would appoint justices empathetic to one or the other view.

Overall in terms of understanding the implications of the 2016 election for the future of health policy, it is important to recognize that future changes in health policy are related more to the extent of political polarization between the parties on health care issues than to the importance of the issue itself in deciding the 2016 election.
-end-
Visit the Harvard Chan School website for the latest news, press releases, and multimedia offerings.

Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health brings together dedicated experts from many disciplines to educate new generations of global health leaders and produce powerful ideas that improve the lives and health of people everywhere. As a community of leading scientists, educators, and students, we work together to take innovative ideas from the laboratory to people's lives--not only making scientific breakthroughs, but also working to change individual behaviors, public policies, and health care practices. Each year, more than 400 faculty members at Harvard Chan teach 1,000-plus full-time students from around the world and train thousands more through online and executive education courses. Founded in 1913 as the Harvard-MIT School of Health Officers, the School is recognized as America's oldest professional training program in public health.

Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health

Related Public Health Articles:

Public health guidelines aim to lower health risks of cannabis use
Canada's Lower-Risk Cannabis Use Guidelines, released today with the endorsement of key medical and public health organizations, provide 10 science-based recommendations to enable cannabis users to reduce their health risks.
Study clusters health behavior groups to broaden public health interventions
A new study led by a University of Kansas researcher has used national health statistics and identified how to cluster seven health behavior groups based on smoking status, alcohol use, physical activity, physician visits and flu vaccination are associated with mortality.
Public health experts celebrate 30 years of CDC's prevention research solutions for communities with health disparities
It has been 30 years since CDC created the Prevention Research Centers (PRC) Program, currently a network of 26 academic institutions across the US dedicated to moving new discoveries into the communities that need them.
Public health experts support federally mandated smoke-free public housing
In response to a new federal rule mandating smoke-free policies in federally funded public housing authorities, three public health experts applaud the efforts of the US Department of Housing and Urban Development to protect nonsmoking residents from the harmful effects of tobacco exposure.
The Lancet Public Health: UK soft drinks industry levy estimated to have significant health benefits, especially among children
The UK soft drinks industry levy, due to be introduced in April 2018, is estimated to have significant health benefits, especially among children, according to the first study to estimate its health impact, published in The Lancet Public Health.
Social sciences & health innovations: Making health public
The international conference 'Social Sciences & Health Innovations: Making Health Public' is the third event organized as a collaborative endeavor between Maastricht University, the Netherlands, and Tomsk State University, the Russian Federation, with participation from Siberian State Medical University (the Russian Federation).
Columbia Mailman School Awards Public Health Prize to NYC Health Commissioner Dr. Mary T.
Dr. Mary T. Bassett, Commissioner of the New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene, was awarded the Frank A.
Poor health literacy a public health issue
America's poor record on health literacy is a public health issue, but one that can be fixed -- not by logging onto the internet but by increased interaction with your fellow human beings, a Michigan State University researcher argues.
Despite health law's bow to prevention, US public health funding is dropping: AJPH study
Although the language of the Affordable Care Act emphasizes disease prevention -- for example, mandating insurance coverage of clinical preventive services such as mammograms -- funding for public health programs to prevent disease have actually been declining in recent years.
'Chemsex' needs to become a public health priority
Chemsex -- sex under the influence of illegal drugs -- needs to become a public health priority, argue experts in The BMJ this week.

Related Public Health 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

Setbacks
Failure can feel lonely and final. But can we learn from failure, even reframe it, to feel more like a temporary setback? This hour, TED speakers on changing a crushing defeat into a stepping stone. Guests include entrepreneur Leticia Gasca, psychology professor Alison Ledgerwood, astronomer Phil Plait, former professional athlete Charly Haversat, and UPS training manager Jon Bowers.
Now Playing: Science for the People

#524 The Human Network
What does a network of humans look like and how does it work? How does information spread? How do decisions and opinions spread? What gets distorted as it moves through the network and why? This week we dig into the ins and outs of human networks with Matthew Jackson, Professor of Economics at Stanford University and author of the book "The Human Network: How Your Social Position Determines Your Power, Beliefs, and Behaviours".