IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cog/poango/v6y2018i3p190-204.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

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

Author

Listed:
  • John Hoornbeek

    (Center for Public Policy and Health, College of Public Health, Kent State University, USA)

  • Bethany Lanese

    (College of Public Health, Kent State University, USA)

  • Mutlaq Albugmi

    (Center for Public Policy and Health, College of Public Health, Kent State University, USA)

  • Joshua Filla

    (Center for Public Policy and Health, College of Public Health, Kent State University, USA)

Abstract

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.

Suggested Citation

  • John Hoornbeek & Bethany Lanese & Mutlaq Albugmi & Joshua Filla, 2018. "Healthcare Reform Repeal Efforts in the United States in 2017: An Inquiry into Public Advocacy Efforts by Key Interest Groups," Politics and Governance, Cogitatio Press, vol. 6(3), pages 190-204.
  • Handle: RePEc:cog:poango:v:6:y:2018:i:3:p:190-204
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cogitatiopress.com/politicsandgovernance/article/view/1507
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Weaver, Kent, 2010. "Paths and Forks or Chutes and Ladders?: Negative Feedbacks and Policy Regime Change," Journal of Public Policy, Cambridge University Press, vol. 30(2), pages 137-162, August.
    2. Jacobs, Lawrence & Skocpol, Theda, 2010. "Health Care Reform and American Politics: What Everyone Needs to Know," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, number 9780199769124.
    3. Pierson, Paul, 2000. "Increasing Returns, Path Dependence, and the Study of Politics," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 94(2), pages 251-267, June.
    4. Jacobs, Lawrence & Skocpol, Theda, 2010. "Health Care Reform and American Politics: What Everyone Needs to Know," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, number 9780199769117.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Daniel Béland & Michael Howlett & Philip Rocco & Alex Waddan, 2020. "Designing policy resilience: lessons from the Affordable Care Act," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 53(2), pages 269-289, June.
    2. Kasper Ampe & Erik Paredis & Lotte Asveld & Patricia Osseweijer & Thomas Block, 2021. "Power struggles in policy feedback processes: incremental steps towards a circular economy within Dutch wastewater policy," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 54(3), pages 579-607, September.
    3. Brendan Moore & Andrew Jordan, 2020. "Disaggregating the dependent variable in policy feedback research: an analysis of the EU Emissions Trading System," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 53(2), pages 291-307, June.
    4. Matthew Lockwood & Caroline Kuzemko & Catherine Mitchell & Richard Hoggett, 2017. "Historical institutionalism and the politics of sustainable energy transitions: A research agenda," Environment and Planning C, , vol. 35(2), pages 312-333, March.
    5. Matthew Lockwood, 2022. "Policy feedback and institutional context in energy transitions," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 55(3), pages 487-507, September.
    6. Sebastian Sewerin & Daniel Béland & Benjamin Cashore, 2020. "Designing policy for the long term: agency, policy feedback and policy change," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 53(2), pages 243-252, June.
    7. Mewes, Jan & Giordano, Giuseppe Nicola, 2017. "Self-rated health, generalized trust, and the Affordable Care Act: A US panel study, 2006–2014," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 190(C), pages 48-56.
    8. Edmondson, Duncan L. & Kern, Florian & Rogge, Karoline S., 2019. "The co-evolution of policy mixes and socio-technical systems: Towards a conceptual framework of policy mix feedback in sustainability transitions," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(10).
    9. Grace Skogstad, 2020. "Mixed feedback dynamics and the USA renewable fuel standard: the roles of policy design and administrative agency," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 53(2), pages 349-369, June.
    10. Roberts, Cameron & Geels, Frank W., 2019. "Conditions for politically accelerated transitions: Historical institutionalism, the multi-level perspective, and two historical case studies in transport and agriculture," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 140(C), pages 221-240.
    11. Federico Steinberg & Mattias Vermeiren, 2016. "Germany's Institutional Power and the EMU Regime after the Crisis: Towards a Germanized Euro Area?," Journal of Common Market Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 54(2), pages 388-407, March.
    12. Carsten Daugbjerg & Adrian Kay, 2020. "Policy feedback and pathways: when change leads to endurance and continuity to change," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 53(2), pages 253-268, June.
    13. Fu, Tong & Jian, Ze, 2020. "A developmental state: How to allocate electricity efficiently in a developing country," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 138(C).
    14. Marie-Laure Djelic & Sigrid Quack, 2006. "Rethinking Path Dependency: The Crooked Path of Institutional Change in Post-War Germany," Sciences Po publications info:hdl:2441/2b86iahfka8, Sciences Po.
    15. David P Carter & Christopher M Weible & Saba N Siddiki & Xavier Basurto, 2016. "Integrating core concepts from the institutional analysis and development framework for the systematic analysis of policy designs: An illustration from the US National Organic Program regulation," Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 28(1), pages 159-185, January.
    16. Hugo Priemus & Bert van Wee (ed.), 2013. "International Handbook on Mega-Projects," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 14791.
    17. Ekaterina Domorenok & Paolo Graziano & Laura Polverari, 2021. "Policy integration, policy design and administrative capacities. Evidence from EU cohesion policy [Joined-up Government in the Western World in comparative perspective: A preliminary literature rev," Policy and Society, Darryl S. Jarvis and M. Ramesh, vol. 40(1), pages 58-78.
    18. Michael Mintrom & Jacqui True, 2022. "COVID-19 as a policy window: policy entrepreneurs responding to violence against women [The pandemic paradox: The consequences of COVID-19 on domestic violence]," Policy and Society, Darryl S. Jarvis and M. Ramesh, vol. 41(1), pages 143-154.
    19. Li, Aitong & Xu, Yuan & Shiroyama, Hideaki, 2019. "Solar lobby and energy transition in Japan," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 134(C).
    20. Odysseas Christou, 2021. "Energy Security in Turbulent Times Towards the European Green Deal," Politics and Governance, Cogitatio Press, vol. 9(3), pages 360-369.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:cog:poango:v:6:y:2018:i:3:p:190-204. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: António Vieira (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cogitatiopress.com/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.