IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/socmed/v16y1982i11p1147-1156.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A spatial analysis of voting on health care issues: United States House of Representatives, 96th Congress, First Session

Author

Listed:
  • Mullner, Ross
  • Andes, Steven
  • Tatalovich, Raymond
  • Bardes, Barbara

Abstract

This study examines the spatial patterns of Congressional voting on health issues. Thirteen roll call votes on health care issues occuring during the 1st Session of the 96th Congress are factor analyzed. This analysis shows that health care questions cluster around two major issues: health care regulation and health care spending. The factor scores for each Representative are mapped, and a regression model is developed relating health care voting to characteristics of the Representative, the Congressional district, and the hospitals in that district. The most important findings were: (1) support for both health care spending and regulation is strongest in the Northeast and upper Midwest. (2) Although Representatives from most of the Southern states are opposed to health care regulation, they generally favor health care spending. (3) Representatives from a few of the Southern states, however, do not fit this generalization. (4) Although Representatives from the Pacific Coast states are the strongest proponents of regulation, they are opposed to spending. (5) Opposition to health care spending is particularly strong among Representatives from suburban districts.

Suggested Citation

  • Mullner, Ross & Andes, Steven & Tatalovich, Raymond & Bardes, Barbara, 1982. "A spatial analysis of voting on health care issues: United States House of Representatives, 96th Congress, First Session," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 16(11), pages 1147-1156, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:16:y:1982:i:11:p:1147-1156
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0277-9536(82)90116-2
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:eee:socmed:v:16:y:1982:i:11:p:1147-1156. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/315/description#description .

    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.