IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jijerp/v16y2019i13p2440-d246832.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Doctors Rule: An Analysis of Health Ministers’ Diaries in Australia

Author

Listed:
  • Katherine Cullerton

    (School of Public Health, Faculty of Medicine, University of Queensland, 288 Herston Road, Herston, QLD 4006, Australia)

  • Tom White

    (MRC Epidemiology Unit, University of Cambridge School of Clinical Medicine, Box 285, Institute of Metabolic Science, Cambridge Biomedicine Campus, Cambridge CB2 0QQ, UK)

  • Amanda Lee

    (School of Public Health, Faculty of Medicine, University of Queensland, 288 Herston Road, Herston, QLD 4006, Australia)

Abstract

Limited progress in nutrition policy action is often blamed on the close relationships the food industry has with health policy decision-makers. This analysis sought to examine this belief through the analysis of health ministers’ diaries. Entries were downloaded from health ministers’ diaries from two states in Australia from January 2013 to June 2018. Entries were coded according to which interest group met with the minister or whether general parliamentary business was undertaken. Coding was also undertaken for any meeting topics related to nutrition policy. Analysis of health ministers’ diaries found that the food industry has limited documented interaction with the two state health ministers in Australia. Instead, medical associations, private hospitals and health services, and sporting associations (rugby league associations) had the most interactions with health ministers. Poor representation was seen on nutrition issues, and there was an apparent lack of nutrition advocates interacting with the health ministers. There are opportunities for nutrition advocates to increase their level of interaction with state health ministers. This could include building alliances with medical associations, as they are in a powerful position, to advocate directly to health ministers. Health ministers’ diaries can provide valuable insights into who is meeting officially with ministers. However, there are also limitations with the dataset.

Suggested Citation

  • Katherine Cullerton & Tom White & Amanda Lee, 2019. "Doctors Rule: An Analysis of Health Ministers’ Diaries in Australia," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 16(13), pages 1-9, July.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:16:y:2019:i:13:p:2440-:d:246832
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/16/13/2440/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/16/13/2440/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Beyers, Jan & Braun, Caelesta, 2014. "Ties that count: explaining interest group access to policymakers," Journal of Public Policy, Cambridge University Press, vol. 34(1), pages 93-121, April.
    2. Krachler, Nick & Greer, Ian, 2015. "When does marketisation lead to privatisation? Profit-making in English health services after the 2012 Health and Social Care Act," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 124(C), pages 215-223.
    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. Matti Van Hecke & Peter Bursens & Jan Beyers, 2016. "You'll Never Lobby Alone. Explaining the Participation of Sub-national Authorities in the European Commission's Open Consultations," Journal of Common Market Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 54(6), pages 1433-1448, November.
    2. Alvaro S Almeida, 2016. "The Role Of Private Non-Profit Healthcare Organizations In Nhs Systems: Implications For The Portuguese Hospital Devolution Program," FEP Working Papers 577, Universidade do Porto, Faculdade de Economia do Porto.
    3. Nuria Font & Ixchel Pérez‐Durán, 2023. "Legislative Transparency in the European Parliament: Disclosing Legislators' Meetings with Interest Groups," Journal of Common Market Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 61(2), pages 379-396, March.
    4. Creutzburg, Leonard & Lieberherr, Eva, 2021. "To log or not to log? Actor preferences and networks in Swiss forest policy," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 125(C).
    5. Andrew Barron & Peter Hultén, 2014. "Exploring Corporate Lobbyists' Perceptions of Prospective Coalition Partners in Brussels," Environment and Planning C, , vol. 32(6), pages 963-981, December.
    6. Bach-Mortensen, Anders Malthe & Barlow, Jane, 2021. "Outsourced austerity or improved services? A systematic review and thematic synthesis of the experiences of social care providers and commissioners in quasi-markets," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 276(C).
    7. María Victoria Ruiz-Mallorquí & Inmaculada Aguiar-Díaz & Beatriz González- López Valcárcel, 2021. "Arrangements with the NHS for providing healthcare services: do they improve financial performance of private for-profit hospitals in Spain?," Health Economics Review, Springer, vol. 11(1), pages 1-12, December.
    8. Bach-Mortensen, Anders Malthe & Goodair, Benjamin & Barlow, Jane, 2022. "Outsourcing and children's social care: A longitudinal analysis of inspection outcomes among English children's homes and local authorities," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 313(C).
    9. Stephen Bach, 2016. "Deprivileging the public sector workforce: Austerity, fragmentation and service withdrawal in Britain," The Economic and Labour Relations Review, , vol. 27(1), pages 11-28, March.
    10. Mulkeen Majella, 2016. "Going to market! An exploration of markets in social care," Administration, Sciendo, vol. 64(2), pages 33-59, August.
    11. Cronin, Anne M & Edwards, Lee, 2022. "Resituating the political in cultural intermediary work: charity sector public relations and communication," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 108897, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    12. Genevieve Coderre-LaPalme & Ian Greer & Lisa Schulte, 2023. "Welfare, Work and the Conditions of Social Solidarity: British Campaigns to Defend Healthcare and Social Security," Work, Employment & Society, British Sociological Association, vol. 37(2), pages 352-372, April.
    13. Anshu Rani & H. N. Shivaprasad, 2021. "Revisiting the antecedent of electronic word-of-mouth (eWOM) during COVID-19 Pandemic," DECISION: Official Journal of the Indian Institute of Management Calcutta, Springer;Indian Institute of Management Calcutta, vol. 48(4), pages 419-432, December.
    14. Federico Holm & Ramiro Berardo, 2020. "Coalitional Architecture of Climate Change Litigation Networks in the United States," Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 37(6), pages 797-822, November.
    15. Adam W. Chalmers, 2020. "Unity and conflict: Explaining financial industry lobbying success in European Union public consultations," Regulation & Governance, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 14(3), pages 391-408, July.
    16. Nayara F. Macedo de Medeiros Albrecht, 2023. "Bureaucrats, interest groups and policymaking: a comprehensive overview from the turn of the century," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 10(1), pages 1-10, December.
    17. Normann, Håkon Endresen, 2017. "Policy networks in energy transitions: The cases of carbon capture and storage and offshore wind in Norway," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 118(C), pages 80-93.
    18. Llewellyn, Sue & Begkos, Christos & Ellwood, Sheila & Mellingwood, Chris, 2022. "Public value and pricing in English hospitals: Value creation or value extraction?," CRITICAL PERSPECTIVES ON ACCOUNTING, Elsevier, vol. 85(C).

    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:gam:jijerp:v:16:y:2019:i:13:p:2440-:d:246832. 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: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.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.