Daniel P. Carpenter, Ph.D.Expertise:
Disease Advocacy; Interest Groups; Pharmaceutical Policy; Politics and Policymaking | Reputation and Regulation: A Study of Pharmaceutical Policy at the FDA
Award Year: 2003 Show AbstractAs U.S. expenditures on prescription drugs continue to rise and account for a growing share of gross national product, Daniel P. Carpenter, Ph.D. examines a major institution in American health care: the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). His project, Reputation and Regulation: A Study of Pharmaceutical Policy at the FDA, considers the power the FDA exerts and how political, social, and other considerations influence its decisions. Focusing on the Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER), the agency's drug reviewing division, Dr. Carpenter dissects the FDA's reputation for protecting the American public, the evolution of that role, and its impact on regulation of new drugs. Specifically, he explores how the FDA's concerns about its image and credibility affect whether drugs are approved or rejected, and whether drug development is accelerated or slowed. His work should also reveal who wins and who loses when agency self-protection motivates the making of prescription drug policy. |
|
Virginia Gray, Ph.D.Expertise:
Interest Groups; Politics and Policymaking | Against All Odds: Health Care Reform in the States
with David Lowery, Ph.D.
Award Year: 2002Show Abstract Over the past several years, the federal government and many states have considered ways to address insurance coverage gaps, prescription drug coverage, and problems with managed care. While most federal reform attempts to date have been thwarted, many more reforms have passed in the states. Virginia Gray, Ph.D. and David Lowery, Ph.D. focus on interest groups in their project, Against All Odds: Health Care Reform in the States. Drs. Gray and Lowery examine why interest groups have been less effective at blocking health care reform at the state level than in Congress, and why many but not all states have been reformers. By looking at interest group structure in each of the 50 states and how they vary, Drs. Gray and Lowery expect to provide insights into the role that interest organizations play in the health policymaking process. |
|
Barron H. Lerner, M.D., Ph.D.Expertise:
Bioethics; Disease Advocacy; History of Medicine; Interest Groups; Organization of Care; Public and Population Health | Famous Patients: "N of 1" Cases and Health Policy Debates
Award Year: 2003Show Abstract Health policy debates surface at specific moments for a host of reasons. For example, they may be triggered by technological advances, greater attention to the costs of medical care, or by special interest groups pursuing an agenda. More often, however, a specific medical case or scandal pushes a policy issue into the headlines. Barron H. Lerner, M.D., Ph.D. scrutinizes influential cases in his new project, Famous Patients: N of 1 Cases and Health Policy Debates. Focusing on four policy areas — medical error, technology, death and dying, and patient activism, Dr. Lerner examines in detail 16 seminal medical cases and how they have advanced or impeded health policymaking. The project analyzes the factors that influenced the timing of specific health policy debates, the role the media has played in framing noteworthy medical cases, and the ways these cases have shaped policymaking — including the funding of controversial new treatments. |
|
David Lowery, Ph.D.Expertise:
Interest Groups; Politics and Policymaking | Against All Odds: Health Care Reform in the States
with Virginia Gray, Ph.D.
Award Year: 2002Show Abstract Over the past several years, the federal government and many states have considered ways to address insurance coverage gaps, prescription drug coverage, and problems with managed care. While most federal reform attempts to date have been thwarted, many more reforms have passed in the states. Virginia Gray, Ph.D. and David Lowery, Ph.D. focus on interest groups in their project, Against All Odds: Health Care Reform in the States. Drs. Gray and Lowery examine why interest groups have been less effective at blocking health care reform at the state level than in Congress, and why many but not all states have been reformers. By looking at interest group structure in each of the 50 states and how they vary, Drs. Gray and Lowery expect to provide insights into the role that interest organizations play in the health policymaking process. |
|
Matthew C. Nisbet, Ph.D.Expertise:
Bioethics; Health Communication; Interest Groups; Politics and Policymaking; Public Opinion; Science Policy | Mobilizing Citizen Support for Climate Stabilization and Adaptation Policies
with Edward W. Maibach, Ph.D., M.P.H.
Award Year: 2008Show Abstract Climate change poses a potentially significant threat to the public's health, and addressing it is among President Obama's top priorities. Co-PIs Edward W. Maibach, Ph.D., M.P.H. and Matthew C. Nisbet, Ph.D. believe that citizens and stakeholders need to play an active role in formulating effective public policies and investments in greenhouse gas reduction. Their project, Mobilizing Citizen Support for Climate Stabilization and Adaptation Policies, investigates how best to engage Americans on climate control issues and analyzes the extent to which a health perspective can enlist community interest and participation. Through surveys and interviews, Drs. Maibach and Nisbet explore people's beliefs and motivations and test their reactions to various policy proposals and messages about climate change and its health implications. Their research findings could help galvanize the public health community and provide policy experts, government agencies, journalists, and other stakeholders with practical guidance on how best to increase public understanding of the implications of climate change. |
|
Margaret M. Weir, Ph.D.Expertise:
Interest Groups; Politics and Policymaking | Federalism and Strategies for Reform in American Health Policy
Award Year: 2004Show Abstract American health policy is a quintessential example of "marble cake" federalism: a complex mix of responsibilities shared between states and the federal government. Margaret M. Weir, Ph.D. probes the interplay between state and federal political arenas in her Investigator Award project, Federalism and Strategies for Reform in American Health Policy. Her study focuses on the interest groups and organizations that disseminate ideas, shape agendas and policy alliances, and operate in health care reform debates. She analyzes the roles played by organized medicine, the hospital industry, AARP, governors, state legislators, the AFL-CIO, foundations, and others in the aftermath of the failed reform efforts of the 1950s, 1970s, and 1990s. Dr. Weir's project will shed light on how policy capacities are built in the states, how the federal government can best promote state initiatives to improve access to quality health care, and how state activity can influence federal efforts. Her work should provide policymakers with a better understanding of how state and federal action may best be combined to improve access to health care. |
|
Investigator Details:
Section Info