Suchergebnisse

AbstractI argue that health insurance emerged as an important aspect of Nixon's domestic policy agenda as a result of "policy escalation." By policy escalation, I mean a cascading line of reasoning that causes policy makers focused on one apparently discrete issue to formulate approaches for dealing with other interconnecting policy areas. Policy escalation serves as an internal agenda-setting mechanism: as policy makers contemplate policy changes, they may attempt to imagine the ways in which change will affect the rationale, fiscal position, and execution of programs in other policy areas. In the case of health insurance, the Nixon administration's proposal for replacing Aid to Families with Dependent Children with a guaranteed minimum income forced policy makers to consider how the new program would interact with the existing Medicaid program. Consideration of this question ultimately led them to formulate an approach to overhauling the nation's entire health insurance system.

Surgeon General Thomas Parran Jr was once viewed as a path-breaking leader, but his legacy is now highly contested. Scholars of national health insurance have viewed Parran as an impediment to government-backed insurance, and revelations about his role in the Tuskegee Study and in the Public Health Service's experiments in Guatemala have cast a shadow over his career. Surgeon General from 1936 to 1948, Parran led the Public Health Service during the development of key features of the modern American health system and was involved in critical debates over the role of the national government in health. I argue that Parran is best understood not as an opponent of insurance but as the proponent of an approach to health policy that sought to link public health and individual medicine. A pragmatic bureaucrat, Parran believed that effective policymaking required compromise with the American Medical Association.

This article analyzes the emergence of national public health capacity in the United States. Tracing the transformation of the federal government's role in public health from the 1910s through the emergence of the CDC during World War II, I argue that national public health capacity emerged, to a great extent, out of the attempts of government officials to deal with the problem of tropical disease within the southern United States during periods of mobilization for war.

AbstractThe widespread embrace of Large Language Models (LLMs) integrated with chatbot interfaces, such as ChatGPT, represents a potentially critical moment in the development of risk communication and management. In this article, we consider the implications of the current wave of LLM‐based chat programs for risk communication. We examine ChatGPT‐generated responses to 24 different hazard situations. We compare these responses to guidelines published for public consumption on the US Department of Homeland Security's Ready.gov website. We find that, although ChatGPT did not generate false or misleading responses, ChatGPT responses were typically less than optimal in terms of their similarity to guidances from the federal government. While delivered in an authoritative tone, these responses at times omitted important information and contained points of emphasis that were substantially different than those from Ready.gov. Moving forward, it is critical that researchers and public officials both seek to harness the power of LLMs to inform the public and acknowledge the challenges represented by a potential shift in information flows away from public officials and experts and towards individuals.

AbstractIn this article, we examine public perceptions of the importance of different levels of government and of nongovernmental entities in responding to the COVID‐19 pandemic. By analyzing the case of COVID‐19, we illuminate patterns that may be helpful for understanding public perceptions of the response to a broader range of crises, including the impacts of hurricanes, tornadoes, earthquakes, wildfires, and other hazards. We contribute to the public policy literature on public perceptions of government response to crises and expand it to include consideration of the role of nonstate actors. Drawing on a representative survey of 1200 registered voters in Texas, we find that individuals are more likely to view government as extremely important to respond to the pandemic than nonstate actors. We find that perceptions of the role of state and nonstate actors are shaped by risk perception, political ideology and religion, gender, and race/ethnicity. We do not find evidence that direct impacts from the COVID‐19 pandemic consistently shape perceptions of the role of state and nonstate actors.

In this article, we examine the role of nongovernmental entities (NGEs; nonprofits, religious groups, and businesses) in disaster response and recovery. Although media reports and the existing scholarly literature focus heavily on the role of governments, NGEs provide critical services related to public safety and public health after disasters. NGEs are crucial because of their ability to quickly provide services, their flexibility, and their unique capacity to reach marginalized populations. To examine the role of NGEs, we surveyed 115 NGEs engaged in disaster response. We also conducted extensive field work, completing 44 hours of semistructured interviews with staff from NGEs and government agencies in postdisaster areas in Texas, Florida, Puerto Rico, Northern California, and Southern California. Finally, we compiled quantitative data on the distribution of nonprofit organizations. We found that, in addition to high levels of variation in NGE resources across counties, NGEs face serious coordination and service delivery problems. Federal funding for expanding the capacity of local Voluntary Organizations Active in Disaster groups, we suggest, would help NGEs and government to coordinate response efforts and ensure that recoveries better address underlying social and economic vulnerabilities.

Governments have implemented social distancing measures to address the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic. The measures include instructions that individuals maintain social distance when in public, school closures, limitations on gatherings and business operations, and instructions to remain at home. Social distancing may have an impact on the volume and distribution of crime. Crimes such as residential burglary may decrease as a byproduct of increased guardianship over personal space and property. Crimes such as domestic violence may increase because of extended periods of contact between potential offenders and victims. Understanding the impact of social distancing on crime is critical for ensuring the safety of police and government capacity to deal with the evolving crisis. Understanding how social distancing policies impact crime may also provide insights into whether people are complying with public health measures. Examination of the most recently available data from both Los Angeles, CA, and Indianapolis, IN, shows that social distancing has had a statistically significant impact on a few specific crime types. However, the overall effect is notably less than might be expected given the scale of the disruption to social and economic life.

Governments have implemented social distancing measures to address the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic. The measures include instructions that individuals maintain social distance when in public, school closures, limitations on gatherings and business operations, and instructions to remain at home. Social distancing may have an impact on the volume and distribution of crime. Crimes such as residential burglary may decrease as a byproduct of increased guardianship over personal space and property. Crimes such as domestic violence may increase because of extended periods of contact between potential offenders and victims. Understanding the impact of social distancing on crime is critical for ensuring the safety of police and government capacity to deal with the evolving crisis. Understanding how social distancing policies impact crime may also provide insights into whether people are complying with public health measures. Examination of the most recently available data from both Los Angeles, CA, and Indianapolis, IN, shows that social distancing has had a statistically significant impact on a few specific crime types. However, the overall effect is notably less than might be expected given the scale of the disruption to social and economic life.