The Past, Present, And Possible Future Of Public Opinion On The ACA.

When the Affordable Care Act (ACA) became law in 2010, public opinion of it was narrowly divided and deeply partisan. Our review of 102 nationally representative public opinion polls in the period 2010-19 reveals that opinion remains divided and has shifted in a sustained way at only two points in time: in a negative direction following technical problems in the first enrollment period, and in a positive direction after President Donald Trump's election and subsequent Republican repeal efforts. In late 2019 the ACA was more popular than ever, yet partisan divisions have gotten larger rather than smaller. Many core elements of the law remain popular across partisan groups, even as fewer people recognize the ACA as the source of some of these provisions. While Republicans may never embrace the law that is seen as President Barack Obama's legacy, the public's reluctance to see certain benefits taken away will continue to be a roadblock for people who would seek to repeal or dismantle it.

Americans' views of health care costs, access, and quality.

For more than two decades, polls have shown that Americans are dissatisfied with their current health care system. However, the public's views on how to change the current system are more conflicted than often suggested by individual poll results. At the same time, Americans are both dissatisfied with the current health care system and relatively satisfied with their own health care arrangements. As a result of the conflict between these views and the public's distrust of government, there often is a wide gap between the public's support for a set of principles concerning what needs to be done about the overall problems facing the nation's health care system and their support for specific policies designed to achieve those goals.

Voters and health care in the 2004 election.

Exit polls showed that health care was a second-tier issue in the 2004 presidential race and that it was more important to Democratic than Republican voters. Those who considered health care the most important issue in their voting decision voted over-whelmingly for John Kerry. An analysis of national opinion surveys and exit polls shows that Republican and Democratic voters expressed dramatically differing views on key health policy issues. With the exception of malpractice reform and reducing federal health spending, health care is not likely to be a top issue for the Bush administration's second term.

Physicians' views of interventions to reduce medical errors: does evidence of effectiveness matter?

PURPOSE: Despite widespread public attention and numerous ongoing patient safety initiatives, physicians are skeptical of the most commonly prescribed interventions to reduce medical errors. This study examined the association between the published evidence of effectiveness of interventions to reduce medical errors and physicians' ratings of the effectiveness of those interventions. It further assessed whether academic affiliation was associated with physicians' ratings of effectiveness. METHOD: The authors conducted a literature review seeking evidence of effectiveness of 13 interventions to reduce medical errors. A four-page questionnaire was sent to a random sample of 1,332 U.S. physicians in the spring of 2002. A total of 831 (62%) responded, providing ratings of the perceived effectiveness of these interventions to reduce medical errors. RESULTS: We identified published evidence of effectiveness for six of the 13 interventions. Physicians rated 34% of these and 29% of the interventions without published evidence as "very effective" (p < .01). Physicians with an academic affiliation and those in practice for more years were slightly more likely to rate interventions with published evidence as "very effective." CONCLUSIONS: Physicians' ratings of the effectiveness of interventions to reduce medical errors are only weakly associated with published evidence of effectiveness. More evidence, better dissemination strategies for existing evidence such as inclusion in medical school curriculum or recertification examinations, and a focus on removing barriers to interventions may be needed to engage physicians in moving patient safety interventions into medical practice.

Health care in the 2004 presidential election.

BACKGROUND: We examined the importance for voters of health care as an issue in the presidential election of 2004, how this ranking compares with the importance of health care in past elections, and which issues voters regard as the most important health care issues in the months before the election. METHODS: We studied data from 22 national opinion surveys, 9 of them conducted as telephone surveys during the 2004 presidential campaign, 10 conducted as telephone surveys during the previous three presidential elections, and 3 conducted as national exit polls of voters. RESULTS: Voters ranked health care as the fourth most important issue in deciding their vote for president in 2004. The top health care issues for voters were the costs of health care and prescription drugs, prescription-drug benefits for the elderly, the uninsured, and Medicare. Bioterrorism and abortion were also important issues for voters. The voters most concerned about health care were older persons and those who identified themselves as Democrats. Four issues less salient to voters were racial disparities in health care, aid to developing countries to prevent and treat human immunodeficiency virus infection and the acquired immunodeficiency syndrome, medical malpractice, and the quality of care. CONCLUSIONS: Although health care ranks higher in importance among voters than most other domestic issues, it is only fourth in importance in deciding their vote for president. The health care issues of greatest concern are the affordability of health care and health care insurance. Health care issues do not appear likely to play a decisive role in the presidential election in 2004, but they might make a difference in some swing states if the race is close.

Health news and the American public, 1996-2002.

The Kaiser Family Foundation/Harvard School of Public Health Health News Index, a series of 39 surveys with a total of over 42,000 respondents from 1996 through 2002, measures how closely Americans follow major health stories in the news and what they understand about the issues covered in those stories. On average, four in ten adults reported following health news stories closely. The public reports paying the most attention to stories about public health, followed by health policy and disease-related stories. While knowledge about health news varies, individuals who follow health news stories closely are significantly more likely to give the correct answer to knowledge questions about those stories.

Views of practicing physicians and the public on medical errors.

BACKGROUND: In response to the report by the Institute of Medicine on medical errors, national groups have recommended actions to reduce the occurrence of preventable medical errors. What is not known is the level of support for these proposed changes among practicing physicians and the public. METHODS: We conducted parallel national surveys of 831 practicing physicians, who responded to mailed questionnaires, and 1207 members of the public, who were interviewed by telephone after selection with the use of random-digit dialing. Respondents were asked about the causes of and solutions to the problem of preventable medical errors and, on the basis of a clinical vignette, were asked what the consequences of an error should be. RESULTS: Many physicians (35 percent) and members of the public (42 percent) reported errors in their own or a family member's care, but neither group viewed medical errors as one of the most important problems in health care today. A majority of both groups believed that the number of in-hospital deaths due to preventable errors is lower than that reported by the Institute of Medicine. Physicians and the public disagreed on many of the underlying causes of errors and on effective strategies for reducing errors. Neither group believed that moving patients to high-volume centers would be a very effective strategy. The public and many physicians supported the use of sanctions against individual health professionals perceived as responsible for serious errors. CONCLUSIONS: Though substantial proportions of the public and practicing physicians report that they have had personal experience with medical errors, neither group has the sense of urgency expressed by many national organizations. To advance their agenda, national groups need to convince physicians, in particular, that the current proposals for reducing errors will be very effective.