Evidence Based Health Policy oder wissenschaftlich verbrämter Lobbyismus – Die Verwertung wissenschaftlicher Erkenntnisse in der Gesundheitspolitik

Knieps, Franz

doi:10.1016/j.zefq.2009.05.003

Cited by 10 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 6 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In Germany, the idea of evidence-based policy as a model of modern policy-making has not engendered as much enthusiasm as in other countries, particularly in the Anglo-Saxon world (Jun and Grabow 2008;Knieps 2009). German policy-makers and researchers are broadly in agreement that scientific evidence has become more relevant to policy-making over time to address increasingly complex policy problems and to provide legitimacy for potentially unpopular decisions (Renn 1995;Mayntz 2009).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…However, much scepticism about the role of scientific evidence exists outside the narrow confines of health technology assessment, with some commentators seeing references to evidence representing little more than 'scientifically cloaked lobbyism' (Knieps 2009). The complexity of the policy process in Germany -with its multitude of actors that exist within a federal, corporatist system, and the dominance of legislation over other forms of policy-making -would not lend itself to support notions of evidence-based policy.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The Politics of Evidence Use in Health Policy Making in Germany: The Case of Regulating Hospital Minimum Volumes

Ettelt

2018

International Series on Public Policy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Politics of Evidence Use in Health Policy Making in Germany: The Case of Regulating Hospital Minimum Volumes

Ettelt

2018

International Series on Public Policy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…In Germany, the idea of evidence-based policy as a model of modern policy making has not engendered as much enthusiasm as in other countries, particularly in the Anglo-Saxon world (Jun and Grabow 2008;Knieps 2009). German policy makers and researchers are broadly in agreement that scientific evidence has become more relevant over time to policy making to address increasingly complex policy problems and provide legitimacy for potentially unpopular decisions (Renn 1995;Mayntz 2009).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

The Politics of Evidence Use in Health Policy Making in Germany—the Case of Regulating Hospital Minimum Volumes

Ettelt¹

2017

Journal of Health Politics, Policy and Law

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article examines the role of scientific evidence in informing health policy decisions in Germany, using minimum volumes policy as a case study. It argues that scientific evidence was used strategically at various stages of the policy process both by individual corporatist actors and by the Federal Joint Committee as the regulator. Minimum volumes regulation was inspired by scientific evidence suggesting a positive relationship between service volume and patient outcomes for complex surgical interventions. Federal legislation was introduced in 2002 to delegate the selection of services and the setting of volumes to corporatist decision makers. Yet, despite being represented in the Federal Joint Committee, hospitals affected by its decisions took the Committee to court to seek legal redress and prevent policy implementation. Evidence has been key to support, and challenge, decisions about minimum volumes, including in court. The analysis of the role of scientific evidence in minimum volumes regulation in Germany highlights the dynamic relationship between evidence use and the political and institutional context of health policy making, which in this case is characterized by the legislative nature of policy making, corporatism, and the role of the judiciary in reviewing policy decisions.

show abstract

Political Institutions and Public Policy

Hornung

2022

International Series on Public Policy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In order to shed light on this missing link between programmatic action and political institutions, this chapter reviews how institutions are currently discussed in policy process research in order to derive hypotheses that may explain under which institutional conditions programmatic action should or should not take place. The goal of this overview of the state of the art is twofold. On the one hand, it serves to assess the contribution of the PAF to existing theories of the policy process and the understanding of institutions in it. In doing so, it becomes clear why a new theoretical lens is needed and where and why the PAF is able to fill gaps left by others. On the other hand, the established approaches to explaining policy change and stability with respect to policy processes contain assumptions and hypotheses about the role of institutions that can be integrated into the PAF and help sharpen the analytical power of a look at the institutional conditions for programmatic action. They do this by formulating mechanisms between theoretical concepts that can also be adapted, or at least assumed to be relevant, to the formation of programmatic groups and the success of the group and its program. At the very least, they lay the groundwork for the question that asks about the influence of institutional settings familiar in comparative politics on policy change.

show abstract

Evidence Based Health Policy oder wissenschaftlich verbrämter Lobbyismus – Die Verwertung wissenschaftlicher Erkenntnisse in der Gesundheitspolitik

Cited by 10 publications

References 6 publications

The Politics of Evidence Use in Health Policy Making in Germany: The Case of Regulating Hospital Minimum Volumes

The Politics of Evidence Use in Health Policy Making in Germany: The Case of Regulating Hospital Minimum Volumes

The Politics of Evidence Use in Health Policy Making in Germany—the Case of Regulating Hospital Minimum Volumes

Political Institutions and Public Policy

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About