Variability in State Policy Priorities: An Empirical Analysis

Jacoby, William G.; Schneider, Saundra K.

doi:10.1111/0022-3816.00078

Cited by 128 publications

(121 citation statements)

References 43 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

114

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…State resources, as measured by average per capita income, were also a robust positive predictor of personal care expenditures, but not of participants as had been expected. These findings are consistent with previous studies of Medicaid HCBS spending (Kitchener, Carrillo, and Harrington 2002; , as well as broader studies of Medicaid expenditures (Jacoby and Schneider 2001).…”

Section: Resultssupporting

confidence: 92%

“…While characteristics of state politics (including the party affiliation of legislature leaders) have been shown to influence LTC policy, the prevailing political climate plays a particularly important role in shaping state policies generally (Jacoby and Schneider 2001) and HCBS specifically (Harrington et al 2000;Harrington et al 2002). Studies show the negative influence on Medicaid HCBS policy development of fiscally conservative state political climates as measured by the voting records of the states' U.S. senators Kitchener, Carrillo, and Harrington 2003).…”

Section: State Politicsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Developing Personal Care Programs: National Trends and Interstate Variation, 1992–2002

Kitchener¹,

Ng²,

Carrillo³

et al. 2007

INQUIRY

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper examines the development of programs delivering personal care to the elderly and disabled. First, we report the latest national participant and expenditure trend data for the three main personal care programs: the Medicaid Personal Care Services (PCS) benefit, Medicaid 1915(c) waivers, and the Older Americans Act Title III. Second, to examine interstate variation revealed in the trend analysis, we present three time-series regression models of personal care development (expenditures, participants, and existence of PCS benefit) that control for state socioeconomic, political, policy, and provider characteristics. Positive predictors of personal care development include: percentages of population aged 85 and older, and nonwhite; per capita income; and liberal state politics. Negative predictors of personal care development include rates of Medicare home health users and hospital beds.In 2003, the provision of institutional longterm care (LTC) (e.g., in nursing homes) consumed nearly 70% of LTC expenditures within the joint federal-state Medicaid program, which is the largest single payer of LTC (Eiken, Burwell, and Schaefer 2004). Policymakers, however, face mounting pressures to extend home and community-based service (HCBS) alternatives to institutional care that help the aged and disabled live independently . Previous studies have analyzed many aspects of national HCBS development and provided case studies of HCBS in selected states (e.g., Kane et al. 1998;Kitchener et al. 2005). Less is known about individual HCBS such as the skilled home health care delivered by nurses, and personal care, which is long-term assistance with functional tasks including activities of daily living (ADLs) such as bathing and eating, and instrumental ADLs (IADLs) such as shopping and preparing meals (LeBlanc, Tonner, and Harrington 2001;Stone 2001).Policymakers' growing concern for personal care arises from the longstanding consumer pressures to expand all HCBS that were given greater ''voice'' by the 1999 Supreme Court Olmstead decision . In addition, two factors have increased consumer demand for communitybased personal care. First, among the 13.2 million U.S. adults who receive personal care, it is estimated that more than 85% of care hours are provided informally (unpaid) by Martin Kitchener, M.B.A., Ph.D., is a professor; Terence Ng, M.A., is a research associate; Helen Carrillo, M.S., is a program analyst; and Charlene Harrington, Ph.D., is a professor, all in the Department of Social and Behavioral Sciences, University of California, San Francisco. Nancy Miller, Ph.D., is an associate professor in

show abstract

Section: Resultssupporting

confidence: 92%

Section: State Politicsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Developing Personal Care Programs: National Trends and Interstate Variation, 1992–2002

Kitchener¹,

Ng²,

Carrillo³

et al. 2007

INQUIRY

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In general, theories of policy diffusion center around three sets of determinants: internal, external, and policy specific characteristics. Internal determinants include such factors as institutional structures and characteristics, public opinion, demographic factors, ideology (of both government and the populace), and economic variables [23][24][25][26]. External factors typically taken into consideration include the influence of regional neighbors, federal institutions, or historical events [27][28][29].…”

Section: Policy Diffusion In the Judiciarymentioning

confidence: 99%

Is Anyone Listening? The Politicization of the Judiciary and the Loss of Authority: An Initial Assessment

Peter¹,

Gregory²

2016

J Pol Sci Pub Aff

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Our study initiates an effort to determine if the recent politicization of the U.S. Supreme Court had meant its opinions have less impact on the lower courts who are expected to follow its direction and on the impacted parties upon which its ruling are applied. It is our contention that the court has become increasingly politicized and this politicization has reduced the Courts influence in lower courts and affected parties. We begin our study with the examination of how a recent Supreme Court opinion, Fisher v. Univ. of Texas (570 U.S., 2013) has been applied in the lower and appellate federal courts. This opinion strengthened the application of strict scrutiny in affirmative action cases. It was a wellpublicized opinion and its directives were clearly stated in Justice Kennedy's majority opinion. It called on courts to apply a 'strong' version of strict scrutiny not only to the objectives being sought but also to the means being utilized. Our initial examination of the diffusion of this precedent shows no influence on lower or appellate courts. But the opinions of the Court are not for the judiciary alone. Our second examination involves how affected parties are reacting to the dictates of the Court. Staying with Fisher, we conducted a survey of public university admission staffs to determine if they have adjusted their admissions processes in response to the Court. We were surprised to discover no reaction. It is clear, the message of Fisher has been lost. We conclude with a brief discussion of where this leaves the Court.Of the three branches of government, the American public has traditionally held the judiciary in the highest esteem. Unlike the two 'political' branches, Americans, even if they disagree with the Court, have respected its authority to render decisions that overturn a properly elected legislature or a executive operating under his official authority. But what if this were not the case? Instead, what if the American public and the officials in government viewed the Court as a third 'political' branch?Our research begins with an assumption: the judiciary, in general, and the U.S. Supreme Court, in specific, is undergoing a politicization process that has not been witnessed since at least the Court Packing Era of the 1930s. By politicization, we mean that the Court, in perception or reality, is basing its judgments not solely on the facts before the Court and the objective application of the law but instead ideological or partisan influence is having a significant impact on the rulings of the Court, irrespective of the facts or the law. This is a highly controversial assumption but we accept this as a given. In this work, instead of demonstrating the veracity of his assumption, our focus is on how such a politicization impacts both the diffusion of Court precedent throughout the judicial branch and also whether the politicization of the Court lessons its ability to influence the behavior of impacted parties within society. We believe that as the Court has become politicized its ability t...

show abstract

“…Note. These variable choices were influenced by Baumgartner & Jones, 1993;Berry & Berry, 1990, 1992Braddock & Fujiura, 1991;Buchanan, Cappellini, & Ohsfeldt, 1991;DiLeo, 2001;Elazar, 1984;Gray, 1973;Harrington, Carrillo, Wellin, Miller, & LeBlanc, 2000;Heclo, 1978;Jacoby & Schneider, 2001;Ka & Teske, 2002;Kingdon, 1995;Lowi, 1964;Mohr, 1969;Mooney & Lee, 1995;Rigby, Brooks-Gunn, & Kagan, 2004;Sapat, 2004;Schneider, 1993;Schneider & Jacoby, 1996;Walker, 1969;Walker, 1983. Region and trends among neighboring states…”

Section: States That Already Have Made Substantial Investment In Thementioning

confidence: 99%

“…This variable choice was influenced by Berry & Berry, 1990;Daley & Garand, 2002;Glick & Hays, 1991;Jacoby & Schneider, 2001;Lutz, 1989;Mooney, 2001;Mooney & Lee, 1995;Rogers, 1995;Sharkansky, 1969. National influences …”

Section: · Percentage Of the States In The Cms (Centers For Medicarementioning

confidence: 99%

Proving Foundation Impact on Public Policy Empirically: The Case of the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation and Consumer Choice for Adults With Developmental Disabilities

Breihan¹

2009

Foundation Rev

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Variability in State Policy Priorities: An Empirical Analysis

Cited by 128 publications

References 43 publications

Developing Personal Care Programs: National Trends and Interstate Variation, 1992–2002

Developing Personal Care Programs: National Trends and Interstate Variation, 1992–2002

Is Anyone Listening? The Politicization of the Judiciary and the Loss of Authority: An Initial Assessment

Proving Foundation Impact on Public Policy Empirically: The Case of the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation and Consumer Choice for Adults With Developmental Disabilities

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About