Why the "Death Panel" Myth Wouldn't Die: Misinformation in the Health Care Reform Debate

Nyhan, Brendan

doi:10.2202/1540-8884.1354

Cited by 151 publications

(117 citation statements)

References 18 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

111

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…18 Brotherton, French, and Pickering 2013;Bruder et al 2013;Oliver and Wood 2014;Wood, Douglas, and Sutton 2012. 19 Kuklinski et al 2000. 20 Nyhan andReifler 2009, 2010. 21 See also Prasad et al (2009) Because partisans tend to evaluate new information with respect to their existing views, 26 encountering a rumor may have different effects for citizens of different political stripes.…”

Section: How Do People Respond To Rumors?mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…29 Calvert 1985, 546. 30 Nyhan andReifler 2009, 2010. influence of misinformation through a 'continued influence effect'. 31 The key is to consider what Schwarz et al call the 'processing fluency' of information.…”

Section: How Do People Respond To Rumors?mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In the realm of rumor, see Difonzo and Bordia (2007). 40 Nyhan andReifler 2009, 2010. 41 Schwarz, Skurnick, and Yoon 2007.…”

Section: How Do People Respond To Rumors?mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Rumors and Health Care Reform: Experiments in Political Misinformation

Berinsky¹

2015

Brit. J. Polit. Sci.

481

313

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article explores belief in political rumors surrounding the health care reforms enacted by Congress in 2010. Refuting rumors with statements from unlikely sources can, under certain circumstances, increase the willingness of citizens to reject rumors regardless of their own political predilections. Such source credibility effects, while well known in the political persuasion literature, have not been applied to the study of rumor. Though source credibility appears to be an effective tool for debunking political rumors, risks remain. Drawing upon research from psychology on 'fluency' -the ease of information recall -this article argues that rumors acquire power through familiarity. Attempting to quash rumors through direct refutation may facilitate their diffusion by increasing fluency. The empirical results find that merely repeating a rumor increases its power.

show abstract

Section: How Do People Respond To Rumors?mentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: How Do People Respond To Rumors?mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Rumors and Health Care Reform: Experiments in Political Misinformation

Berinsky¹

2015

Brit. J. Polit. Sci.

481

313

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…To address this problem of causal inference, Lenz (2012) Act when the death panel rumors emerged (Nyhan 2010), and so belief echoes engendered by the rumor may have had an outside influence on public opinion. Negative policy misinformation (e.g., death panels) may also have an outsize impact as compared to positive policy misinformation.…”

Section: Behavioral Implications Of Belief Echoesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Belief Echoes: The Persistent Effects of Corrected Misinformation

Thorson

2015

Political Communication

471

304

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The omnipresence of political misinformation in the today's media environment raises serious concerns about citizens' ability make fully informed decisions. In response to these concerns, the last few years have seen a renewed commitment to journalistic and institutional fact-checking. The assumption of these efforts is that successfully correcting misinformation will prevent it from affecting citizens' attitudes. However, through a series of experiments, I find that exposure to a piece of negative political information persists in shaping attitudes even after the information has been successfully discredited. A correction--even when it is fully believed--does not eliminate the effects of misinformation on attitudes. These lingering attitudinal effects, which I call "belief echoes," are created even when the misinformation is corrected immediately, arguably the gold standard of journalistic fact-checking.Belief echoes can be affective or cognitive. Affective belief echoes are created through a largely unconscious process in which a piece of negative information has a stronger impact on evaluations than does its correction. Cognitive belief echoes, on the other hand, are created through a conscious cognitive process during which a person recognizes that a particular negative claim about a candidate is false, but reasons that its presence increases the likelihood of other negative information being true. Experimental results suggest that while affective belief echoes are created across party lines, cognitive belief echoes are more likely when a piece of misinformation reinforces a person's pre-existing political views.The existence of belief echoes provide an enormous incentive for politicians to strategically spread false information with the goal of shaping public opinion on key issues. However, results from two more experiments show that politicians also suffer consequences for making false claims, an encouraging finding that has the potential to constrain the behavior of politicians presented with the opportunity to strategically create belief echoes. While the existence of belief echoes may also provide a disincentive for the media to engage in serious fact-checking, evidence also suggests that such efforts can also have positive consequences by increasing citizens' trust in media. Degree Type DissertationDegree Name

show abstract

“…Nas Américas, apenas Chile, Colômbia, Canadá e México possuem limiares, embora nem sempre esses sejam considerados como parte do processo formal de tomada de decisão. Por exemplo, nos EUA, existe a referência de valor, mas há uma recomendação explícita contra o uso da ICER na tomada de decisão em saúde, atribuída ao "Mito do Painel da Morte" (Nyhan, 2010). No Brasil, embora as ACE e ACU sejam um requisito para a aprovação da incorporação de tecnologias no SUS (Ministério da Saúde, 2014), o Ministério da Saúde ainda não estabeleceu um limiar de custo--efetividade.…”

Section: Icer =unclassified

Limiar de custo-efetividade: uma necessidade para o Brasil?

Pinto¹,

Santos²,

Trajman³

2016

JBES

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

RESUMOEste artigo teve como objetivo discutir a adoção de um limiar em avaliações econômicas em saúde. Um debate crucial nos sistemas de saúde é a definição de um limiar de custo-efetividade abaixo de um valor em que os tomadores de decisão e a sociedade estejam dispostos a pagar. Neste artigo trazemos este debate a partir das vantagens e limitações da adoção de um limiar e as diferentes possibilidades de estimá-lo a partir de experiências de outros países. Na América Latina, incluindo o Brasil, a maioria dos países ainda não adotou um limiar de custo-efetividade. ABSTRACTThis paper aims to discuss the adoption of a threshold in economic analysis. A crucial debate in health systems is the cost-effectiveness threshold below which public health stakeholders, decision makers and the society are willing to pay. We here debate the advantages and caveats of adopting a threshold and the different ways to calculate this threshold based on the experience of other countries. In Latin America, including Brazil, cost-effectiveness threshold was not adopted by the majority of countries. IntroduçãoO cenário de recursos finitos, potencializado por uma expressiva oferta de novas tecnologias para os sistemas de saúde em geral e, em particular para o Sistema Único de Saú-de (SUS), requer que o gestor tome decisões de incorporação com base em múltiplos critérios, dentre eles, as avaliações econômicas. As avaliações econômicas completas, destacadamente as análises de custo-efetividade (ACE) e de custo-utilidade (ACU), comparam duas ou mais tecnologias em termos de custos e benefícios. Essas ferramentas têm sido utilizadas desde a década de setenta em diversos países (Elixhauser et al., 1998) com vistas a apoiar as decisões de incorporação e a garantir tanto a eficiência técnica quanto a alocativa.A ACE e a ACU geram resultados que se traduzem através de uma medida denominada razão de custo-efetividade incremental (ICER, do inglês incremental cost-effectiveness ratio), expressa em custo adicional por um desfecho de saúde ganho, em geral, anos de vida ajustados por qualidade (QALY, do inglês quality-adjusted life years) ou anos de vida salvos Keywords:cost-effectiveness analysis, technology assessment, health systems.

show abstract

Why the "Death Panel" Myth Wouldn't Die: Misinformation in the Health Care Reform Debate

Cited by 151 publications

References 18 publications

Rumors and Health Care Reform: Experiments in Political Misinformation

Rumors and Health Care Reform: Experiments in Political Misinformation

Belief Echoes: The Persistent Effects of Corrected Misinformation

Limiar de custo-efetividade: uma necessidade para o Brasil?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About