Scientific expertise and the balance of political interests: MEDCAC and medicare coverage decisions

Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory

Volumn 22, Issue 1, 2012, Pages 55-81

  Lavertu, Stéphane ^a   Walters, Daniel E ^b   Weimer, David L ^c  

^a OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN LAW SCHOOL   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN MADISON   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84555177828     PISSN: 10531858     EISSN: 14779803     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/jopart/mur033     Document Type: Article

References (50)

1. Anderson, Frederick R. 2003. Improving scientific advice to government. Issues in Science and Technology 19:34-8.
2. Ansell, Chris, and Alison Gash. 2008. Collaborative governance in theory and practice. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 18:542-71.
3. Balla, Steven J., and John R. Wright. 2003. Consensual rule making and the time it takes to develop rules. In Politics, policy, and organizations: Frontiers in the scientific study of bureaucracy, eds. George A. Krause and Kenneth J. Meier. Ann Arbor, MI: Univ. of Michigan Press, 187-206.
4. Brown, Mark B. 2008. Fairly balanced: The politics of representation on government advisory committees. Political Research Quarterly 61:547-60.
5. -. 2009. Fairly balanced: The Politics of representation on government advisory committees. Political Research Quarterly 61:547-60.
6. Benhabib, Seyla. 1996. Toward a deliberative model of democratic legitimacy. In Democracy and difference: Contesting the boundaries of the political, ed. Seyla Benhabib. Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press, 67-94.
7. Croley, Steven P., and William F. Funk. 1997. The Federal Advisory Committee Act and good government. Yale Journal on Regulation 14:452-557.
8. Dupree, A. Hunter. 1986. Science in the federal government: A history of policies and activities. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins Univ. Press.
9. Fishkin, James S. 1991. Democracy and deliberation. New Haven, CT: Yale Univ. Press.
10. Gabel, Matthew J., and Charles R. Shipan. 2004. A social choice approach to expert consensus panels. Journal of Health Economics 23:543-64.
11. Gerling, Kerstin, Hans Peter Grüner, Alexandra Kiel, and Elisabeth Schulte. 2005. Information acquisition and decision making in committees: A survey. European Journal of Political Economy 21:563-97.
12. Gieryn, Thomas F. 1983. Boundary-work and the demarcation of science from non-science: Strains and interests in professional ideologies of scientists. American Sociological Review 48:781-795.
13. -. 1999. Cultural boundaries of science: Credibility on the line. Chicago, IL: Univ. of Chicago Press.
14. Graffy, Elisabeth A. 2008. Meeting the challenges of policy-relevant science: Bridging theory and practice. Public Administration Review 68:1087-100.
15. Guston, David H. 2000. Between politics and science: Assuring the integrity and productivity of research. New York, NY: Cambridge Univ. Press.
16. -. 2003. Principal-agent theory and the structure of science policy, revisited: 'Science in policy' and the US Report on Carcinogens. Science in Policy 30:347-57.
17. -.2006. On consensus and voting in science: From Asilomar to the National Toxicology Program. In The new political sociology of science: Institutions, networks, and power, ed. Scott Frickel and Kelly Moore. Madison, WI: Univ. of Wisconsin Press, 378-404.
18. Gutmann, Amy, and Dennis Thompson. 2004. Why deliberative democracy? Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press.
19. Habermas, Jurgen. 1996. Three normative models of democracy. In Democracy and difference: Contesting the boundaries of the political ed. Seyla Benhabib. Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press, 21-30.
20. Isenberg, Daniel J. 1986. Group polarization: A critical review and meta-analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 50:1141-51.
21. Jasanoff, Sheila. 1990. The fifth branch: Science advisers and policymakers. Cambridge: Harvard Univ. Press.
22. Jenkins-Smith, Hank C., Carol L. Silva, and Christopher Murray. 2009. Beliefs about radiation: Scientists, the public, and public policy. Health Physics 97:519-27.
23. Kameda, Tatsuya, Yohsuke Ohtsubo, and Masanori Takezawa. 1997. Centrality in sociocognitive networks and social influence: An illustration in a group decision-making context. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 73:296-309.
24. Karty, Kevin. 2002. Closure and capture in federal advisory committees. Business and Politics 4:213-38.
25. -. 2005. Membership balance, open meetings, and effectiveness in Federal Advisory Committees. American Review of Public Administration 35:414-35.
26. Keller, Ann C. 2009. Credibility and relevance in environmental policy: Measuring strategies and performance among science assessment organizations. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 20:357-86.
27. Langbein, Laura I., and Cornelius M. Kerwin. 2000. Regulatory negotiation versus conventional rulemaking: Claims, counterclaims, and empirical evidence. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 10:599-632.
28. Lavertu, Stéphane, and David L. Weimer. 2011. Federal Advisory Committees, policy expertise, and the approval of drugs and medical devices at the FDA. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 21:211-37.
29. Layzer, Judith A. 2006. The environmental case: Translating values into policy. Washington, DC: CQ Press.
30. National Academies of Science (NAS) 2005. Science and technology in the national interest: Ensuring the best presidential and Federal Advisory Committee science and technology appointments. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
31. National Research Council. 1983. Risk assessment in the federal government. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
32. Neumann, Peter J., Maki S. Kamae, and Jennifer A. Palmer. 2008. Medicare's national coverage decisions for technologies, 1999-2007. Health Affairs 27:1620-31.
33. Neumann, Peter J., Nomita Divi, Molly T. Beinfeld, Bat-Sheva Levine, Patricia Sellger Keenan, Elkain F. Halprin, and G. Scott Gazelle. 2005. Medicare's national coverage decisions, 1999-2003: Quality of evidence and review times. Health Affairs 24:243-54.
34. Obama, Barack. 2010. Presidential memorandum regarding ''Lobbyists on Agency Boards and Commissions'' Released June 18, 2010, The White House, Office of the Press Secretary.
35. Oregon Health Services Commission. 2005. Prioritization of health services: A report to the governor and 73rd Oregon Legislative Assembly. Salem: Department of Administrative Services.
36. Petracca, Mark P. 1986. Federal Advisory Committees, interest groups, and the administrative state. Congress and the Presidency 13:83-114.
37. Pielke, Roger A., Jr. 2007. The honest broker: Making sense of science in policy and politics. New York: Cambridge Univ. Press.
38. Priest, T. B., David F. Scudder, and Richard T. Sylves. 1984. Corporate advice: Large corporations and federal advisory committees. Social Science Quarterly 65:100-11.
39. Smith, Bruce L. 1992. The advisers: Scientists in the policy process. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.
40. Spielman, Bethany. 2003. Should consensus be the 'Commission Method' in the US? The perspective of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, Regulations, and Case Law. Bioethics 17:341-56.
41. Steinbrook, Robert. 2004. Science, politics, and Federal Advisory Committees. The New England Journal of Medicine 350:1454-60.
42. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (U.S. DHHS). 1998. Medicare Program; establishment of the Medicare Coverage Advisory Committee and request for nominations for members. Federal Register 63:68780.
43. -. 2006. Medicare Program; renewal and renaming of the Medicare Coverage Advisory Committee (MCAC) to Medicare Evidence Development Coverage Advisory Committee (MedCAC) and a request for nominations for Members for the Medicare Evidence Development & Coverage Advisory Committee. Federal Register 72:3853-4.
44. U.S. General Accounting Office (U.S. GAO). 2004. Federal Advisory Committees: Additional guidance could help agencies better ensure independence and balance. GAO-04-328. Washington, DC: General Accounting Office.
45. U.S. Government Accountability Office. 2008. Federal Advisory Committee Act: Issues related to the independence and balance of Advisory Committees. GAO-08-611T. Washington, DC: Government Accountability Office.
46. Weimer, David L. 2006. The puzzle of private rulemaking: Expertise, flexibility, and blame avoidance in U.S. regulation. Public Administration Review 66:569-82.
47. -. 2010a. Stakeholder governance of organ transplantation: A desirable model for inducing evidence-based medicine? Regulation & Governance 4:281-302.
48. -. 2010b. Medical governance: Values, expertise, and interests in organ transplantation. Washington, DC: Georgetown Univ. Press.
49. Yackee, Jason Webb, and Susan Webb Yackee. 2006. A bias toward business? Assessing interest group influence on the bureaucracy. Journal of Politics 68:128-39.
50. -.2010. Administrative procedures and bureaucratic performance: Is federal rule-making 'ossified'? Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 20:261-82.