The Healthcare Policy market and standard economic markets function in exceedingly similar practices. They are more alike in the fact that they both require supply and demand in order to remain in business. The key factor in all markets is, “something of value is exchanged between suppliers and demanders” (Longest 64). Public policies can easily be seen as a method of fulfilling demander’s desires, which is similar to that of the economic market where items are manufactured and sold in order to please consumers. In healthcare policy markets, the demanders pursue policies that best complement their preferences. Those who hold the role of policymakers, also known as the suppliers, work to create the policies demanders request.
There are two types of individuals that make up the demanders of health policies. The first can be described as those who deem policies pertinent to their own health or to the health of their loved ones. The second group of demanders in health policies are those who view policies as, “a means to some other desired end”, or economic tactic (Longest 64). The desires of each group motivates their participation in the policy market just as aspirations stimulate participation throughout the financial market.
However, the problem individuals will run into are the limitations they will face when it comes to effective participation. Two of the most valuable things in life are time and money. To successfully contribute to the policy market, one must obtain policy-relevant information, neither of which come quick or cheap. Additionally, these demanders must be prepared to pour extra time and money to support and achieve policies. Another factor that can make finding support for policies more difficult is the fact that many policies may only be beneficial for a specific group of individuals. This can be the most difficult part of being an individual demander because most people do not want to offer their time or support for a cause unless it will benefit them.
Aside from individuals as policy demanders, organizations play a substantial role in the policy market. Organizations hold a lot of weight in the policy market because of the resources that are available to them, allowing the organization to harness information which will support their efforts to achieve preferred policies. Organizations as demanders have been successful in the policy market because they have much more at stake than individuals (The Demanders). Unlike individual demanders, organizations use their, “pooled resources” to land a significant advantage in the market (The Demanders). Since business have much more to lose they work much harder and actively participate in the policy market in order to stay afloat. The obstacle faced with organizations making up such a substantial portion of policy markets are the limitations found within each organization’s concentrated policy interest. Despite their limitations, organizations tend to be more influential than individual demanders because of the funds and assets available to them.
In 1787, James Madison began writing the Federalist Papers where he discussed “the correlation between the relationship of groups, which he called factions, to democratic government” (Longest 65). Madison defined a faction as, “a number of citizens, whether amounting to a majority or a minority of the whole, who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion or of interest, adverse to the rights of citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community” (Longest 65). Although many years have passed since Madison defined a faction, the characteristics of such a group can still be found in interest groups of the policy market.
Lastly, the most effective demander of health policies is “well-organized interest groups” (Longest 64). In the policy market, interest groups which are also referred to as “advocacy groups, lobby groups, pressure groups, or special interest groups” form in democratic societies where they influence the public policy making process. Interest groups can best be described as “groups of people or organizations” that share comparable goals and “enter the policymaking process” together in order to best “achieve their goals” (Longest 64). These advocacy groups can start by simply gathering a group of friends to help with influencing policy. Interest groups hold a major advantage over both individual demanders and organizations because interest groups have the ability to syndicate and concentrate the resources of their members allowing interest groups to collectively have a much greater impact on the policy market (Longest 65).
The suppliers of policy markets are equally as important to the demanders of policy markets. There is quite a long list of potential suppliers considering that all policies are made in the executive, legislative and judicial branches of government. However, each branch functions uniquely as a supplier to the policy market.
Perhaps the most widely observed aspect of the policy market is the decision-making process that takes place at the hands of elected legislators of the US Congress, state legislatures, or city councils. Policy demanders pay close attention to what motivates legislators in order to best decide where to “exert influence over the suppliers” (Longest 69). By doing so, demanders are able to determine factors such as if a legislator is motivated by public interest or self-interest. Although there are legislators that fall between the margins of extreme public interest and extreme self-interest, many legislative suppliers of policy fall somewhere in the middle with a combination of both motivators (Longest 71). Legislators primarily evaluate the cost and benefits to new and existing policies while only Congress can create new or amend public laws. It is nearly inevitable that policies will have winners and losers meaning, what could come as an improvement to one group could come as an expense to others. For example, “suppose a legislature is considering a policy that would increase health services for an underserved population but at the expense of higher taxes on others” (The Suppliers). Legislatures constantly work to create policies that are most valuable. Collectively, legislative policy suppliers aim to make political advancements as reelection is a predominant objective.
Like the legislative branch of government, the executive branch also plays a vital role as a policy supplier. Legislative proposals are offered by “Presidents, governors, mayors and other senior public-sector executives” with the hopes of legislators enacting their preferred policies (Longest 70). The individuals “in charge of government departments and agencies are directly responsible for policies in the form of rules or regulations used to guide the implementation of laws and operational protocols and procedures for the policies they implement” (Longest 71). The biggest difference between the legislative and executive branch is that executive officials typically bear a greater burden for the economy’s condition.
Lastly, there is the judicial branch of government as a supplier. The judicial branch differs from the other two branches specifically on the fact that the courts have the responsibility to focus on the issues regarding certain cases or circumstances. In the courts, policy suppliers must take into account the “physical environment, behavior and genetics, social factors, and health services” when considering a policy’s role in court cases (The Suppliers). This role of the judicial branch is much different from that of the political arena where other policy making transpires.
In conclusion, the policy market relies on both the demanders and suppliers in order to function properly. Each type of demander embodies both strengths and weaknesses that they must work to overcome in order to positively contribute to the policy market. Some decisions made by suppliers are based off of self or public interest, or information pulled from a previous case. In the end, participants must be able to interpret information in order to use their resources to influence the behaviors of policy decision makers.