Analysis Draws on Data from New Kaiser/Harvard Survey of Likely Voters in Early Primary States, as Well as 10 Recent National Polls
With the next wave of
presidential primary elections quickly approaching, researchers from Harvard
School of Public Health and the Kaiser Family Foundation, writing in the Jan.
24, 2008 New England Journal of
Medicine, find that the sharply contrasting health care platforms of the
leading Democratic and Republican presidential candidates reflect dramatic
differences in the perspectives of their primary voters.
Written by Robert Blendon,
Sc.D., Professor of Health Policy and Political Analysis at the Harvard School
of Public Health, Drew E. Altman, Ph.D., President of the Kaiser Family
Foundation and four co-authors, the article analyzes a newly released
Kaiser/Harvard survey of likely primary voters in 35 states (and the District of
Columbia) with January or February primaries or caucuses, as well as data from
10 other recent surveys by national media polling organizations.
"Although Americans agree that
health care is an important problem in this country, there are huge differences
between Republicans and Democrats on what should be done to improve health
care," Dr. Blendon said.
"In the primaries, we're seeing
the presidential candidates adopt health plans that to some extent mirror the
concerns of their party's core voters - with leading Democrats aiming for
universal coverage by building on the employer-based system and Republicans
offering tax-based incentives to encourage more people to buy coverage on their
own," Dr. Altman said. "Finding a way to
bridge these differences will be important to winning independents in the
general election and to fashioning a legislative compromise in the new Congress
in 2009."
The researchers conclude that
Democratic and Republican voters in the early primary states are looking for
different things when it comes to health reforms. For example, the Kaiser/Harvard poll
conducted for the article finds that about two-thirds (65%) of likely Democratic
primary voters say they would like presidential candidates to propose plans for
universal (or nearly universal) coverage even if it involves a substantial
increase in government spending. In
contrast, only about one in four likely Republican primary voters say they want
to hear about this kind of major effort (23%), with about the same proportion
saying they would prefer no action on this front (27%). The plurality of likely Republican primary
voters (42%) says that they would prefer a more limited, less costly
expansion.
Early primary voters also differ
on the specific health care issues they say would be most important in choosing
a candidate. Democratic voters are
divided between a focus on expanding insurance coverage and controlling costs,
while cost issues dominate among Republican voters, with substantially fewer
citing improving the quality of medical care or expanding health insurance
coverage, the Kaiser/Harvard poll of likely primary voters finds.
The researchers conclude that the
candidates' approaches to health reform are rooted in the different experiences
and views of Democrats and Republicans.
For example, substantially more Democrats than Republicans say there is
so much wrong that the health care system needs to be completely rebuilt. Republicans are also considerably more
satisfied than Democrats with the cost and quality of their own care and are
less likely to be worried about losing their coverage.
"These marked differences in
satisfaction - both national and personal - coexist with real differences in
terms of where Republicans and Democrats turn to look for solutions to the
problems of high costs and the uninsured," the authors write in the article.
"Although a plurality of Democrats say that government should have primary
responsibility for making sure that Americans have health care, and the majority
say they are willing to pay higher taxes for increased coverage, the plurality
of Republicans say health care coverage should be an individual responsibility."
The article, Health Care in the 2008 Presidential
Primaries, was written by Harvard School of Public Health Professor of
Health Policy and Political Analysis Robert J. Blendon, Sc.D.; Kaiser Family
Foundation President Drew E. Altman, Ph.D.; Kaiser Associate Director of Public
Opinion and Media Research Claudia Deane, M.A.; Harvard Opinion Research Program
Managing Director John M. Benson, M.A.; Kaiser Director of Public Opinion and
Media Research Mollyann Brodie, Ph.D.; and Harvard Opinion Research Program
Assistant Director Tami Buhr, A.M. A
link to the article will be available at http://www.kff.org/kaiserpolls/h08_pomr012308pkg.cfm,
along with full results from the new Kaiser/Harvard survey.
Methodology
Data for the NEJM
article was drawn from a public opinion survey of likely primary voters in
the early primary states, designed and analyzed by researchers at the Henry J.
Kaiser Family Foundation and Harvard School of Public Health. The survey, which
included voters in the 35 states (and the District of Columbia) with primaries or
caucuses scheduled for January or February 2008, was conducted by telephone
November 1-11, 2007 before any primary elections had occurred, in order to
reflect voters' initial views on the issues. The survey included 674
self-reported registered voters who said they were likely to vote in their
state's Democratic primary or caucus, and 508 voters who reported they were
likely to vote in the Republican primary or caucus. The margin of error for
likely Democratic primary/caucus voters is plus or minus four percentage points,
and plus or minus five percentage points for likely Republican primary/caucus
voters. This main survey was
supplemented with data from 10 additional telephone surveys conducted by
national media polling organizations between November 2006 and September
2007.