|
|
|
|
|
From survey by Gilmore Research Group for CodeBlueNow!, released October 9, 2007
_____________________________
The Integrator asked CodeBlueNow! to provide information on how these voters' responses to other health reform questions were aligned with their responses on this question. Sarah Smith of CodeBlueNow! provided the Integrator with "cross tabulations" which show how patterns of responses on other statements align with inclusion of licensed CAM practitioners. Table 2 is a first look at such insights from this survey.
_____________________________
Table 2:
Levels of Agreement Among Those Who Respond Affirmatively on Various Health Reform Topics with Their Agreement that Licensed CAM Practitioner Should be in Basic Benefit Plans: Cross-Tabulated Responses
A = Agree SA = Strongly Agree
"Including CAM" = Favorable on the licensed CAM question.
Column 2: The total of those A/SA with the statement on the left.
Column 3: Cross tabulation - Those A/SA on the statement who are A on Including CAM. Column 4: Cross tabulation - Those A/SA on the statement who are SA on Including CAM. Column 5: Cross tabulation - Those A/SA on the statement who are A/SA on Including CAM. Column 6: Cross tabulation - % of those A/SA on the statement who are A/SA on including CAM.
From survey by Gilmore Research Group for CodeBlueNow!, released October 9, 2007
_____________________________
Analysis & Comments: Patterns of Alignment I asked Kathleen O'Connor, CodeBlueNow! founder and CEO, for her perspective on these relationships: “These findings reflect how highly prevention and choice of provider rank among Iowa voters, and that includes the integrative health care community. More common ground exists on a number of issues than either the press or politicians acknowledge." Below are a few of my own perspectives.  Kathleen O'Connor, founder and CEO, CodeBlueNow! My initial curiosity about the cross-tabs had to do with the alignment of the "CAM voters" with those in favor of "stressing prevention" in health care services. The self-talk of many in the CAM and integrative medicine fields is that they focus on a preventive care approach. One would expect, or hope to see, a high alignment. The cross-tabulation showed a 71% alignment. Surprisingly, this is the second least of the cluster presented here. Single payer/government system The strong libertarian streak in the CAM field - based in part on an an experience of government as part of the medical-industrial complex - would suggest a low alignment here. In fact, only 22% of the Iowa voters surveyed favor a government-based approach. Interestingly, among those who did, we saw a high alignment with licensed CAM practitioner inclusion (75%). Leave health care to individuals While the government question produced the strongest alignment - albeit from a minority - the least alignment in this set of questions was found in whether health insurance should be left to an individual. Only 65% of the 41% who agreed with that statement also agreed with including all licensed CAM. Perhaps, saddled with personal responsibility for paying for care, putting CAM in basic benefits felt a stretch. Everyone is covered The top number of "strongly agree" supporters of licensed CAM with any of those responding affirmatively to any of these statements was on the value statement that everyone has affordable access to coverage. 207 of those viewing this perspective affirmatively strongly agreed that CAM should be included. Additional comments These data released to the Integrator suggest that there is a strong subset of activists on this issue, since over 2 in 5 voters "strongly agree" with inclusion of licensed CAM practitioner. Why, in Iowa? To give credit where it is due, Iowa happens to be the home of the Palmer College of Chiropractic as well CAM's best friend in Congress, US Senator Tom Harkin (D-IA). That stated, it's interesting to note that the "naturopathic physicians" who are featured in the question are not even licensed in that state. One other useful data point: In the question about inclusion of licensed CAM practitioners, 89% are not opposed. To put this in politico-speak: The inclusion issue has low negatives. Directly stated: A politician wouldn't be expected to lose much from voters by running with this ideas as a platform. (There may be some push back from conventional stakeholders, however.) These low negatives, paired with the high percentage who could be activated by a candidate's outspoken support of the issue suggests that it may further a candidate's chances if he or she crosses the great water and brings up this issue. Disclosure: I recently joined the board of CodeBlueNow!
Send your comments to
for inclusion in a future Your Comments Forum.
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Copyright © 2006-2007 John Weeks - The Integrator Blog
Design by MRW Connected admin |
