Although scholars have found that policy innovations diffuse across states in a systematic manner, they generally have not examined the role that individuals and institutions play in promoting diffusion. I posit that interstate professional associations provide institutional foundations for the development and dissemination of innovations by state officials with jurisdiction over particular policy areas. I test this hypothesis by examining the determinants of state adoption of the Health Maintenance Organization (HMO) Model Act, a comprehensive set of regulations developed by the National Association of Insurance Commissioners (NAIC). My central finding is that states whose insurance commissioner participated in the NAIC’s Accident and Health Insurance Committee, which has jurisdiction over HMO regulation, were more likely than other states to adopt the Model Act. This result provides evidence that associations can affect policy diffusion. It also sharpens the conventional wisdom by highlighting a specific institutional arrangement—a committee system—through which participation in associations can facilitate the adoption of innovations.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Achen, C. H.
(1986). The statistical analysis of quasi-experiments. Berkeley: University of California Press.
2.
Ad Hoc Committee to Defend Health Care
. (1997). For our patients, not for profits: A call to action. Journal of the American Medical Association, 278(21), 1733-1738.
3.
Aldrich, J. H.
, & Nelson, F. D. (1984). Linear probability, logit, and probit models. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
4.
American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials
. (1997). Standing committee on rail transportation [Online]. Available: http://www.aashto.org/info/stan_com_rrtran.html.
5.
American Medical Association
. (1993-1996). Physician characteristics and distribution in the U.S.Chicago: Author.
6.
Beck, N.
, Katz, J. N., & Tucker, R. (1998). Taking time seriously: Time-series: Cross-section analysis with a binary dependent variable. American Journal of Political Science, 42(4), 1260-1288.
7.
Berry, F. S.
(1994). Sizing up state policy innovation research. Policy Studies Journal, 22(3), 442-456.
8.
Berry, F. S.
, & Berry, W. D. (1990). State lottery adoptions as policy innovations: An event history analysis. American Political Science Review, 84(2), 395-415.
9.
Berry, F. S.
, & Berry, W. D. (1992). Tax innovation in the states: Capitalizing on political opportunity. American Journal of Political Science, 36(3), 715-742.
10.
Berry, F. S.
, & Berry, W. D. (1994). The politics of tax increases in the states. American Journal of Political Science, 38(3), 855-859.
11.
Berry, W. D.
, E. J. Ringquist, R. C. Fording, and R. L. Hanson. (1998). Measuring citizen and government ideology in the American states, 1960-1993. American Journal of Political Science, 42(1), 327-348.
12.
Box-Steffensmeier, J. M.
, & Jones, B. S. (1997). Time is of the essence: Event history models in political science. American Journal of Political Science, 41(4), 1414-1461.
13.
Carpenter, D.
(1996, April). State regulation as a network adoption process: A reanalysis of Stigler's (1971) trucking data. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association, Chicago.
14.
Christianson, J. B.
, Wholey, D. R., & Sanchez, S. M. (1991). State responses to HMO failures. Health Affairs, 10(4), 78-92.
15.
Goldstein, A.
(1997, November 5). GOP leaders embrace business campaign to defeat health care measures. Washington Post, p. A14.
16.
Gray, V.
(1973). Innovation in the states: A diffusion study. American Political Science Review, 67(4), 1174-1185.
17.
Gray, V.
(1994). Competition, emulation, and policy innovation. In L. C. Dodd & C. Jillson (Eds.), New perspectives on American politics (pp. 230-248). Washington, DC: CQ Press.
18.
Grupp, F. W., Jr.
, & Richards, A. R. (1975). Variations in elite perceptions of American states as referents for public policy making. American Political Science Review, 69(3), 850-858.
19.
Hays, S. P.
, & Glick, H. R. (1997). The role of agenda setting in policy innovation: An event history analysis of living-will laws. American Politics Quarterly, 25(4), 497-516.
20.
Hill, J. E.
(1998). AMA: Pass Patients' Bill of Rights Act this Congress [Online]. Available: http://www.ama-assn.org/advocacy/statemnt/980507b.htm.
21.
Jaszczak, S.
(1997). Encyclopedia of associations. Detroit, MI: Gale Research.
22.
Johnson, H.
, & Broder, D. S. (1996). The system: The American way of politics at the breaking point. Boston: Little, Brown.
23.
Kingdon, J. W.
(1995). Agendas, alternatives, and public policies (2nd ed.). New York: HarperCollins.
24.
Kollman, K.
, Miller, J. H., & Page, S. E. (1998). Searching for policy solutions in a federal system. Unpublished manuscript.
25.
Mintrom, M.
(1997). Policy entrepreneurs and the diffusion of innovation. American Journal of Political Science, 41(3), 738-770.
26.
Mintrom, M.
, & Vergari, S. (1998). Policy networks and innovation diffusion: The case of state education reforms. Journal of Politics, 59(1), 126-148.
27.
Mohr, L. B.
(1969). Determinants of innovation in organizations. American Political Science Review, 63(1), 111-126.
28.
Mooney, C. Z.
, & Lee, M. (1995). Legislating morality in the American states: The case of pre-Roe abortion regulation reform. American Journal of Political Science, 39(3), 599-627.
29.
National Association of Insurance Commissioners
. (1989-1995). Insurance department resources report. Kansas City, MO: Author.
30.
National Association of Insurance Commissioners
. (1995a). Health Maintenance Organization Model Act. Kansas City, MO: Author.
31.
National Association of Insurance Commissioners
. (1995b). The NAIC: A tradition of consumer protection [Online]. Available: http://www.naic.org.
32.
National Association of Insurance Commissioners
. (1998a). Accident and Health Insurance (B) Committee [Online]. Available: http://www.naic.org/committee/bcmte.htm.
33.
National Association of Insurance Commissioners
. (1998b). Amendment to bylaws of the NAIC [Online]. Available: http://www.naic.org/committee/bylaws.htm.
34.
National Association of Insurance Commissioners
. (1998c). Committee list [Online]. Available: http://www.naic.org/committee/lists/cmtelist.htm.
35.
Rich, S.
(1996, September 25). Managed care, once an elixir, goes under legislative knife: Cost-cutting focus feared harmful to patients. Washington Post, p. A1.
36.
Savage, R. L.
(1985). When a policy's time has come: Cases of rapid policy diffusion, 1983-1984. Publius, 15(3), 111-125.
37.
Schneider, M.
, P. Teske, M. Marschall, M. Mintrom, and C. Roch. (1997). Institutional arrangements and the creation of social capital: The effects of public school choice. American Political Science Review, 91(1), 82-93.
38.
Singer, J. D.
, & Willett, J. B. (1993). It's about time: Using discrete-time survival analysis to study duration and timing of events. Journal of Educational Statistics, 18(2), 155-195.
39.
U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census
. (1988-1992). State government finances. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.
40.
U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Health Professions
. (1995). Area resource file. Fairfax, VA: Quality Resource Systems.
41.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Health Care Financing Administration
. (1996). A report to the governor on state regulation of health maintenance organizations. Baltimore: Author.
42.
Walker, J. L.
(1969). The diffusion of innovations among the American states. American Political Science Review, 63(3), 880-899.
43.
Walker, J. L.
(1971). Innovation in state politics. In H. Jacob & K. N. Vines (Eds.), Politics in the American states: A comparative analysis (2nd ed., pp. 354-387). Boston: Little, Brown.
44.
Welch, S.
, & Thompson, K. (1980). The impact of federal incentives on state policy innovation. American Journal of Political Science, 24(4), 715-729.
