In Six Swing States, Democrats and Republicans Agree on How to Lower Health Care Costs
July 25, 2024 – As the price of health care continues to rise faster than wages, a new public consultation survey by the Program for Public Consultation (PPC) finds bipartisan majorities of Americans in the six swing states of Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin, as well as nationally, support major proposals for lowering health care costs.
This survey is the first in a series – the Swing Six Issue Surveys – being conducted in the run-up to the November election in six swing states on major policy issues. Unlike traditional polls, respondents in a public consultation survey go through an online “policymaking simulation” in which they are provided briefings and arguments for and against each policy. Content is reviewed by experts on different sides to ensure accuracy and balance.
Capping Drug Prices
The Federal government capping the price of all drugs to what is charged in other developed countries is favored by large majorities in every swing state (77% to 81%), including majorities of Democrats (84% to 87%) and Republicans (72% to 82%). Nationally, a large bipartisan majority (78%) is also in favor.
In the advance briefing, respondents were informed that drugs in the US generally cost twice as much as in other developed countries and that this proposal would result in fewer new drugs being developed, per a Congressional Budget Office study.
FIRST ARGUMENT IN FAVOR:
"It is appropriate for the government to regulate the price of prescription drugs, which are necessary for people’s survival and to live healthy lives. When drug prices are high some people can’t afford them and as a result some of them will develop more serious illness or disability, or even die, unnecessarily. High drug prices also drive-up premiums for health insurance, putting it out of reach for millions. Taxpayers fund a third of all research that goes into developing new drugs – which drug companies rely on – and yet many Americans can’t even afford them. Americans are getting taken advantage of, and it’s time for the government to step in and change that."
FIRST ARGUMENT AGAINST:
"Companies take huge risks when they invest in developing new drugs, because most of those investments won’t work out. It can cost up to two billion dollars to develop one new successful drug, and there’s no certainty that they will make their money back, let alone make a profit. If we lower their revenues, and lower what they can expect to earn on future investments, they will make less investment and ultimately there will be fewer new drugs. This hurts everyone’s health and some people will die who could have been saved."
SECOND ARGUMENT IN FAVOR:
"Large drug corporations have far higher profits than any other industry. The idea that they are not going to invest in developing new drugs because they might instead make more ordinary levels of profits does not make sense. They will still make lots of money. They are not going to stop. Threatening to hold back on developing drugs is just a ploy to try to hold the health of the American people hostage. The real health concern here is not that drugs won’t be developed, but that people do not get the drugs they need because of their high cost and some of them die unnecessarily."
SECOND ARGUMENT AGAINST:
"As much as it would be great for drug companies to charge lower prices and keep investing the same amount in drug R&D, the government’s own estimates have found that will not happen. You can only drive down their profits so much. Companies have a responsibility to their investors who have taken a big risk by investing a lot of money in developing drugs. Many of them don’t end up working, but still cost the company a lot of money. This proposal will leave us with fewer lifesaving medicines, because it’s based on a misunderstanding of how businesses actually work."
MAKING HIGHER ACA SUBSIDIES PERMANENT
Making permanent the pandemic-era law that temporarily increased Affordable Care Act (ACA) subsidies for lower and middle income households is favored by nearly two-thirds in every swing state (62% to 68%), including majorities of Democrats (71% to 78%) and Republicans (55% to 62%). Nationally, a bipartisan majority of 67% is in favor. Subsidies are scheduled to return to pre-pandemic levels in 2026.
ARGUMENT IN FAVOR:
"This law has been a step in the right direction, by lowering costs for millions of families, and increasing the number of insured people. It has saved families money – around $2,300 a year according to one study – and is good for society overall. More people can afford to get care immediately when they get sick or injured, which means fewer long-term illnesses and disabilities. So, fewer people take sick days off work, or quit the labor force due to a disability. A healthier population means a stronger economy, and so this financial aid more than pays for itself. Making this law permanent benefits everyone."
ARGUMENT AGAINST:
"This law has many problems, and it should not be made permanent, especially since it was in response to the Covid pandemic which is over. The government should not keep giving assistance to households making over $100,000 a year – that is going too far. This financial aid also doesn’t tackle the root of the problem which is that insurance companies charge such high premiums and deductibles. When insurance companies know that the government will continue to cover the costs, they will just keep charging more. So, the government will just keep spending more money, without fixing the underlying problem."
REVOKING PATENTS FOR UNAFFORDABLE DRUGS DEVELOPED WITH FEDERAL AID
Allowing the Executive Branch to revoke patents for drugs developed with federal aid, which are unaffordable for most who need them, is favored in every swing state (74% to 77%), including Democrats (79% to 84%) and Republicans (70% to 75%), as well as nationally (73%).
ARGUMENT IN FAVOR:
"Drug companies are relying on taxpayer funded research to make their drugs, then making huge profits by charging absurdly high prices. This has made some lifesaving drugs unaffordable–costing thousands of dollars–and either insurance plans refuse to cover any of the cost or cover only a small share of the cost. This leaves many unable to afford them. This proposal will lower the price of these drugs by introducing more competition into the market. Corporations will still be able to make profits, but more people will be able to afford the medicines they need."
ARGUMENT AGAINST:
"When a company invests millions of dollars into developing a drug it is on the understanding that it will be protected by a patent so that it can recoup those costs. The government revoking patents is an extreme measure that will discourage drug companies from investing in drug development in the future. They will never be sure whether the government will override their patent, just because they used a federally funded research paper, and are charging what the government decides is “too much.” They may even refuse to use federally funded research and instead spend more on their own research, which will further increase the price of drugs."
PROHIBITING DEALS THAT DELAY THE RELEASE OF GENERIC DRUGS
Prohibiting “pay-to-delay” – in which brand-name drug companies preserve their ability to charge high prices by paying generic drug companies to delay bringing their generic version to market–is favored by majorities in every swing state (72% to 77%), including Democrats (75% to 84%) and Republicans (68% to 72%), as well as nationally (71%).
ARGUMENT IN FAVOR:
"Patent law already gives companies that develop new drugs many years to charge high prices and make back their costs of developing a new drug, plus a profit. After that, it is in the public interest to have competition so that consumers can get the best deal. These deals may cost consumers and the government tens of billions of dollars a year. We should not let drug companies effectively skirt that law by paying off generic drug companies to prevent competition so they can keep charging high prices."
ARGUMENT AGAINST:
"It is not the government’s place to tell private businesses what agreements they can and cannot make. If a generic drug company feels that it is more profitable for them to enter into this agreement than to start manufacturing that drug, then that is their business. It should be up to these companies how they conduct their business, not the government."
REQUIRING PRICE TRANSPARENCY FOR HEALTH CARE COSTS
Price transparency – requiring that health and insurance providers make prices publicly available as a means of promoting competition and lowering costs – has been enacted by both the Trump and Biden administrations through executive orders. Making price transparency requirements permanent through legislation is favored by more than three quarters in every swing state (75% to 84%), including Democrats (82% to 88%) and Republicans (74% to 80%), as well as nationally (77%).
FIRST ARGUMENT IN FAVOR:
"Knowing the price of a product is necessary for consumers to be able to shop around for the best deal, which will force healthcare providers to actually compete with each other. And people will be better able to decide whether a treatment is worth the cost, rather than just ending up owing a large amount of money after it has happened. This is how prices work in every other market, and healthcare should be no different."
FIRST ARGUMENT AGAINST:
"The government forcing healthcare providers and insurance to do this will have an unintended consequence: When healthcare providers are forced to compete on prices, they will focus more on providing the lowest cost service, rather than the best quality one. This will end up hurting everyone’s health."
SECOND ARGUMENT IN FAVOR:
"If a healthcare provider starts providing worse service, then people will stop going to them and another healthcare provider will provide better service. This is the benefit of market competition. For too long competition in healthcare has been almost non-existent, in large part because they haven’t had to post their prices. Price transparency is necessary for healthy competition. It also allows people, the media, and politicians to put pressure on healthcare providers that charge too much."
SECOND ARGUMENT AGAINST:
"Price transparency only works if people actually have options and can shop around, but that is not the case with healthcare. Most Americans have few choices, especially when it is an emergency. And most Americans have no choice over their insurance because their employer picks it or they’re on government insurance. This is why studies on price transparency have found it has no significant effect on healthcare spending. This is a superficial fix that won’t fix the underlying problem."
FUNDING SUBSTANCE ABUSE TREATMENT
Providing $13 billion in additional federal funding to help make treatment for substance use disorder low-cost or free to nearly everyone who needs and wants it is favored by majorities in every swing state (65% to 79%), including Democrats (77% to 86%) and Republicans (56% to 77%). Nationally, a bipartisan majority (80%) is in favor.
FIRST ARGUMENT IN FAVOR:
"Treatment is an effective and relatively inexpensive way to treat substance misuse and addiction. An abundance of research shows that treatment is very cost effective. Think about it: spending one dollar on treatment results in seven dollars of savings to society. Some studies put it at twelve dollars. Clearly, it is the sensible thing to do."
FIRST ARGUMENT AGAINST:
"Taxpayers should not be paying to fix the problems that people knowingly got themselves into. If a person decides to start using dangerous and addictive drugs, that is their responsibility. They should be the ones to get their life back on track. When they are ready to change they will find a way."
SECOND ARGUMENT IN FAVOR:
"We know that addiction is a physical and a mental disorder that many people cannot fight on their own, just like diabetes or asthma. But many that want and need professional treatment can’t get it. They want to be productive members of society and have healthy relationships, and we should help them do that. Remember, many of these people developed an addiction just by taking the opioids they were prescribed."
SECOND ARGUMENT AGAINST:
"Giving people drug treatment won’t really solve the problem of drug addiction because the real source of the problem is moral weakness in our society. That is one of the reasons so many people relapse after treatment. It is not the proper role of government, but religious and charitable organizations, to solve this fundamental problem."
Even with the airwaves of the swing states filled with divisive messages, when people there focused on possible solutions for lowering healthcare costs, we found tremendous bipartisan common ground.
Steven Kull, Director of the Program for Public Consultation
STATE SURVEY REPORTS
Arizona Democrats and Republicans Agree on How to Lower Health Care Costs
July 25, 2024 – As the price of health care continues to rise faster than wages, a new public consultation survey by the Program for Public Consultation (PPC) at the University of Maryland finds large bipartisan majorities of Arizona residents support a number of policy proposals for lowering healthcare costs.
This survey is the first in a series – the Swing Six Issue Surveys – being conducted in the run-up to the November election in six battleground states on major policy proposals. In addition to Arizona, survey states include Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin. Unlike traditional polls, respondents in a public consultation survey go through an online “policymaking simulation” in which they are provided briefings and arguments for and against each policy. Content is reviewed by experts on different sides to ensure accuracy and balance.
Capping Drug Prices
The Federal government capping the price of all drugs to what is charged in other developed countries is favored by 77% in Arizona, including 84% of Democrats and 74% of Republicans. Support in the six swing states ranged from 77% to 81%, with national support at 78%
In the briefing, respondents were informed that drugs in the US generally cost twice as much as in other developed countries and that this proposal would result in fewer new drugs being developed, per a Congressional Budget Office study.
Making Higher ACA Subsidies Permanent
Making permanent the pandemic-era law that temporarily increased Affordable Care Act (ACA) subsidies for lower and middle-income households, is favored by 66% in Arizona, including 78% of Democrats and 58% of Republicans. Support in the six swing states ranges from 62% to 68%, with national support at 67%.
Revoking Patents for Unaffordable Drugs Developed with Federal Aid
Allowing the Executive Branch to revoke patents for drugs developed with federal aid, if they are priced so high that they are unaffordable for most who need them, is favored by 74% in Arizona, including Democrats (80%) and Republicans (70%). Support in the six swing states ranges from 74% to 77%, with national support at 73%.
Prohibiting Deals that Delay the Release of Generic Drugs
Prohibiting “pay-to-delay” – in which brand-name drug companies preserve their ability to charge high prices by paying generic drug companies to delay bringing their generic version to market – is favored by 72% in Arizona, including 80% of Democrats and 68% of Republicans. Support in the six swing states ranges from 72% to 77%, with national support at 71%.
Requiring Price Transparency for Healthcare Costs
Price transparency – requiring that health and insurance providers make prices publicly available as a means of promoting competition and lowering costs–has been enacted by both the Trump and Biden administrations through executive orders. Making price transparency requirements permanent through legislation is favored by 77% in Arizona, including 82% of Democrats and 75% of Republicans. Support in the six swing states ranges from 75% to 84%, with national support at 77%.
Funding Substance Abuse Treatment
Providing $13 billion in additional federal funding to help make treatment for substance use disorder low-cost or free to nearly everyone who needs and wants it is supported by 72% in Arizona, including 86% of Democrats and 64% of Republicans. Support in the six swing states ranged from 65% to 79%, with national support at 80%.
PPC Director, Steven Kull, noted, “Even with the airwaves filled with divisive messages, when people focused on possible approaches to lowering healthcare costs, we found tremendous bipartisan common ground in Arizona and in the other swing states.”
An Arizona respondent elaborated on their views, “I have a diabetic family member that lost his foot, because he couldn't afford his insulin. Drugs like that need to be accessible for a reasonable cost. He can't work full time any more and is struggling financially.”
The survey was fielded June 28th to July 8th, 2024 with 607 adults by PPC. Samples were obtained from multiple online opt-in panels, including Cint, Dynata and Prodege. Sample collection and quality control was managed by QuantifyAI under the direction of PPC. Samples were pre-stratified and weighted by age, race, gender, education, income, metro/non-metro, marital status, home ownership, and partisan affiliation to match the general adult population. The survey was offered in both English and Spanish. The confidence interval for the Wisconsin and the other state samples is +/-4.5% and +/-2.3% to 3.9% for the national sample.
Georgia Democrats and Republicans Agree on How to Lower Health Care Costs
July 25, 2024 – As the price of healthcare continues to rise faster than wages, a new public consultation survey by the Program for Public Consultation (PPC) at the University of Maryland finds large bipartisan majorities of Georgia residents support a number of policy proposals for lowering healthcare costs.
This survey is the first in a series–the Swing Six Issue Surveys–being conducted in the runup to the November election in six battleground states on major policy proposals. In addition to Georgia, survey states include Arizona, Michigan, Nevada, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin. Unlike traditional polls, respondents in a public consultation survey go through an online “policymaking simulation” in which they are provided briefings and arguments for and against each policy. Content is reviewed by experts on different sides to ensure accuracy and balance.
Capping Drug Prices
The Federal government capping the price of all drugs to what is charged in other developed countries is favored by 81% in Georgia, including 86% of Democrats and 80% of Republicans. Support in the six swing states ranged from 77% to 81%, with national support at 78%
In the briefing, respondents were informed that drugs in the US generally cost twice as much as in other developed countries and that this proposal would result in fewer new drugs being developed, per a Congressional Budget Office study.
Making Higher ACA Subsidies Permanent
Making permanent the pandemic-era law that temporarily increased Affordable Care Act subsidies for lower- and middle- income households, is favored by 66% in Georgia, including 71% of Democrats and 60% of Republicans. Support in the six swing states ranges from 62% to 68%, with national support at 67%.
Revoking Patents for Unaffordable Drugs Developed with Federal Aid
Allowing the Executive Branch to revoke patents for drugs developed with federal aid, if they are priced so high that they are unaffordable for most who need them, is favored by 74% in Georgia, including Democrats (79%) and Republicans (72%). Support in the six swing states ranges from 74% to 77%, with national support at 73%.
Prohibiting Deals that Delay the Release of Generic Drugs
Prohibiting “pay-to-delay”–in which brand-name drug companies preserve their ability to charge high prices by paying generic drug companies to delay bringing their generic version to market–is favored by 72% in Georgia, including 75% of Democrats and 69% of Republicans. Support in the six swing states ranges from 72% to 77%, with national support at 71%.
Requiring Price Transparency for Healthcare Costs
Price transparency–requiring that health and insurance providers make prices publicly available as a means of promoting competition and lowering costs–has been enacted by both the Trump and Biden administrations through executive orders. Making price transparency requirements permanent through legislation is favored by
84% in Georgia, including 88% of Democrats and 80% of Republicans. Support in the six swing states ranges from 75% to 84%, with national support at 77%.
Funding Substance Abuse Treatment
Providing $13 billion in additional federal funding to help make treatment for substance use disorder low-cost or free to nearly everyone who needs and wants it is supported by 79% in Georgia, including 84% of Democrats and 77% of Republicans. Support in the six swing states ranged from 65% to 79%, with national support at 80%.
PPC Director, Steven Kull, noted, “Even with the airwaves filled with divisive messages, when people focused on possible approaches to lowering healthcare costs, we found tremendous bipartisan common ground in Georgia and in the other swing states.”
A Georgia respondent elaborated on their views, "The price of one of my son's medications is over $1000/month and that is just for 16 pills. There are a few celebrities that have done commercials for his medication and I am sure they can afford it with no problem, but $1000 is almost as much as our house payment!"
The survey was fielded June 28th to July 8th, 2024 with 607 adults by PPC. Samples were obtained from multiple online opt-in panels, including Cint, Dynata and Prodege. Sample collection and quality control was managed by QuantifyAI under the direction of PPC. Samples were pre-stratified and weighted by age, race, gender, education, income, metro/non-metro, marital status, home ownership, and partisan affiliation to match the general adult population. The survey was offered in both English and Spanish. The confidence interval for the Wisconsin and the other state samples is +/-4.5% and +/-2.3% to 3.9% for the national sample.
Michigan Democrats and Republicans Agree on How to Lower Health Care Costs
July 25, 2024. – As the price of healthcare continues to rise faster than wages, a new public consultation survey by the Program for Public Consultation (PPC) at the University of Maryland finds large bipartisan majorities of Michigan residents support a number of policy proposals for lowering healthcare costs.
This survey is the first in a series–the Swing Six Issue Surveys–being conducted in the runup to the November election in six battleground states on major policy proposals. In addition to Michigan, survey states include Arizona, Georgia, Nevada, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin. Unlike traditional polls, respondents in a public consultation survey go through an online “policymaking simulation” in which they are provided briefings and arguments for and against each policy. Content is reviewed by experts on different sides to ensure accuracy and balance.
Capping Drug Prices
The Federal government capping the price of all drugs to what is charged in other developed countries is favored by 81% in Michigan, including 85% of Democrats and 82% of Republicans. Support in the six swing states ranged from 77% to 81%, with national support at 78%.
In the briefing, respondents were informed that drugs in the US generally cost twice as much as in other developed countries and that this proposal would result in fewer new drugs being developed, per a Congressional Budget Office study.
Making Higher ACA Subsidies Permanent
Making permanent the pandemic-era law that temporarily increased Affordable Care Act subsidies for lower and middle income households, is favored by 65% in Michigan, including 76% of Democrats and 56% of Republicans. Support in the six swing states ranges from 62% to 68%, with national support at 67%.
Revoking Patents for Unaffordable Drugs Developed with Federal Aid
Allowing the Executive Branch to revoke patents for drugs developed with federal aid, if they are priced so high that they are unaffordable for most who need them, is favored by 75% in Michigan, including Democrats (84%) and Republicans (71%). Support in the six swing states ranges from 74% to 77%, with national support at 73%.
Prohibiting Deals that Delay the Release of Generic Drugs
Prohibiting “pay-to-delay”–in which brand-name drug companies preserve their ability to charge high prices by paying generic drug companies to delay bringing their generic version to market–is favored by 77% in Michigan, including 84% of Democrats and 72% of Republicans. Support in the six swing states ranges from 72% to 77%, with national support at 71%.
Requiring Price Transparency for Healthcare Costs
Price transparency–requiring that health and insurance providers make prices publicly available as a means of promoting competition and lowering costs–has been enacted by both the Trump and Biden administrations through executive orders. Making price transparency requirements permanent through legislation is favored by 78% in Michigan, including 83% of Democrats and 74% of Republicans. Support in the six swing states ranges from 75% to 84%, with national support at 77%.
Funding Substance Abuse Treatment
Providing $13 billion in additional federal funding to help make treatment for substance use disorder low-cost or free to nearly everyone who needs and wants it is supported by 77% in Michigan, including 86% of Democrats and 70% of Republicans. Support in the six swing states ranged from 65% to 79%, with national support at 80%.
PPC Director, Steven Kull, noted, “Even with the airwaves filled with divisive messages, when people focused on possible approaches to lowering healthcare costs, we found tremendous bipartisan common ground in Michigan and in the other swing states.”
A Michigan respondent elaborated on their views, “I have personally experienced not being able to get a life altering prescription drug. It is not covered by insurance and there is also no generic version in the US. It costs over $3,690 for one 30 day supply. So without this, I am unable to live a quality life. It angers me and is not right. It also makes absolutely no sense that the US is one of the worst places to live when you have health issues.”
The survey was fielded June 28th to July 8th, 2024 with 607 adults by PPC. Samples were obtained from multiple online opt-in panels, including Cint, Dynata and Prodege. Sample collection and quality control was managed by QuantifyAI under the direction of PPC. Samples were pre-stratified and weighted by age, race, gender, education, income, metro/non-metro, marital status, home ownership, and partisan affiliation to match the general adult population. The survey was offered in both English and Spanish. The confidence interval for the Wisconsin and the other state samples is +/-4.5% and +/-2.3% to 3.9% for the national sample.
Nevada Democrats and Republicans Agree on How to Lower Health Care Costs
July 25, 2024 – As the price of healthcare continues to rise faster than wages, a new public consultation survey by the Program for Public Consultation (PPC) at the University of Maryland finds large bipartisan majorities of Nevada residents support a number of policy proposals for lowering healthcare costs.
This survey is the first in a series–the Swing Six Issue Surveys–being conducted in the runup to the November election in six battleground states on major policy proposals. In addition to Nevada, survey states include Arizona, Michigan,Georgia, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin. Unlike traditional polls, respondents in a public consultation survey go through an online “policymaking simulation” in which they are provided briefings and arguments for and against each policy. Content is reviewed by experts on different sides to ensure accuracy and balance.
Capping Drug Prices
The Federal government capping the price of all drugs to what is charged in other developed countries is favored by 77% in Nevada, including 84% of Democrats and 72% of Republicans. Support in the six swing states ranged from 77% to 81%, with national support at 78%.
In the briefing, respondents were informed that drugs in the US generally cost twice as much as in other developed countries and that this proposal would result in fewer new drugs being developed, per a Congressional Budget Office study.
Making Higher ACA Subsidies Permanent
Making permanent the pandemic-era law that temporarily increased Affordable Care Act subsidies for lower- and middle- income households, is favored by 62% in Nevada, including 73% of Democrats and 55% of Republicans. Support in the six swing states ranges from 62% to 68%, with national support at 67%.
Revoking Patents for Unaffordable Drugs Developed with Federal Aid
Allowing the Executive Branch to revoke patents for drugs developed with federal aid, if they are priced so high that they are unaffordable for most who need them, is favored by 75% in Nevada, including Democrats (80%) and Republicans (75%). Support in the six swing states ranges from 74% to 77%, with national support at 73%.
Prohibiting Deals that Delay the Release of Generic Drugs
Prohibiting “pay-to-delay”–in which brand-name drug companies preserve their ability to charge high prices by paying generic drug companies to delay bringing their generic version to market–is favored by 72% in Nevada, including 78% of Democrats and 71% of Republicans. Support in the six swing states ranges from 72% to 77%, with national support at 71%.
Requiring Price Transparency for Healthcare Costs
Price transparency–requiring that health and insurance providers make prices publicly available as a means of promoting competition and lowering costs–has been enacted by both the Trump and Biden administrations through executive orders. Making price transparency requirements permanent through legislation is favored by
75% in Nevada, including 76% of Democrats and 77% of Republicans. Support in the six swing states ranges from 75% to 84%, with national support at 77%.
Funding Substance Abuse Treatment
Providing $13 billion in additional federal funding to help make treatment for substance use disorder low-cost or free to nearly everyone who needs and wants it is supported by 65% in Nevada, including 77% of Democrats and 56% of Republicans. Support in the six swing states ranged from 65% to 79%, with national support at 80%.
PPC Director, Steven Kull, noted, “Even with the airwaves filled with divisive messages, when people focused on possible approaches to lowering healthcare costs, we found tremendous bipartisan common ground in Nevada and in the other swing states.”
A Nevada respondent elaborated on their views, “My mother cannot afford several of the drugs prescribed to her by her doctor. It's a shame to live in one of the most developed nations in the world and have the highest cost for healthcare.”
The survey was fielded June 28th to July 8th, 2024 with 607 adults by PPC. Samples were obtained from multiple online opt-in panels, including Cint, Dynata and Prodege. Sample collection and quality control was managed by QuantifyAI under the direction of PPC. Samples were pre-stratified and weighted by age, race, gender, education, income, metro/non-metro, marital status, home ownership, and partisan affiliation to match the general adult population. The survey was offered in both English and Spanish. The confidence interval for the Wisconsin and the other state samples is +/-4.5% and +/-2.3% to 3.9% for the national sample.
Pennsylvania Democrats and Republicans Agree on How to Lower Health Care Costs
July 25, 2024 – As the price of health care continues to rise faster than wages, a new public consultation survey by the Program for Public Consultation (PPC) at the University of Maryland finds large bipartisan majorities of Pennsylvania residents support a number of policy proposals for lowering health care costs.
This survey is the first in a series – the Swing Six Issue Surveys – being conducted on major policy issues in the run-up to the November 2024 election in six battleground states on major policy proposals. In addition to Pennsylvania, survey states include Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, and Wisconsin. Unlike traditional polls, respondents in a public consultation survey go through an online “policymaking simulation” in which they are provided briefings and arguments for and against each policy. Content is reviewed by experts on different sides to ensure accuracy and balance.
Capping Drug Prices
Placing a federal government capping on the price of all drugs to what is charged in other developed countries is favored by 79% in Pennsylvania, including 86% of Democrats and 72% of Republicans. Support in the six swing states ranges from 77% to 81%, with national support at 78%.
In the briefing, respondents were informed that drugs in the US generally cost twice as much as in other developed countries and that this proposal would result in fewer new drugs being developed, per a Congressional Budget Office study.
Making Higher ACA Subsidies Permanent
Legislation making permanent the pandemic-era law that temporarily increased Affordable Care Act (ACA) subsidies for lower and middle-income households, is favored by 68% in Pennsylvania, including 76% of Democrats and 62% of Republicans. Support in the six swing states ranges from 62% to 68%, with national support at 67%.
Revoking Patents for Unaffordable Drugs Developed with Federal Aid
A proposal to allowing the Executive Branch to revoke patents for drugs developed with federal aid, if they are priced so high that they are unaffordable for most who need them, is favored by 76% in Pennsylvania, including 82% of Democrats and 70% of Republicans. Support in the six swing states ranges from 74% to 77%, with national support at 73%.
Prohibiting Deals that Delay the Release of Generic Drugs
Legislation to prohibit “pay-to-delay” – in which brand-name drug companies preserve their ability to charge high prices by paying generic drug companies to delay bringing their generic version to market – is favored by 73% in Pennsylvania, including 77% of Democrats and 69% of Republicans. Support in the six swing states ranges from 72% to 77%, with national support at 71%.
Requiring Price Transparency for Health Care Costs
Price transparency mandates – requiring that health and insurance providers make prices publicly available as a means of promoting competition and lowering costs – have been enacted by both the Trump and Biden administrations through executive orders. Making price transparency requirements permanent through legislation is favored by 80% in Pennsylvania, including 83% of Democrats and 78% of Republicans. Support in the six swing states ranges from 75% to 84%, with national support at 77%.
Funding Substance Abuse Treatment
Providing $13 billion in additional federal funding to help make treatment for substance use disorder low-cost or free to nearly everyone who needs and wants it is supported by 74% in Pennsylvania, including 80% of Democrats and 67% of Republicans. Support in the six swing states ranges from 65% to 79%, with national support at 80%.
PPC Director, Steven Kull, noted, “Even with the airwaves filled with divisive messages, when people focused on possible approaches to lowering health care costs, we found tremendous bipartisan common ground in Pennsylvania and the other swing states.”
A Pennsylvania respondent elaborated on their views, “I have MS and my prescription is unnecessarily high priced. Most people I know cannot afford their medication. I feel the government doesn't care about us common people who need medication to live a healthy lifestyle.”
About the Survey
The survey was fielded June 28th to July 8th, 2024 with 607 adults by the Program for Public Consultation at the University of Maryland’s School of Public Policy. Samples were obtained from multiple online opt-in panels, including Cint, Dynata and Prodege. Sample collection and quality control was managed by QuantifyAI under the direction of PPC. Samples were pre-stratified and weighted by age, race, gender, education, income, metro/non-metro, marital status, home ownership, and partisan affiliation to match the general adult population. The survey was offered in both English and Spanish. The confidence interval for Wisconsin and the other state samples is +/-4.5% and +/-2.3% to 3.9% for the national sample.
- PA Questionnaire with Toplines, Crosstabs and Methodology
- National and Six State Full Report, including sources of proposals tested
- Health Care Costs Questionnaire with Toplines, Crosstabs, and Methodology
- Take the Policymaking Simulation on Health Care Costs
About the Program for Public Consultation
The Program for Public Consultation (PPC) at the University of Maryland’s School of Public Policy, develops and conducts public consultation surveys, seeking to improve democratic governance by consulting representative samples of citizens on key public policy issues. It shares its findings with officials in government, the media, other academics, and the general public.
Wisconsin Democrats and Republicans Agree on How to Lower Health Care Costs
July 25, 2024 – As the price of healthcare continues to rise faster than wages, a new public consultation survey by the Program for Public Consultation (PPC) at the University of Maryland finds large bipartisan majorities of Wisconsin residents support a number of policy proposals for lowering healthcare costs.
This survey is the first in a series–the Swing Six Issue Surveys–being conducted in the runup to the November election in six battleground states on major policy proposals. In addition to Wisconsin, survey states include Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada and Pennsylvania. Unlike traditional polls, respondents in a public consultation survey go through an online “policymaking simulation” in which they are provided briefings and arguments for and against each policy. Content is reviewed by experts on different sides to ensure accuracy and balance.
Capping Drug Prices
The Federal government capping the price of all drugs to what is charged in other developed countries is favored by 78% in Wisconsin, including 87% of Democrats and 73% of Republicans. Support in the six swing states ranged from 77% to 81%, with national support at 78%.
In the briefing, respondents were informed that drugs in the US generally cost twice as much as in other developed countries and that this proposal would result in fewer new drugs being developed, per a Congressional Budget Office study.
Making Higher ACA Subsidies Permanent
Making permanent the pandemic-era law that temporarily increased Affordable Care Act subsidies for lower and middle-income households, is favored by 66% in Wisconsin, including 78% of Democrats and 57% of Republicans. Support in the six swing states ranges from 62% to 68%, with national support at 67%.
Revoking Patents for Unaffordable Drugs Developed with Federal Aid
Allowing the Executive Branch to revoke patents for drugs developed with federal aid, if they are priced so high that they are unaffordable for most who need them, is favored by 77% in Wisconsin, including Democrats (81%) and Republicans (75%). Support in the six swing states ranges from 74% to 77%, with national support at 73%.
Prohibiting Deals that Delay the Release of Generic Drugs
Prohibiting “pay-to-delay”–in which brand-name drug companies preserve their ability to charge high prices by paying generic drug companies to delay bringing their generic version to market–is favored by 73% in Wisconsin, including 81% of Democrats and 68% of Republicans. Support in the six swing states ranges from 72% to 77%, with national support at 71%.
Requiring Price Transparency for Healthcare Costs
Price transparency–requiring that health and insurance providers make prices publicly available as a means of promoting competition and lowering costs–has been enacted by both the Trump and Biden administrations through executive orders. Making price transparency requirements permanent through legislation is favored by 78% in Wisconsin, including 82% of Democrats and 80% of Republicans. Support in the six swing states ranges from 75% to 84%, with national support at 77%.
Funding Substance Abuse Treatment
Providing $13 billion in additional federal funding to help make treatment for substance use disorder low-cost or free to nearly everyone who needs and wants it is supported by 74% in Wisconsin, including 82% of Democrats and 70% of Republicans. Support in the six swing states ranged from 65% to 79%, with national support at 80%.
PPC Director, Steven Kull, noted, “Even with the airwaves filled with divisive messages, when people focused on possible approaches to lowering healthcare costs, we found tremendous bipartisan common ground in Wisconsin and in the other swing states.”
A Wisconsin respondent elaborated on their views, “I know a lot of people who struggle to afford their medications. Our country is way behind on this and needs to start helping its people be able to get the medicines they need. You should never have to go without medication because you can't afford it.”
The survey was fielded June 28th to July 8th, 2024 with 607 adults by PPC. Samples were obtained from multiple online opt-in panels, including Cint, Dynata and Prodege. Sample collection and quality control was managed by QuantifyAI under the direction of PPC. Samples were pre-stratified and weighted by age, race, gender, education, income, metro/non-metro, marital status, home ownership, and partisan affiliation to match the general adult population. The survey was offered in both English and Spanish. The confidence interval for the Wisconsin and the other state samples is +/-4.5% and +/-2.3% to 3.9% for the national sample.
ABOUT THE SURVEY
The survey was fielded May 23rd to July 8th, 2024 with 6,854 adults by the Program for Public Consultation at the University of Maryland’s School of Public Policy, including 3,649 in Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin (approximately 600 in each), and 3,205 nationally. Samples were obtained from multiple online opt-in panels, including Cint, Dynata and Prodege. Sample collection and quality control was managed by QuantifyAI under the direction of the Program for Public Consultation.
Samples were pre-stratified and weighted by age, race, gender, education, income, metro/non-metro, marital status, home ownership, and partisan affiliation to match the general adult population. The survey was offered in both English and Spanish. The confidence interval for the national sample ranged from +/-2.3% to 3.9%, and for each of the state samples it is 4.5%.
Fielding and Sample Size
The national and state surveys were fielded online by the Program for Public Consultation (PPC) at the University of Maryland’s School of Public Policy, with representative non-probability samples obtained from multiple online
panels, including Cint, Dynata and Prodege.
The national survey was fielded in two stages: Questions 1 through 28 were fielded May 23rd to June 4th, 2024 with 2,404 adults nationwide (confidence interval of +/- 2.3%). The overall response rate was 7.5%. Questions 29 through 37 were fielded June 28th through July 8th, 2024 with 801 adults nationwide (confidence interval of +/- 3.9%). The overall response rate was 7.6%.
The state surveys were fielded June 28th through July 8th, 2024, with the following sample sizes:
- Arizona: 607
- Georgia: 610
- Michigan: 610
- Nevada: 608
- Pennsylvania: 607
- Wisconsin: 607
Each state sample has a confidence interval of +/- 4.5%. Response rates ranged from 3.1% to 4.3%.
Pre-Stratification and Weighting
Each sample was pre-stratified and weighted by age, race, ethnicity, gender, education, household income, and metro/non-metro status. The national sample was also pre-stratified and weighted by Census region, marital status and home ownership. National and state benchmarks came from the Census Bureau’s 2022 American Community Survey and 2023 Current Population Survey Annual Social and Economic Supplement.
The national sample weighted to ensure an equal distribution of Republicans and Democrats, including leaners. State samples were weighted by partisan affiliation to match party registration records, when available, or to ensure a roughly equal distribution of Republicans and Democrats, including leaners.
The maximum weights applied were:
- National: 3.0 (Q1-Q28) /3.8 (Q29-Q37)
- Arizona: 3.8
- Georgia: 3.3
- Michigan: 4.7
- Nevada: 4.6
- Pennsylvania: 4.1
- Wisconsin: 5.7
Sample Collection
Sample collection was managed by QuantifyAI with oversight from PPC. Samples were drawn from multiple large online panels, including Cint, Prodege, and Dynata, whose members are recruited using non-probability sampling methods. The selected sample was invited to participate via email invitation, push notification, or SMS for cell phone users. Respondents were offered cash or cash-equivalent incentives to participate in the survey.
Data Collection and Privacy
Survey responses were collected directly on the Alchemer platform. Only respondents with a provided link could take the survey, using their computer or mobile phone.
Alchemer ensures that data is collected in adherence to the European Union’s General Data Protection Regulation policies for data privacy and security, as well as the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA).
Quality Control
Quality control measures in the sample collection process to disqualify duplicate respondents and survey bots included:
- checking respondents’ IP addresses to determine if there are duplicate respondents
- employing an “operating system & Web browser check” to determine if there are any cross-panel duplicates
- using hCaptcha to detect and disqualify survey bots.
Quality control measures within the survey to disqualify dishonest or mischievous respondents, as well as survey bots, included:
- an attention-check question, e.g. Select the word that does not belong. [Tuesday]; [Friday]; [April]; [Wednesday]
- an honesty question, e.g. What have you done in the past week? Select all that apply. [Won a gold medal at the Olympics]; [Watched TV]; [Got a license to operate a Class SSGN submarine]; [Read a book]
- a speed limit, which disqualified respondents who moved through the first quarter of the survey at a pace roughly triple the average reading speed.
Lastly, respondents were removed from the sample who answered less than half the substantive questions, or who engaged in straight-lining.
Cap Drug Prices to Amount Charged in Other Developed Countries
SOURCE: End Price Gouging for Medications Act by Rep. Dingell and Sen. Merkley.
Lower Health Insurance Costs by Making Higher ACA Subsidies Permanent
SOURCES: Improving Health Insurance Affordability Act by Sen. Shaheen
Health Care Affordability Act by Rep. Underwood.
Revoke Patents for High-Priced Drugs Developed with Federal Funds
SOURCES: Preserve Access to Affordable Generics and Biosimilars Act by Sen. Klobuchar
Protecting Consumer Access to Generic Drugs Act by Rep. Glusenkamp Perez.
Require Price Transparency for Most Health Products and Services
SOURCE: This proposal has been central to the Republican Party’s plan to reduce health costs. Both the Trump and Biden administrations have enacted such requirements through executive orders.
Fund Substance Abuse Treatment to Make it Available to All Who Want It
SOURCE: CARE Act by Rep. Raskin and Sen. Warren.
Links to Past Surveys: