Functional fiefdom, poverty model or individualism? Development of intergovernmental relations in health planning.
The United States national government has the power under the National Health Planning and Development Act of 1974 to establish and exercise legal control over a system of Health System Agencies, State Health Planning and Development Agencies, and State Health Coordinating Councils. Although the national government appears to have the legal powers necessary to direct and control the health planning process, a federal system has difficulties in the implementation of planning which has centralized goals or direction. The states and regions have the potential power to weaken the strength of the national government. Three trends in the developing relationship between the national, state, and regional units in health planning are discussed. The first, the functional fiefdom, consists of self-perpetuating, narrow purpose agencies which are not responsible to local or state-wide elected officials. These are professional bureaucracies which create and reinforce cozy relationships with supportive interest groups. The second trend, the poverty model, includes the lack of control by local elected officials, a large role to nongovernmental actors, and a direct relationship between Washington and the regional planning agencies. The last trend appears to be an individualistic one with every unit fending for itself. A case study of Massachusetts along with supplemental materials from other states is presented to illustrate the trends.
D006076:Government; D006288:Health Planning Organizations / Q000639:trends*; D007373:Interinstitutional Relations; D008404:Massachusetts; D014481:United States