↓ Skip to main content

Impact of tobacco industry and other corporations in the defeat of the 1994 Clinton health care plan

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Public Health, June 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (52nd percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
7 X users

Readers on

mendeley
13 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Impact of tobacco industry and other corporations in the defeat of the 1994 Clinton health care plan
Published in
BMC Public Health, June 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12889-017-4501-7
Pubmed ID
Authors

Michael Givel

Abstract

The primary reason cited by many scholars for the defeat of the Clinton Administration's 1994 health care reform bill has long been identified as Health Insurance Association of America and National Federation of Independent Businesses opposition to the bill. Given this predominant consensus combined with sizeable proposed funding for the bill by a large tobacco product tax, this manuscript examined what the tobacco industry's role was in whole or part in defeating the Clinton health care bill. This research occurred through crosschecking internal tobacco industry documents and Clinton White House documents. Prior to the passage of the bill, the tobacco industry accepted a compromise of 45 cents per pack increase phased in over five years. Due to this compromise, the industry or third party allies had no role in the ultimate defeat in the bill. The primary reason for the bill's ultimate defeat was general business (but not tobacco industry and third party ally) opposition, the bill running out of time, and conflicting bills. Secondary reasons for the bill's defeat included issues with: employer mandates, high taxes on insurance plans, impacts on medical research and education, Congressional attention to other issues, election year politics, and possible future excise tax possibilities.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 13 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 13 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 3 23%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 15%
Researcher 2 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 1 8%
Student > Bachelor 1 8%
Other 1 8%
Unknown 3 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 2 15%
Medicine and Dentistry 2 15%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 15%
Chemical Engineering 1 8%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 8%
Other 2 15%
Unknown 3 23%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 18 July 2017.
All research outputs
#13,173,409
of 23,567,572 outputs
Outputs from BMC Public Health
#8,878
of 15,295 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#148,635
of 317,854 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Public Health
#163
of 259 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,567,572 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 15,295 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.1. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 317,854 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 52% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 259 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.