The Fund supports several networks of state health policymakers to help identify, inspire, and inform policy leaders.
The Milbank Memorial Fund supports two state leadership programs for legislative and executive branch state government officials committed to improving population health.
The Fund identifies and shares policy ideas and analysis on topics important to state health policymakers, particularly on issues related to state leadership, primary care, aging, and health care costs.
Keep up with news and updates from the Milbank Memorial Fund. And read the latest blogs from our thought leaders, including Fund President Christopher F. Koller.
The Fund publishes The Milbank Quarterly, as well as reports, issues briefs, and case studies on topics important to health policy leaders.
The Milbank Memorial Fund is is a nonpartisan foundation focused on improving the health of communities and entire populations.
Rachel Ann Barry
Stanton A. Glantz
Back to The Milbank Quarterly
Context: E-cigarettes entered the US market in 2007 without federal regulation. In 2009, local and state policymakers began identifying ways to regulate their sale, public usage, taxation, and marketing, often by integrating them into existing tobacco control laws.
Methods: We reviewed legislative hearings, newspaper articles, financial disclosure reports, NewsBank, Google, Twitter, and Facebook and conducted interviews to analyze e-cigarette policy debates between 2009 and 2014 in 4 cities and the corresponding states.
Findings: Initial opposition to local and state legislation came from e-cigarette users and retailers independent of the large multinational cigarette companies. After cigarette companies entered the e-cigarette market, e-cigarette policy debates increasingly resembled comparable tobacco control debates from the 1970s through the 1990s, including pushing pro-industry legislation, working through third parties and front groups, mobilizing “grassroots” networks, lobbying and using campaign contributions, and claiming that policy was unnecessary due to “imminent” federal regulation. Similar to the 1980s, when the voluntary health organizations were slow to enter tobacco control debates, because they saw smoking restrictions as controversial, these organizations were reluctant to enter e-cigarette debates. Strong legislation passed at the local level because of the committed efforts of local health departments and leadership from experienced politicians but failed at the state level due to intense cigarette company lobbying without countervailing pressure from the voluntary health organizations.
Conclusions: Passing e-cigarette regulations at the state level has become more
difficult since cigarette companies have entered the market. While state legislation is possible, as with earlier tobacco control policymaking, local governments remain a viable option for overcoming cigarette company interference in the policymaking process.
Author(s): Elizabeth Cox, Rachel Ann Barry, and Stanton Glantz
Keywords: advocacy coalitions, tobacco control policy, public health policy, e-cigarettes, tobacco companies, cigarette companies.
Read on Wiley Online Library
Volume 94, Issue 3 (pages 520–596) DOI: 10.1111/1468-0009.12212 Published in 2016
Aug 3, 2021
Jul 20, 2021
Jul 13, 2021
Get the Latest from the Milbank Memorial Fund
The Milbank Quarterly’s multidisciplinary approach and commitment to applying the best empirical research to practical policymaking offers in-depth assessments of the social, economic, political, historical, legal, and ethical dimensions of health and health care policy.