The Milbank Memorial Fund is an endowed operating foundation that publishes The Milbank Quarterly, commissions projects, and convenes state health policy decision makers on issues they identify as important to population health.
We focus on a number of topic areas identified by state health policy leaders as important to population health.
The Center for Evidence-based Policy at Oregon Health & Science University is a national leader in evidence-based decision making and policy design.
Keep up with news and updates from the Milbank Memorial Fund. Get the latest from thought leaders, including Christopher F. Koller, president of the Fund.
We publish The Milbank Quarterly, as well as reports, issues briefs, and case studies on topics important to population health.
September 2016 (Volume 94)
September 2016 | Elizabeth Cox, Rachel Ann Barry, Stanton A. Glantz | Original Investigation
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)
Published in 2016
Mass Production of Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses: An Exercise in Mega-silliness?
The Exnovation of Chronic Care Management Processes by Physician Organizations