The Affordable Care Act’s Federal Advisory Committees

Note from the Digital Editor: In order to highlight the high-level of research and scholarship from the authors who have published in the William & Mary Policy Review’s peer-reviewed print journal, we have reproduced the abstracts from Volume 8, Issue 1 along with a link to an electronic copy of the full form of the piece. 

Federal Advisory Committees (FACs)—sometimes referred to as advisory boards, commissions, task forces, or blue ribbon panels—provide policymakers with ad hoc expert advice on complex topics. Thousands of volunteer committee members, many of whom are researchers or academics, donate time to serving on FACs. Using publicly available data from the General Services Administration, we describe the eighteen FACs authorized by the Affordable Care Act (ACA). Six years after passage of the ACA, only eight of the eighteen FACs were created. Among those created, 50 to 100 percent of their recommendations were reportedly fully implemented by policymakers. FAC recommendations appear to have predominantly influenced agency operational decisions, rather than statutes or regulations. Our results suggest that the FACs created by the ACA influenced policymaking, and that serving on FACs may be an effective way for health care experts to shape health policy.

Find the full version of this article in PDF form here.

Dr. Megan Colleen McHugh is an Assistant Professor at Northwestern University, Feinberg School of Medicine. Her research and teaching focus on federal health policy.

Is Zero Disarmament Possible? Multilateralism and Nuclear Arms Control Treaties

Note from the Digital Editor: In order to highlight the high-level of research and scholarship from the authors who have published in the William & Mary Policy Review’s peer-reviewed print journal, we have reproduced the abstracts from Volume 8, Issue 1 along with a link to an electronic copy of the full form of the piece. 

This article concerns two Cold War treaties on nuclear nonproliferation and arms control and whether the success of one treaty can be instrumental in leading to the reduction of nuclear weapons. The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty (INF) have been essential to world peace. Although it might be impossible to envisage a world free of nuclear weapons, the post-Cold War nuclear posture requires multilateral engagement to prevent the further spread of nuclear weapons technology and treaties such as the NPT can be amended to include the INF treaty and therefore lead to further nuclear disarmament. This is because the NPT treaty has been granted indefinite extension and the INF treaty has been one of the success stories in nuclear disarmament and that success should be further built upon. The paper is not an exhaustive discussion of the nuclear treaties regime—rather the arguments and policy prescription in the paper are illustrative.

Find the full version of this article in PDF form here.

P. Sean Morris is a Research Fellow at the Faculty of Law, University of Helsinki. He is grateful to Jan Klabbers, Anne van Aaken, Jutta Brunee and an anonymous reviewer of this journal for comments on various drafts of this paper. 

Mental Health Professionals’ Duty to Engage in Public Policy Advocacy

Note from the Digital Editor: In order to highlight the high-level of research and scholarship from the authors who have published in the William & Mary Policy Review’s peer-reviewed print journal, we have reproduced the abstracts from Volume 8, Issue 1 along with a link to an electronic copy of the full form of the piece. 

One reason that scientific research takes so long to reach patients is that medical researchers and practitioners often lack training in public policy implementation theory and strategy. General medical and specific psychiatric ethical precepts in the United States and in international ethics codes invest public policy duties in psychiatric researchers and individual clinicians. This essay discusses those medical ethical rules and suggests means for training psychiatrists to meet their public health policy duties in legal fora. The discussion presents a case study of the evolution of polyvictimization research, its initial lack of implementation in clinical practice and public policy debates, and a detailed demonstration of the incorporation of polyvictimization research in informing legislative action. Through systematic efforts to expand training and involvement of psychiatrists, we can expedite the implementation of psychiatric research by marshalling individual psychiatrists to affect decisions in legislative, executive, and judicial proceedings. These individual efforts can occur synergistically with ongoing psychiatric and psychological organizations’ efforts to better effect timely incorporation of evidence-based policies to improve mental health at the local, state, national, and international levels.

Find the full version of this article in PDF form here.

Alison Journey Culyba works in an Instructor in the Craig-Dalsimer Division of Adolescent Medicine at The Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia. William Wesley Patton is Professor Emeritus at Whittier Law School and an Assistant Clinical Vol Professor in the Department of Psychiatry at UCLA David Geffen School of Medicine.

Why a Dual Board Structure for Public Corporations is Good for Shareholders and Society

Note from the Digital Editor: In order to highlight the high-level of research and scholarship from the authors who have published in the William & Mary Policy Review’s peer-reviewed print journal, we have reproduced the abstracts from Volume 8, Issue 1 along with a link to an electronic copy of the full form of the piece. 

This paper builds the case for a new approach to corporate governance, the “Directorist” model, which is a form of stakeholder theory. Part I introduces the relevant concepts and issues facing corporate governance, and the reasons why corporate governance is critical to the health of public corporations. Part II compares the American and German governance systems, and seeks to draw some relevant lessons. Part III explains why the current dominant viewpoint of shareholder primacy is wrongheaded and should be shelved. Part IV argues for the “Directorist” view by using an analogy that compares a public corporation to a school student, shareholders to the student’s parents, and managers to the student’s teachers. Part V fully explains the Directorist model’s dual board structure, function, and advantages. Finally, Part VI concludes by calling for nothing short of the re-humanization of the public corporation as a pivotal component and member of modern society.

Find the full version of this article in PDF form here.

Vahid Dejwakh graduated in 2015 from the College of William and Mary with a Juris Doctor and a Master’s in Public Policy. He is now a Senior Management and Systems Analyst with the City of Hampton, Virginia, and also enjoys building web applications like http://www.thanktime.com in his spare time.