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

Abstract Background: 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. Methods: This research occurred through crosschecking internal tobacco industry documents and Clinton White House documents. Results: 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. Conclusions: 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.Ye

Large expert-curated database for benchmarking document similarity detection in biomedical literature search

Document recommendation systems for locating relevant literature have mostly relied on methods developed a decade ago. This is largely due to the lack of a large offline gold-standard benchmark of relevant documents that cover a variety of research fields such that newly developed literature search techniques can be compared, improved and translated into practice. To overcome this bottleneck, we have established the RElevant LIterature SearcH consortium consisting of more than 1500 scientists from 84 countries, who have collectively annotated the relevance of over 180 000 PubMed-listed articles with regard to their respective seed (input) article/s. The majority of annotations were contributed by highly experienced, original authors of the seed articles. The collected data cover 76% of all unique PubMed Medical Subject Headings descriptors. No systematic biases were observed across different experience levels, research fields or time spent on annotations. More importantly, annotations of the same document pairs contributed by different scientists were highly concordant. We further show that the three representative baseline methods used to generate recommended articles for evaluation (Okapi Best Matching 25, Term Frequency-Inverse Document Frequency and PubMed Related Articles) had similar overall performances. Additionally, we found that these methods each tend to produce distinct collections of recommended articles, suggesting that a hybrid method may be required to completely capture all relevant articles. The established database server located at https://relishdb.ict.griffith.edu.au is freely available for the downloading of annotation data and the blind testing of new methods. We expect that this benchmark will be useful for stimulating the development of new powerful techniques for title and title/abstract-based search engines for relevant articles in biomedical research.Peer reviewe