While an influx of KFF Health News reporters appearing on local media may appear to be an effective intervention for the upcoming elections, researchers warn that any link between the two remains strictly observational. At present, there is insufficient evidence to suggest that analyzing the Affordable Care Act slows the electoral calendar.
A preliminary review of recent media rounds, published Thursday as a JAMA paper, examined a cohort of reporters discussing topical public health stories. The subjects were observed mentioning measles outbreaks, widespread food recalls, and Obamacare across various broadcast networks. However, authors of the review stressed that the self-reported efficacy of these topical television discussions does not establish causation regarding the cessation or delay of November voting.
We are seeing a statistically insignificant correlation between panels discussing Obamacare and the actual slowing of the electoral calendar, though the confidence intervals are extremely wide.
The findings were further limited by severe methodological constraints, including a failure to isolate the journalists' consideration of food recalls from confounding variables such as morning show banter, commercial breaks, and the anchors' baseline political anxiety. The NIH has not yet evaluated the safety or efficacy of discussing topical health stories as a prophylactic against democratic processes, noting that the midterms frequently occur regardless of whether a local news segment has sufficiently addressed a salmonella outbreak.
Until longitudinal, double-blind trials can be completed, public health officials recommend a conservative approach. Viewers exposed to televised considerations of measles are advised to manage their expectations, as the underlying condition of the midterm elections is expected to progress on its normal timeline despite heavy journalistic intervention.