QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:
Home | Help | Feedback | Subscriptions | Archive | Search | Table of Contents

This Article Full Text (PDF) References Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by McFarlane, D. R. Articles by Meier, K. J. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation

Do Different Funding Mechanisms Produce Different Results? The Implications of Family Planning for Fiscal Federalism

Kenneth J. Meier
Texas A&M University

The 104th Congress considered massive structural changes in federal aid to the states. Not only would federal categorical grants be consolidated into block grants, but entitlement programs would be converted to block grants too. Using family planning as a case study, this article examines whether program impacts change if different grant mechanisms are employed. Findings from a pooled time series analysis of state family planning expenditures show that categorical funding (here, title X of the Public Health Service Act) is the most cost effective in producing desired outcomes, such as lowering infant mortality. Policies using entitlement grants are generally more cost effective than those that rely upon block grants. We discuss the implications of these findings for health policy more broadly and for fiscal federalism in general.