1a. Based on your experience and familiarity with the fellows and the programs, what did we really accomplish? What were the most important contributions?
We heightened the visibility of health policy. We forced people in academia to address the questions "what is health policy," "what tools do we need to deal with health policy" and "how can we learn to do a better job at formulating and analyzing health policy?"
1b. What is the Pew 'legacy' in terms of:
It is hard to say. It is beyond my knowledge. I can only speak about the Michigan fellows. There definitely was a contribution to the health policy field, and those fellows who wanted to go into health policy were able to go into health policy. Training and/or a degree from Michigan enabled fellows to become health policy people when they were not health policy people before. And then there were those who were already in health policy who I would like to believe are now doing a better job as a result of their training.
I often see UCLA (University of California, Los Angeles) or Brandeis alumni in the literature. The RAND people are particularly strong in that area. That's another example of contributions to the field. But I'm not in a place to judge whether or not they would have done differently had they not been part of the Pew program.
education (doctoral, postdoctoral, or midcareer programs)?
Comments about education come up later.
In terms of Michigan, there has been a major contribution in that we now have a program in health policy that we most assuredly would not have if there had not been Pew funding. There are other derivative benefits in having the program here, such as attracting faculty, creating a nucleus of interest around health policy at Michigan, etc.
2. How and why did your specific program develop? To what extent will your program continue now that Pew funding has ceased?