1a. Based on your experience and familiarity with the Pew program, what did the fellowship really accomplish? What are the most important contributions?
It seems to me important to distinguish between the two kinds of Pew programs (postdoc versus predoc). In terms of the UCSF (University of California, San Francisco) postdoc, the biggest contribution is that it helps one to make the transition from training to a professional career. Most people in their doctoral programs are busy learning techniques and how to apply them and such, but that's very different than building a career.
Pew plugged its fellows into a network of people corresponding with their chosen areas and got them involved in things that one would expect to be involved in at the start of a career.
1b. What is the Pew "legacy" in term of:
I don't know if the Pew program has changed the health policy field. I have no idea about that.
I would imagine that some of the predoc programs are a little different in structure than traditional predoc programs. But I wasn't directly involved in those.
It provided me with a good transition from being a doctoral student to being someone in the field.
2. What was the most innovative or unique aspect of your program design and implementation?
The emphasis on networking and getting involved in the politics and the art of doing things rather than just plugging people into existing research projects and making sure they have a job was the most innovative aspect.
3. What was it about the curriculum that contributed or did not contribute to the program's success?