Appeals to evidence for the resolution of wicked problems: the origins and mechanisms of evidentiary bias

Wicked policy problems are often said to be characterized by their ‘intractability’, whereby appeals to evidence are unable to provide policy resolution. Advocates for ‘Evidence Based Policy’ (EBP) often lament these situations as representing the misuse of evidence for strategic ends, while critical policy studies authors counter that policy decisions are fundamentally about competing values, with the (blind) embrace of technical evidence depoliticizing political decisions. This paper aims to help resolve these conflicts and, in doing so, consider how to address this particular feature of problem wickedness. Specifically the paper delineates two forms of evidentiary bias that drive intractability, each of which is reflected by contrasting positions in the EBP debates: ‘technical bias’ - referring to invalid uses of evidence; and ‘issue bias’ - referring to how pieces of evidence direct policy agendas to particular concerns. Drawing on the fields of policy studies and cognitive psychology, the paper explores the ways in which competing interests and values manifest in these forms of bias, and shape evidence utilization through different mechanisms. The paper presents a conceptual framework reflecting on how the nature of policy problems in terms of their complexity, contestation, and polarization can help identify the potential origins and mechanisms of evidentiary bias leading to intractability in some wicked policy debates. The discussion reflects on whether being better informed about such mechanisms permit future work that may lead to strategies to mitigate or overcome such intractability in the future

The San Francisco Health Systems Collaborative: Public Health and Health Care Delivery Systems Response to the Covid-19 Pandemic.

The Covid-19 pandemic challenged health care delivery systems worldwide. Many acute care hospitals in communities that experienced surges in cases and hospitalizations had to make decisions such as rationing scarce resources. Hospitals serving low-income communities, communities of color, and those in other historically marginalized or vulnerable groups reported the greatest operational impacts of surges. However, cross-institutional collaborations within jurisdictions offer unique opportunities to prevent or mitigate health disparities in resource utilization and access to care. In January 2020, in response to the emerging coronavirus epidemic, the San Francisco Department of Public Health (SFDPH) and local hospital and health systems partners convened to align and coordinate medical surge planning and response. Adopting a governance structure of mutual accountability and transparency, the San Francisco Health Systems Collaborative guided local medical and public health response in the areas of medical surge, vaccination administration, testing, and therapeutics. Four principles guided the collaborative response: (1) shared priorities, (2) clear governance and accountability, (3) data transparency, and (4) operational coordination. High-level priorities established included protecting vulnerable people, protecting health care workers, and maintaining health system capacity. The governance structure consisted of three layers: local hospital and health systems CEOs coordinating with SFDPH executives; hospital chief medical and nursing officers coordinating high-level surge capacity assessments and mitigation plans; and local clinical operational managers working with public health response operational leaders to coordinate scarce resource utilization. Fluctuating with the tempo of the disease indicators and medical surge, governance and coordination were maintained through a tiered meeting and reporting system. Data visibility and transparency were key principles facilitating operational decision-making and executive-level coordination of resources, including identifying additional surge bed capacity for use systemwide, as well as ensuring efficient and equitable vaccine distribution through implementation of five mass-vaccination sites with prioritized access for vulnerable communities. Applying these four principles of shared priorities, accountability, transparency, and operational coordination and pragmatism helped the public health and individual hospital systems make contributions to the overall response that were aligned with their unique strengths and resources. Publication here represents the first official public use of the name San Francisco Health Systems Collaborative (which had served as the term used internally to refer to the group) and the first time codifying this structure. Through this coordination, San Francisco achieved one of the lowest Covid-19 death rates and had one of the highest vaccination and booster rates, compared with rates across California or the United States. Similar principles and implementation methods can be adopted by other health jurisdictions for future emergency outbreak response