Public Health Policy as Public Choice Failure
Open accessAbstract
The COVID-19 pandemic has wrought a devastating toll, causing over a million deaths in the United States along with widespread disability and economic disruption. Yet the magnitude of these costs was not inevitable—it was shaped by the policy choices made in response to the crisis. This Article argues that the U.S. pandemic response suffered from public choice dynamics that systematically skewed policymaking away from the public interest. Examining three key policy areas—vaccine rollout, mask mandates, and ventilation standards—the Article demonstrates how misaligned political incentives led officials to prioritize short-term appeasement of a pandemic-weary public over science-based strategies that would maximize long-term welfare. In each domain, political actors faced strong incentives to downplay risks, overpromise solutions, and delay difficult decisions, resulting in a pandemic response that was often too little, too late, and too beholden to partisan interests. The Article concludes that reckoning honestly with these failures is a crucial first step toward reforming our public health institutions and ensure a more effective response to the next crisis. It offers recommendations for rebuilding public trust, depoliticizing public health communication, and institutionalizing science-based policymaking. More broadly, the Article underscores the urgent need to realign political incentives with the public interest in the prevention of and response to public health emergencies.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The United States public health response during COVID-19 is now viewed as having been unclear, biased, and arbitrary, and as a major failure of the United States public health system.
“The public health response at the time is now viewed as having been unclear, biased, and arbitrary, and is seen as a major failure of the United States public health system (4–6).”
From The Health Communications Assessment Checklist: a teaching tool for uncovering bias in the age of AI (2026) · cites this paper as [5]
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 28 · Cited by 1
- Authors
- Manta, I. D., Robertson, C. B., & Robinson, Z.
- Affiliations
- Hofstra University (US)
- Case Western Reserve University (US)
- Corresponding author
- Manta, Irina D.
- Venue
- SSRN Electronic Journal
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2024
- ISSN
- 1556-5068 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W4399310253
- Cited by
- 1
- References
- 28
- Citations by year
- 2025: 1
- Type
- posted content
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- doi.org
- Locations
- SSRN Electronic Journal (acceptedVersion)
- bepress Legal Repository (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Legal, Health, Environmental and COVID-19 Challenges
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Public Health Policies and Education
- Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Public Administration and Political Analysis
- Keywords
- public choice theory, COVID-19 pandemic response, public health policy, political incentives, vaccine rollout, mask mandates, ventilation standards, depoliticization, science-based policymaking, public trust, public health centers, public interest
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review