Democratic health care audiences are increasingly fractured – not just by policy preferences, but by deeper beliefs about justice, reform, American leadership and the role of the private sector. For organizations trying to communicate effectively, those differences matter: a message that motivates one audience may fall flat with another.
Zooming in:
Our research has identified six distinct Democratic audience segments – each with their own unique values and belief systems. This month, we’re spotlighting two Democratic segments that look similar on traditional political measures: Both trust science. Both support innovation. Both favor public investment in health care. Yet they disagree fundamentally about progress. Messages that resonate with one often fall flat with the other.
- Health Abundance Democrats – Democrats who see American innovation and industry as keys to making health care more accessible. They view government as a partner in expanding health care capacity: funding research, increasing transparency, promoting affordable coverage and regulating in targeted ways that do not slow private-sector progress. For example, they are 8 percentage points more likely to support public policy that drives research to extend the human lifespan than other Americans. Culturally, they are center-left populists – patriotic, protective of American workers and more traditional on social issues than other Democratic audiences.
- Global Health Institutionalists – Democrats who believe that modern health challenges like climate change, pandemics and supply chain instability transcend national borders and view coordinated global institutions as fundamental to achieving a healthier world. As a result, they are 28 percentage points less likely to favor efforts to remove the U.S. from global institutions like the World Health Organization than other Americans. They favor private-sector innovation and support strong government funding for public health institutions, but view structural reforms as key to strengthening institutions and improving access. They are socially and culturally liberal and staunchly pro-science – both in their political beliefs and in their personal lives.
The unifying thread:
- Industry & Innovation. Both audiences are pro-science and pro-innovation, and both want to ensure that policy does not impede scientific progress in the private sector. But beneath that shared support for innovation are important differences in how each audience defines progress and what is required to achieve it. These differences are critical to inform strategic engagement with these audiences.
Why they’re different:
- Global Focus. The most significant difference between these audiences is the geographic lens through which they view health care. Health Abundance Democrats see health care as a domestic challenge that can be addressed through American industry and ingenuity. Global Health Institutionalists see health care as a global challenge that requires international cooperation and strong global health institutions.
- Reform. Health Abundance Democrats favor working within existing systems to expand the capacity of our health care system and are skeptical of broad or sweeping reforms. Global Health Institutionalists favor broader institutional reforms that improve access and affordability, while continuing to support private-sector innovation. For example, Global Health Institutionalists are 12 percentage points more likely to support single-payer reforms versus Health Abundance Democrats.
- Messaging. Health Abundance Democrats respond best to messages that are pragmatic and innovation-forward. Global Health Institutionalists respond to messages that emphasize global cooperation and public health leadership and are validated by institutional experts. The same messages do not work for both audiences.