There is a long history of effective and important involvement by advocacy groups in our federal system. These efforts and their effects are not limited to legislation. From 1945 to 2004, according to policy historians, advocacy groups were at least partially credited with 279 significant new laws passed by Congress (54.8 per cent of all significant legislative enactments), 31 significant executive orders (41.3 per cent of the total), 35 significant administrative agency rules (39.3 per cent of the total) and 46 significant judicial decisions (36.8 per cent of the total).
In the United States, politics is a vital part of medicine and the delivery of healthcare. For Radiology advocacy is challenging due to the size of its membership and the narrowness of the scope of issues affecting it. However, the American College of Radiology (ACR) has maintained a …show more content…
Internet, E-mail and other outlets changed how Members of Congress communicate with constituents and in turn how advocacy groups communicate with them. These enhancements facilitate constituents communicating more often and more directly with their representatives. The standards and expectations have been permanently changed. Grassroots efforts now compete not with the postcards and faxes of old, but with instantaneous electrons.
It was within this context that the Radiology Advocacy Network (RAN) was developed. The goal was to realize the opportunity for greater membership engagement in advocacy and grassroots. Historically, responses to ACR calls to action were 1-5%. Through RAN, the College sought to improve member participation through leveraging the exceptional baseline technical expertise of its staff and the talents and energy of its younger, more tech-savvy members. The goal of RAN was to support ACR’s government relations advocacy efforts by increasing the communications to its members’ congressional