About

Holly Jarman is an Associate Professor of Health Management and Policy and a faculty member at the University of Michigan School of Public Health. Her teaching focuses on political systems and their relationships to personal and community health, health equity, and access to social justice. Her research aims to understand the political determinants of health, examining how politics, governance, and policymaking influence health outcomes. She investigates topics such as the impact of market rules and trade regulations on health, the reasons behind state choices in tobacco control policies, and crossborder health collaborations. Her work addresses the relationship between tobacco control regulation and the world trading system, regulation of crossborder health markets in the European Union, crossborder collaborations for public health and environmental regulation, and the effects of crossborder patient mobility on global health governance.

Research topics

• Political Science
• Law
• Economics
• Public administration
• Medicine
• Psychology
• Economic growth
• Geography
• Development economics
• Finance
• Virology
• Social psychology
• Political economy

Selected publications

• The Tariff Trap: Why Funding Health Programs Through Tariffs Harms Both Health and Democracy

  World Medical & Health Policy · 2026-04-06

  articleOpen access1st authorCorresponding

  ABSTRACT In 2025, the Trump Administration imposed significant tariffs on imports to the US as part of aggressive trade negotiations with other countries. Tariffs have important impacts on health that include increases in the prices that consumers and businesses pay for goods and potential damage to global supply chains. The Administration also pushed foreign governments to change their domestic policies on issues such as pharmaceutical pricing, claiming that other countries' policies are responsible for high US drug prices. Some US politicians celebrated new tariff revenues, suggesting that they could be used to support key health programs and welfare payments to individuals and farmers. We argue that funding health programs through tariffs has negative consequences for health and for democracy. US tariffs are likely to have harmful effects on the global economy and America's relationship with other countries. Tariff decisions are being determined via a process that is not fully democratic: the US Executive cannot redirect tariff revenue to fix policy problems at will without Congressional authorization, and absent Congressional scrutiny, this process is not transparent or accountable. And tariffs are a regressive tax, hurting people on the lowest incomes the most through increased prices. Even at 2025 levels, tariff revenues are unlikely to ever be a substantial, sustainable source of funding for key health programs and are instead likely to be targeted at core Trump supporters only.

  PublisherDOI

• Introduction: Health Politics and Democracy

  Journal of Health Politics Policy and Law · 2026-02-12

  articleOpen access1st authorCorresponding
  PublisherOA PDFDOI

• Reduced-nicotine cigarettes for smoking cessation and reduction

  Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · 2026-03-04

  article

  OBJECTIVES: This is a protocol for a Cochrane Review (intervention). The objectives are as follows: To evaluate the benefits and harms of using reduced-nicotine cigarettes, compared with standard cigarettes, in people who smoke. To evaluate the benefits and harms of smoking cessation or reduction interventions used as an adjunct to reduced-nicotine cigarettes in people who smoke, compared with the same interventions delivered without reduced-nicotine cigarettes.

  PublisherDOI

• Flavored vapes led to a major shake-up at the FDA – 3 health policy analysts explain the science behind the controversial products

  2026-05-18

  article
  PublisherDOI

• Safeguarding the Responsible Use and Equitable Benefit-Sharing of Biotechnology in an Age of Scientific Modernization

  NATO science for peace and security series. A, Chemistry and biology · 2026-01-01

  book-chapter
  PublisherDOI

• EURO-DOGE by stealth? Concerning developments in the (de)funding of European health civil society

  European Journal of Public Health · 2025-07-08 · 1 citations

  articleOpen access
  PublisherOA PDFDOI

• The second Trump administration: A policy analysis of challenges and opportunities for European health policymakers

  Health Policy · 2025-05-18 · 14 citations

  reviewOpen access

  • The Trump administration presents European health with threats and opportunities. • We analyse impacts of U.S. actions on health financing, resources, and governance. • Cuts to US research, foreign aid, and WHO role create opportunities for Europe. • US actions threaten health finance, research, governance, and supply chains. • EU-European divergence could create risks. The second Trump administration has already made major changes in US policies that affect health and health systems worldwide. We use the Health Systems Performance Assessment categories developed by the European Observatory on Health Systems and Policies to identify areas in which US actions affect the health systems and policies of European states and the EU, and presidential Executive Orders supplemented by campaign statements to understand US actions. We identify relevant US policies in the areas of finance, resource generation (regulation, vaccines, artificial intelligence, workforce, research, education) and governance (geopolitical turbulence, climate change, US departure from the World Health Organization, and foreign aid). We then identify opportunities for states or the EU to strengthen their health systems, potential threats that might arise to their health systems from US actions, and serious confirmed threats. The second Trump administration is creating heavy demands on European governments in many areas, which might undermine their fiscal capacity and willingness to fund health systems or new ventures, but diminished US investment in areas such as multilateralism, pandemic response, research, education, and aid (especially in areas such as gender and reproductive health) all create opportunities for European policymakers to strengthen their health systems, health-related economic sectors, and influence in global health governance.

  PublisherDOI

• The impacts of e‐cigarette flavours: An overview of systematic reviews

  Addiction · 2025-02-25 · 6 citations

  reviewOpen access

  BACKGROUND AND AIMS: E-cigarette flavours have the potential to impact the appeal, harms and use of e-cigarettes and combustible tobacco. Systematic reviews have synthesised evidence on their impacts but have always focused on specific outcomes or populations. This overview aimed to draw together syntheses from past systematic reviews of e-cigarette flavours to provide a holistic, population-wide view. METHODS: Overview of systematic reviews investigating the impacts of e-cigarette flavours on any outcome. We searched six databases to February 2024, and appraised reviews using AMSTAR2. We used association direction plots and narratively synthesised results. RESULTS: We included 32 reviews (11 higher quality; 21 lower). Reviews reported impacts of e-cigarette flavours on: appeal/perceptions of vaping (13 reviews); harms (12); smoking (7); and vaping (13) behaviours. Availability of non-tobacco e-cigarette flavours may increase the appeal of (8 reviews) and motivation to try/continue using e-cigarettes (5) and decrease harm perceptions (5). There were no clear differences in impacts based on age or history of combustible tobacco use, and little difference in findings between higher and lower quality reviews. Two reviews indicated that among adolescents, experimenting with different flavours increased e-cigarette appeal. Twelve reviews indicated that a range of specific flavours (including cinnamon, menthol and various sweet/fruity flavours) may be harmful; this often came from in vitro experiments and chemical analyses. Findings were inconclusive on the impact of e-cigarette flavours on smoking cessation (six reviews not showing clear impact), smoking initiation (two reviews not showing clear impact) and vaping initiation (two reviews showing increased initiation and two not showing clear impact). CONCLUSIONS: Non-tobacco flavourings for e-cigarettes may increase e-cigarette appeal and harms; this increase may vary by flavour and apply across different population groups. The impacts of e-cigarette flavours on e-cigarette and cigarette use are inconclusive.

  PublisherOA PDFDOI

• Draining the Swamp: The Local Governance of Mosquito Borne Diseases in Florida

  Urban Affairs Review · 2025-05-08 · 4 citations

  article1st authorCorresponding

  Public health capacity can be placed in local public health departments or alternative bureaucracies. Provision of local services through special district (SD) governments has been widely studied in local politics. What have not been examined are the implications of SD governance for the provision of public health services. Public health services are often categorically different from other types of local government services because they address problems affecting the entire local population. Siloing public health governance may influence not only agency capacity to carry out tasks, but the effectiveness and equity of public health solutions. We examine SD governance of local mosquito control in Florida, to analyze differences in policy-design and implementation between SDs and non-SDs across counties. SDs are primarily located in wealthy districts, have substantially greater resources, and provided over limited, sub-county, service-areas. Jurisdictions outside of SD service-provision often have no local mosquito control governance, relying on intergovernmental services.

  PublisherDOI

• Oral nicotine pouches for cessation or reduction of use of other tobacco or nicotine products

  Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · 2025-10-24 · 3 citations

  reviewOpen access

  RATIONALE: Oral nicotine pouches (ONP) emerged in the late 2000s, but have gained popularity since their introduction to the global market in 2016, with claims about their harm reduction potential. OBJECTIVES: Primary objectives • To evaluate the benefits and harms of ONP when used to help people transition away from combustible tobacco use (smoking). • To evaluate the impact of ONP on the prevalence of combustible tobacco use. Secondary objectives • To evaluate the benefits and harms of ONP when used to help people transition away from other non-combustible tobacco/commercial nicotine product use. • To evaluate the impact of ONP on the prevalence of use of other non-combustible tobacco/commercial nicotine products. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, and PsycINFO from 2000 to 13 January 2025. We also covered ClinicalTrials.gov and the WHO ICTRP through our search of CENTRAL. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of ONP in people using tobacco or other non-combustible tobacco/non-pharmaceutical nicotine products. RCTs must have reported tobacco/nicotine use at 4+ weeks or biomarkers or adverse events at 1+ weeks. We also sought interrupted/multiple time-series studies of ONP's population-level effects on the prevalence of use of other tobacco/nicotine products. OUTCOMES: Our critical outcomes were: smoking abstinence at 4+ weeks; number of people reporting serious adverse events (SAEs) at 1+ weeks; and change in the prevalence of smoking. Important outcomes included tobacco-specific nitrosamines (TSNAs), carboxyhaemoglobin (COHb), metals, and inflammatory markers detected in human biosamples. RISK OF BIAS: We used the Cochrane RoB 1 tool to assess risk of bias. SYNTHESIS METHODS: to quantify statistical heterogeneity. Where meta-analysis was not possible, we graphically plotted available data in forest plots. We used risk ratios (RR) for dichotomous outcomes and mean differences (MD) or standardised mean differences (SMD) for continuous outcomes, with 95% confidence intervals (CI). We assessed the certainty of evidence using GRADE. INCLUDED STUDIES: We included four small studies (n < 150 for each, total n = 284; 3 independent, 1 industry-funded; 3 at high risk of bias and 1 at unclear risk of bias). All were RCTs in people who smoked combustible cigarettes at baseline. Three were conducted in the USA, and one in New Zealand. Two compared higher- versus lower-nicotine dose ONP. Two compared ONP to instructions to continue smoking as usual. One each compared ONP to electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes), snus, and pharmaceutical nicotine replacement therapy (NRT). SYNTHESIS OF RESULTS: = 0%; 77 participants; evidence certainty not assessed). COHb Based on one study, there may be lower levels of COHb with ONP compared to instructions to continue smoking (MD -6.7%, 95% CI -8.33 to -5.07; 53 participants; very low-certainty evidence (risk of bias and imprecision)), but the evidence is very uncertain. When comparing higher- versus lower-dose ONP, the same study found very slightly lower levels in the higher-dose group, with the 95% CI incorporating the possibility of no difference (MD -0.40%, 95% CI -1.19 to 0.39; evidence certainty not assessed). No studies reported on prevalence, inflammatory markers, metals, or use of tobacco/nicotine products other than cigarettes. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is limited evidence on the use of ONP for cessation or reduction of cigarette use. There is no evidence on the use of ONP for cessation or reduction of other tobacco or nicotine products or on the effects of ONP on prevalence of tobacco use/nicotine vaping. Low-certainty evidence suggests that people randomised to ONP may be slightly less likely to quit smoking than those randomised to e-cigarettes, but data were from one small study and therefore imprecise. Limited, short-term data did not identify any serious health harms from ONP when used to help people transition away from tobacco smoking. More research on the effects of ONP for cessation or reduction of use of other tobacco or non-pharmaceutical nicotine products is urgently needed. Future trials should prioritise comparing ONP to other active interventions (e.g. NRT and e-cigarettes). FUNDING: This Cochrane review was funded by the National Cancer Institute of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and FDA Center for Tobacco Products (CTP) under Award Number 2U54CA229974. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the NIH or the Food & Drug Administration. REGISTRATION: Registration: Cochrane, via protocol available via DOI:10.1002/14651858.CD016220.

  PublisherOA PDFDOI

Recent grants

• EAGER: International Type II: Classifying the Causes, Consequences, and Lessons of Resilience Within International Scientific Collaboration

  NSF · $300k · 2021–2024

Frequent coauthors

• Scott L. Greer

  University of Michigan–Ann Arbor

  59 shared

• Luis F. Luna‐Reyes

  Rockefeller University

  18 shared

• Djoko Sigit Sayogo

  16 shared

• Martin McKee

  London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine

  16 shared

• David F. Andersen

  University at Albany, State University of New York

  12 shared

• Tamara Hervey

  City, University of London

  11 shared

• Sarah Rozenblum

  Cornell University

  11 shared

• Deborah Lines Andersen

  11 shared

Education

• PhD Political Science, Department of Government

  London School of Economics and Political Science

  2009

• Postgraduate Certificate in Higher Education, Government

  London School of Economics and Political Science

  2008

• MRes Political Science, Government

  London School of Economics and Political Science

  2006

• BA Hon British Politics and Legislative Studies, Politics

  University of Hull

  2002