Error message

The page you requested does not exist. For your convenience, a search was performed using the query what we do special interest groups clinical ethics.

Page not found

You are here

Get it out of me! (Dec-05)

A 5% chance of death or a 10% chance of death:  which would you choose?

Imagine that you have been diagnosed with a slow growing cancer. Right now, the cancer is not causing you to feel sick. For most people, the cancer will grow so slowly it will never cause them any trouble. For others, the cancer will grow to the point that it makes them sick. Untreated, five percent (5 out of 100) will die of the cancer. Your doctor tells you that you have two treatment options: watchful waiting or surgery. Watchful waiting means you will not do any treatment right away, but your doctor will follow your cancer closely and treat any symptoms that you have if it begins to spread. Although it would be too late to be cured, you would be comfortable and free of pain. There are no side effects to watchful waiting, but five percent (5 out of 100) of the people who choose this treatment will develop symptoms and die from their cancer within five years. On the other hand, the surgery would cure your cancer permanently. Following surgery you will feel more tired than usual and will experience stomach upset occasionally for the three months following your surgery. However, surgery has a ten percent (10 out of 100) risk of death during the surgery.

Imagine that both of these treatments are completely covered by your health insurance. Which would you choose?

  •  I would not take the surgery and accept the 5% chance of dying from this cancer.
  •  I would take the surgery and accept the 10% chance of dying from the surgery.

How do your answers compare?

In the real world, cancer patients sometimes choose treatments that may have devastating side effects over less invasive, yet equally or more effective, approaches. One explanation for this is that people may feel a strong need to "get the cancer out" of their bodies. Surgical removal of all potentially cancerous tissues may satisfy this desire so thoroughly that people end up ignoring important statistical information about adverse outcomes.

Making a choice not in their best interest

CBDSM investigators Angela Fagerlin, Brian Zikmund-Fisher, and Peter Ubel hypothesized that people perceive cancer diagnoses as a call to action, and more specifically, a call to get rid of the cancer through surgery, regardless of what statistical information might say to the contrary. Consequently, they predicted that when presented with hypothetical cancer diagnoses, many people would say they would pursue surgery even if such an action would decrease their chance of survival.

To explore the relative frequency of people's willingness to choose surgery when it wasn't in their best interest, the investigators designed a cancer scenario similar to the one you read on the previous page. Participants were presented either a surgery or a medication treatment that would either increase or decrease their chance of survival.

The investigators found that participants who were presented with the opportunity to rid themselves of their cancer through surgery were significantly more inclined to take action than those who were presented with the medication treatment. For example, when the treatment reduced their overall chance of survival, 65% chose the surgery, whereas only 38% chose the medication treatment. This suggests that people's treatment decisions may be based not on the effectiveness of the treatments, but rather on their beliefs about how cancer should be treated. Specifically, cancer diagnoses seem to conjure up a strong desire for active treatment. And people seem to have an intuitive belief that action should not just involve treatment, but surgical removal of the cancer.

Why these findings are important

The results of this study may resonate with many clinicians who have encountered cancer patients who seem to desire treatment for treatment's sake, or who have a preference for surgical intervention even before they learn about the pros and cons of their treatment alternatives. This study should serve to remind clinicians that patients' preference for action can be strong enough, at times, to be a bias. At a minimum, it is important for health care professionals to be aware of the potential for such biases, so they can decide whether to accept patients' preferences at face value, or try to convince patients that aggressively treating a tumor may not be in their best interests.

Read the article:

Cure me even if it kills me: Preferences for invasive cancer treatment.
Fagerlin A, Zikmund-Fisher BJ, Ubel PA. Medical Decision Making 2005;25(6):614-619.

Funded by Society of  Family Planning.

Funding Years: 2014

When abortion access is not legally and readily available, the health consequences for women are dire. However, contemporary abortion debate is so politicized that health consequences of abortion restrictions have receded to the background.

While it is important that physicians who are abortion-providers educate legislators and the public about evidence-based abortion care, they can be dismissed as having professional or financial conflicts of interest. In addition, their public advocacy may put them at risk of harassment or violence. Physicians who are not themselves abortion providers are less vulnerable to these claims and are well-positioned to move the health consequences of restrictive abortion policy to the center of legislative debates and public discourse.

The aim of this project is to explore the willingness/unwillingness of Michigan physicians across a range of medical specialties to speak openly about health consequences of restrictive state-level abortion laws. Further, the project will determine what kinds of tools or support would be necessary to mobilize physicians to do so.

We will conduct 6-8 focus groups with a total of 50 Michigan physicians who support legal abortion (though may oppose abortion personally) to determine what factors would influence their involvement in abortion advocacy. We will explore attitudes towards writing letters-to-the-editor/op-ed pieces in state publications; meeting with legislators; providing testimony in legislative hearings; raising their voices in their practices/academic departments/medical societies.

Focus groups will be recorded and transcribed, and we will perform qualitative analysis using Dedoose to identify salient themes. These data will help us determine if mobilizing physicians who are not abortion providers is a feasible strategy in responding to state-level restrictive legislation, and determine the kinds of support and toolkits necessary to do so. Our data may identify new strategies for responding to the proliferation of state-level abortion restrictions.

PI(s): Lisa Harris

 

The CBSSM Research Colloquium will be held Wednesday, April 27, 2016 at the Founders Room, Alumni Center, 200 Fletcher Street, Ann Arbor, MI 48109.

The CBSSM Research Colloquium will feature the Bishop Lecture in Bioethics as the keynote address.  This year CBSSM is delighted to announce that William Dale, MD, PhD will present the Bishop Lecture with a talk entitled: "Why Do We So Often Overtreat, Undertreat, and Mistreat Older Adults with Cancer?"

William Dale, MD, PhD is Associate Professor of Medicine and Chief, Section of Geriatrics & Palliative Medicine & Director, SOCARE Clinic at the University of Chicago. A geriatrician with a doctorate in health policy and extensive experience in oncology, Dr. Dale has devoted his career to the care of older adults with cancer -- particularly prostate cancer. Dr. Dale has a special interest in the identification and treatment of vulnerable older patients who have complex medical conditions, including cancer. He is actively researching the interactions of cancer therapies with changes associated with aging.

Abstract submissions are welcome from all disciplines both within UM, as well as other institutions.

Click here for more details.

 

The Google of Healthcare: Kayte Spector-Bagdady

Wed, March 14, 2018, 2:00pm to 3:30pm
Location: 
Hatcher Graduate Library Gallery (913 S. University Avenue)

The Google of Healthcare: Making Big Data Work for—As Opposed to Against—Our Patients’ Best Interest
Pesenter:  Kayte Spector-Bagdady

Our data are collected at every turn: where we drive, who we email, what we google, what we buy. Perhaps a last bastion of expected privacy protections surrounds our health data—but while some systems (like healthcare providers) have stringent governance, others (like wellness apps) do not. Ready access and linkage of medical information can help us provide better care to our patients, but it can also serve to harm, alienate, and erode trust. This talk will explore how health data are currently being collected and by who, as well as ways we can both serve and protect our patients in the future.

Kayte Spector-Bagdady, JD, MBE, is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology at the University of Michigan Medical School and the Service Chief of the Research Ethics Service in the Center for Bioethics and Social Sciences in Medicine (CBSSM). She is a former drug and device attorney and Associate Director of President Obama’s Presidential Commission for the study of Bioethical Issues.

Emergent Research Series: The Google of Healthcare w/Kayte Spector-Bagdady

Wed, March 14, 2018, 2:00pm to 3:30pm
Location: 
Hatcher Graduate Library Gallery (913 S. University Avenue)

The Google of Healthcare: Making Big Data Work for—As Opposed to Against—Our Patients’ Best Interest

Our data are collected at every turn: where we drive, who we email, what we google, what we buy. Perhaps a last bastion of expected privacy protections surrounds our health data—but while some systems (like healthcare providers) have stringent governance, others (like wellness apps) do not. Ready access and linkage of medical information can help us provide better care to our patients, but it can also serve to harm, alienate, and erode trust. This talk will explore how health data are currently being collected and by who, as well as ways we can both serve and protect our patients in the future.

Kayte Spector-Bagdady, JD, MBE, is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology at the University of Michigan Medical School and the Service Chief of the Research Ethics Service in the Center for Bioethics and Social Sciences in Medicine (CBSSM). She is a former drug and device attorney and Associate Director of President Obama’s Presidential Commission for the study of Bioethical Issues.

Sorry, Doc, that doesn't fit my schedule (Feb-04)

Patients sometimes skip treatments because they just feel too busy. What should physicians do when their patients ignore their recommendations?

Imagine you are a businessperson who works long hours and you are on your way up to having a successful and lucrative career. You have a major business deal that will consume nearly all of your time over the upcoming month and your boss is relying on you to make sure the deal goes through. This is your chance to really make your mark and show your corporation that you are the kind of person that can handle deals as big as this one. Also suppose you have been smoking on and off for 25 years. You know it's a bad habit that could destroy your lungs, but you just can't quite kick it. Lately, you have been feeling tired, you have been experiencing chest pains when you are really busy at work and when you exercise, and you have had trouble breathing when climbing a flight of stairs. The chest pains are usually relieved by a little rest, but you decide it's time to get this examined by a doctor.

One day after work, you go to see Dr. Coral, who gives you a stress test and determines that you'll need an appointment for an angiogram to better evaluate your coronary arteries. Fortunately, you find one free day right before things get hectic at work, so you schedule the angiogram. Now imagine you have just had the angiogram and you are recovering in a paper gown waiting for Dr. Coral to come back with the results. Dr. Coral enters the room to speak with you and he has a serious look on his face. He says,

"I have both good and bad news for you. The angiogram shows that your 3 main coronary arteries are all severely blocked. The good news is that we caught this before you had a major heart attack."

"The bad news is that I am recommending you have triple bypass surgery as soon as possible. Your heart is working overtime, and it is just a matter of time until it gives out."

The news is shocking, but in addition to your health concerns, you also have the business deal to worry about. This deal is an opportunity to make a name for yourself, and your boss has been very vocal that he was counting on you, trusting that you'd be the one for the job. You find yourself having to weigh your work ambitions against the recommendation from Dr. Coral because if you get surgery, there is no way you'd be able to take on your current work responsibility.
 
Which of the following decisions would you be most likely to make?
 
  • I would put aside Dr. Coral's recommendation and instead take responsibility at work for the current deal. I'll wait to have surgery in about a month.
  • I would follow Dr. Coral's recommendation by having surgery immediately, even though this forfeits the current opportunity at work.

A little feedback on what you chose.

It's not that physician's don't care about your other values, but they are primarily concerned about your health, and you might not even have lived long enough to finish the business deal if you didn't have this surgery immediately. This does, however, bring up an important fact: patient's do sometimes reject their physician's medical judgment, and it can be at a great cost to their health.
 
Why should a patient be part of the decision-making process?
 
Why shouldn't Dr. Coral just tell you that you need surgery and leave no alternative? Efforts to share decision-making with patients are important because they acknowledge patients' rights to hold views, to make choices, and to take actions based on personal values and beliefs. In addition to being ethically-sound, this shared decision-making process also leads to improved patient health outcomes.
 
What can a physician do to help the patient choose surgery?
 
To answer this question, first it needs to be emphasized that in order for a patient to be able to participate in the decision-making process, the patient must be able to soundly make decisions. This sounds abstract and subjective, but it can be broken down into something a little more concrete. Decision-making capacity (DMC) is based on four guidelines:
 
The patient is able to:
 
  • understand the information about the condition and the choices available;
  • make a judgment about the information in keeping with his or her personal values and beliefs;
  • understand the potential outcomes or consequences of different choices; and
  • freely communicate his or her wishes
Based on these four elements, it is possible to see what a physician can do to help facilitate a "good" health decision. In order to make sure a patient fully understands the situation, a physician can ask him or her to state their understanding of the problem and of the treatment options. Also, a physician should use clear and unambiguous language with the patient at all times. Although a report might be quite clear from a physician's perspective, a patient might not be as clear about all the details. In the situation you were asked to imagine, Dr. Coral should tell you that you will die without this surgery and that waiting is not a safe option.
Also, there might be other factors keeping a patient from following a physician's recommendation. Again, in your hypothetical situation, your boss was putting a lot of pressure on you not to let him down. Also, this decision would potentially have an effect on your advancement at work. You might not have felt free to elect surgery even if you knew it was the only good decision for your health. By directly acknowledging and addressing a patients' concerns, physicians may facilitate a decision for the surgery.
 
In conclusion, if a physician feels that a patient is not able to fulfill one or more of the elements of DMC then his or her ability to make that decision should be brought into question and surrogate decision makers should be sought. For more serious decisions, the standards for DMC should be higher than for less important decisions or those with less significant outcome differences among the choices.
 
For more information see:

 

Should this patient get a liver transplant? (Nov-08)

There aren't enough donor organs to go around for patients who need aliver transplant. This sometimes forces doctors to make tough choices.If you were the doctor, how would you decide in the following scenario?  There aren't enough donor organs to go around for patients who need a liver transplant. This sometimes forces doctors to make tough choices. If you were the doctor, how would you decide in the following scenario?Suppose there is a person who develops acute liver failure (ALF). While waiting for a liver transplant, this person gets sicker and sicker. When an organ is finally available, the chance that this person will survive WITH a transplant is only 42% at five years after the transplant. Since the average survival for most patients who receive a liver transplant is 75% at five years, the doctor wonders if it would be better to save the liver for someone else. Two possible ethical principles may guide the doctor in making this decision. 

Using the principle of URGENCY, the doctor would give the first available organ to the sickest patient on the transplant waiting list, the ALF patient, because she/he is otherwise likely to die within a few days.

Using the principle of UTILITARIANISM, the doctor would try to maximize the quality and quantity of life of all the people on the transplant list. Let's say there are 25 other patients currently on the waiting list, and transplanting the ALF patient increases their risk of death by 2% each, for a cumulative harm of 50%. Since this harm of 50% is more than the benefit to the ALF patient (42%), the liver should be saved for someone else on the list.

A third possibility is for the doctor to weigh both URGENCY and UTILITARIANISM in making a decision about a transplant.

If you were the ALF patient's doctor, what would you base your decision about a transplant on?
 
  • URGENCY (sickest patient on the list gets preference)
  • UTILITARIANISM (maximize benefit for the entire waiting list)
  • A combination of URGENCY and UTILITARIANISM

How do your answers compare?

There's no absolutely right or wrong answer in this case—the choice depends on which of several competing ethical principles or which combination of principles you follow. In choosing a combination of URGENCY and UTILITARIANISM, you've decided to try to balance the needs of the sickest patient with the needs of all the people on the transplant waiting list.

CBDSM researcher Michael Volk, MD, is the lead author on a recent article that tackles difficult decisions like this one. Volk and his colleagues examined a method to incorporate competing ethical principles in a decision analysis of liver transplantation for a patient with ALF. Currently, liver transplantation in the United States is determined by the principle of “sickest first," with patients at highest risk for death on the waiting list receiving first priority. In other words, the principle of URGENCY is paramount. However, most experts agree that, given the limited supply of organs, there should be a cutoff for posttransplant survival below which transplantation is no longer justified.

Where does society draw this line? And what framework can we use for ethical guidance?

Decision analysis of resource allocation would utilize the principle of UTILITARIANISM, to maximize the broad social benefit. But surveys of the general public have shown that most people prefer to temper utilitarianism with other considerations, such as equal opportunity, racial equity, and personal responsibility. Another factor that might be considered is the principle of fair chances. This is the idea that patients who have not had a chance at a liver transplant should receive priority over those who have already had once chance at a transplant.

Volk constructed a mathematical model (Markov model) to test the use of competing ethical principles. First he compared the benefit of transplantation for a patient with ALF to the harm caused to other patients on the waiting list, to determine the lowest acceptable five-year survival rate for the transplanted ALF patient. He found that giving a liver to the ALF patient resulted in harms to the others on the waiting list that cumulatively outweighed the benefit of transplantation for the ALF patient. That is, using UTILITARIANISM as the sole guiding ethical principle gave a clear threshold for the transplant decision: if the ALF patient did not have a five-year survival rate of at least 48%, she/he should not receive a transplant under this principle.

But UTILITARIANISM is not always the sole guiding ethical principle. When Volk adjusted the model to incorporate UTILITARIANISM, URGENCY, and other ethical principles such as fair chances, he got different thresholds. Depending on the combination of ethical principles used, Volk and his colleagues have shown that the threshold for an acceptable posttransplant survival at five years for the ALF patient would range from 25% to 56%.

The authors of this study conclude:

"Our model is an improvement over clinical judgment for several reasons. First, the complexity of the various competing risks makes clinical decision making challenging without some form of quantitative synthesis such as decision analysis. Second, a systematic approach helps ensure that all patients are treated equally. Most important, this study provides moral guidance for physicians who must simultaneously act as patient advocates and as stewards of scarce societal resources."

Volk ML, Lok ASF, Ubel PA, Vijan S, Beyond utilitarianism: A method for analyzing competing ethical principles in a decision analysis of liver transplantation, Med Decis Making 2008;28, 763-772.

Online: http://mdm.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/28/5/763

More information:

Beyond utilitarianism: A method for analyzing competing ethical principles in a decision analysis of liver transplantation.
Volk M, Lok AS, Ubel PA, Vijan S. Medical Decision Making 2008;28(5):763-772.

 

Supporting information for: 2017 CBSSM Research Colloquium and Bishop Lecture (Norman Daniels, PhD)


"Setting priorities for Medicaid: The views of minority and underserved communities"
Presenter: Susan Goold, MD, MHSA, MA


Co-authors: Lisa Szymecko, JD, PhD; H. Myra Kim, ScD; Cengiz Salman, MA; A. Mark Fendrick, MD; Edith Kieffer, MPH, PhD; Marion Danis, MD, Zachary Rowe, BBA


Setting priorities for state Medicaid programs challenges policy makers. Engaging beneficiaries affected by tradeoffs could make allocations more just and more sensitive to their needs. 

Academic-community partnerships adapted the simulation exercise CHAT (CHoosing All Together) to engage community members in deliberations about Medicaid spending priorities.  After an informational video about Medicaid, individuals and deliberating groups choose from a menu of spending options constrained by limited resources. We randomly assigned participants from low-income communities throughout Michigan to participate in CHAT with (n=209) or without group deliberations (n=181) in English, Spanish or Arabic. Data collection included pre- and post-CHAT individual priorities and group priorities.

Low-income participants ranged from 18 to 81 years old (Mean 48.3); 61.6% were women. Over half (56.7%) self-identified as white, 30.8% African-American, 17.3% Hispanic, 9.2% Native American, and 12.1% Arab, Arab-American or Chaldean. Most (65.9%) had a chronic condition and 30.3% reported poor or fair health.

Before CHAT, most participants prioritized eligibility consistent with Medicaid expansion. They also prioritized coverage for a broad range of services. Most accepted daily copays for elective hospitalization (71.6% deliberators, 67.9% controls) and restricted access to specialists (60.2% deliberators, 57.4% controls). Deliberators were more likely than controls to increase, after deliberations, what they allocated to mental health care (between arm difference in allocation=0.22, p=.03) and eligibility (between arm difference in allocation=0.18, p=.04). Deliberating groups also prioritized eligibility; only 3 of 22 chose pre-expansion eligibility criteria, and 9 of 22 chose to expand eligibility further.

Members of underserved communities in Michigan put a high priority on Medicaid expansion and broad coverage. When given the opportunity to deliberate about priorities,  participants increased the priority given to expanded eligibility and coverage for mental health services.


"How Acceptable Is Paternalism? A Survey-Based Study of Clinician and Non-clinician Opinions on Decision Making After Life Threatening Stroke"
Presenter: Kunal Bailoor, MD Candidate


Co-authors: Chithra Perumalswami, MD, MSc; Andrew Shuman, MD; Raymond De Vries, PhD; Darin Zahuranec, MD, MS


Complex medical scenarios may benefit from a more paternalistic model of decision making. Yet, clinicians are taught to value patient autonomy, especially at the end-of-life. Little empirical data exist exploring opinions on paternalism.

Methods: A vignette-based survey exploring surrogate decision making after hemorrhagic stroke was administered to clinicians (faculty, residents, and nurses) at an academic health center, and non-clinicians recruited through a university research volunteer website. The cases involved an urgent decision about brain surgery, and a non-urgent decision about continuation of life support one week after stroke. Respondents rated the acceptability of paternalistic decision making, including clinicians not offering or making an explicit recommendation against the treatment, on a 4 point Likert scale.

Results: Of 924 eligible individuals, 818 (649 non-clinicians, 169 clinicians) completed the survey (completion rate 89%).  A minority of respondents (15.3%) found it acceptable not to offer surgery. Most believed it was acceptable to make an explicit recommendation that would likely result in death (73% for avoiding surgery, 69% for stopping the ventilator). Clinicians were more likely than non-clinicians to consider not offering surgery acceptable (30% vs 11%, p<0.0001). Clinicians were more likely to consider recommendations against surgery acceptable (82% vs 71%, p=0.003) and to consider recommendations to discontinue the ventilator acceptable (77% vs 67%, p=0.02). There were no differences between the nurse and physician acceptability ratings (p=0.92).

Conclusions: Clinicians and the lay public differ on the acceptability of paternalistic decision making. Understanding these differences are vital to improving communication between clinicians, patients, and families.


"Ethical Challenges Faced by Providers in Pediatric Death: A Qualitative Thematic Analysis"
Presenter: Stephanie Kukora, MD


Co-authors: Janice Firn, PhD, MSW; Patricia Keefer, MD; Naomi Laventhal, MD, MA
 

Background: Care providers of critically ill patients encounter ethically complex and morally distressing situations in practice. Though ethics committees guide ethical decision-making when conflicts arise in challenging cases, they rarely address routine needs of individual providers. Without ethics education, providers may lack skills necessary to resolve these conflicts or insight to recognize these dilemmas.

Objective: We sought to identify whether providers remark on ethical dilemmas/moral distress without being specifically prompted, when asked to comment on a recent in-hospital pediatric death. We also sought to characterize the nature of dilemmas or distress if found.

Methods: Providers involved in a deceased child’s care in the 24 hours prior to death were electronically surveyed. Questions included demographic information and free-text response. Free-text responses were thematically analyzed in Dedoose.

Results: There were 307 (35%) free-text responses in 879 completed surveys (33% total response rate), regarding the deaths of 138 patients (81% of in-hospital pediatric deaths) from November 2014 to May 2016. Multidisciplinary care team members from diverse hospital units were represented. 52 respondents described ethical challenges and/or moral distress. Disagreement/regret was a major theme, with subthemes of futility, suffering, and “wrong” medical choice made. Failure of shared decision-making was also a major theme, with subthemes of autonomy and best interest, false hope, denial, and misunderstanding/disagreement between the family and medical team. Some providers revealed personal ethical struggles pertaining to their role, including medication provision for pain at the end of life, struggling to be “truthful” while not divulging information inappropriate for their role, and determining when providing comfort care is ethically permissible.

Discussion/Conclusion: Providers experience ethical conflicts with pediatric end-of-life care but may be unwilling or unable to share them candidly. Education assisting staff in identifying and resolving these dilemmas may be helpful. Further support for providers to debrief safely, without criticism or repercussions, may be warranted.


"Capacity for Preferences:  An overlooked criterion for resolving ethical dilemmas with incapacitated patients"
Presenters: Jason Adam Wasserman, PhD; Mark Navin, PhD
 

Clinical bioethics traditionally recognizes a hierarchy of procedural standards for determining a patient’s best plan of care. In broad terms, priority is given first to autonomous patients themselves and then to surrogates who utilize substituted judgments to choose as they believe the patient would have chosen. In the absence of good information about what the patient would have wanted, clinical ethicists typically retreat to the “best interest” standard, which represents a relatively objective assessment designed to maximize benefits and/or minimize harms.  In this paper, we argue that “capacity for preferences” is a conceptually distinct and morally salient procedural standard for determining a patient’s best plan of care.  We build our argument on the grounds that 1) that many patients who lack decisional capacity can nevertheless reliably express preferences (an empirical claim); 2) these preferences are distinct from best interest and not reducible to best interest considerations; 3) that capacity for preferences, at a minimum, has moral valence for situations in which best interest is undetermined (and we argue this happens more frequently than commonly recognized); and, finally, 4) that capacity for preferences in incapacitated patients lacking reliable or valid surrogates might even subvert a best interest course of action in some cases.  Some precedent for our analysis can be found in the concept of pediatric assent. However, the idea that patient preferences matter morally has broad application for adult patients, including for those with advanced dementia and other mental illnesses that preclude capacity for decision-making.

Check out this Risk Bites YouTube video co-presented by Brian Zikmund-Fisher entitled “What have feelings got to do with risk?

Tue, January 10, 2017

Jeffrey Kullgren was recently featured in the Michigan Medicine article, "What do health plan deductibles really mean for people with chronic illness? New study takes a look." Dr. Kullgren co-authored a JAMA Internal Medicine Research Letter, which reports that even “low” deductible plans can mean high out-of-pocket costs for many Americans.

Pages