Jeff DeWitt completed a PhD in Social Psychology in 2017 while working in Dr. Gretchen Chapman's Medical Decision Making Lab at Rutgers University. Broadly, Jeff's research is focused on the interplay between social cognition and behavioral decision making with an emphasis on healthcare applications. In particular, he has investigated how our representations and predictions of others' beliefs and goals can influence our own in altruistic medical contexts such as whether to donate blood or receive a flu shot.
Page not found
Jodyn Platt, MPH, PhD, Assistant Professor of Learning Health Sciences, has been named a University of Chicago MacLean Fellow.
As part of the one year Cancer Genomics and Ethics Big Data Science Fellowship she will receive clinical training in the Medical Ethics Summer Intensive Program and conduct a research project with Olufunmilayo Olopade, MD, FACP, Director of the Center for Clinical Cancer Genetics at University of Chicago Medicine.
Platt explains how her work as a fellow will begin: "I would like to systematically observe and interview individuals involved in shaping how data evolves and moves from the patient encounter to the big data enterprise and back to clinical care." Looking forward to expanding her network over the course of the year, she plans "to engage in, and lead, interdisciplinary scholarship that will ensure the revolution in healthcare delivery brought on by big data and cancer genomics is an ethical one."
Platt is also the organizer of the upcoming ELSI-LHS symposium on November 15th at U-M which explores the “Ethical, Legal and Social Implications of Learning Health Systems”.
Jennifer joined CBSSM in August 2017. She works with Dr. Susan Goold and community partners on grant funded research projects related to evaluating Medicaid expansion and its impact on beneficiaries through the Healthy Michigan Plan and ways in which to engage minority and underserved communities in setting priorities for community health.
Peter Jacobson, J.D., M.P.H.
Professor of Health Law and Policy
Director, Center for Law, Ethics, and Health
Title: Addressing Health Equity Through Health in All Policies Initiatives.
Scholars and public health advocates have expressed optimism about the potential for Health in All Policies (HiAP) initiatives to improve both health equity and population health. HiAP is a collaborative approach across multiple sectors. In a qualitative study to assess these concepts, we found considerable variation across the sites on: how HiAP and equity initiatives are defined and governed; the integration of equity as a core goal; institutional capacity; and the determination of actual policy changes. We found a general migration from a HiAP-centered strategy to one based more on health equity. Regardless of the specific nomenclature, the implementation focus was directed more toward changing practices than policies.
CBSSM was well-represented at the annual American Society for Bioethics & Humanities (ASBH) in Kansas City, MO (Oct 19-22) and the Society for Medical Decision Making (SMDM) in Pittsburgh, PA (Oct 22-25).
At ASBH, Andrew Shuman, Susan Goold, Kayte Spector-Bagdady, Janice Firn, Kerry Ryan, Michele Gornick, Stephanie Kukora, Naomi Laventhal, and Christian Vercler presented.
At SMDM, Michele Gornick, Sarah Hawley, and Dean Shumway presented. Several CBSSM alumni also presented.
Roi Livne, PhD
Assistant Professor, Sociology
Title: “The New Economy of Dying: Palliative Care, Morality, and Finance in the Age of Excess”
Abstract: This talk argues that over the past 40 years, a new economy has emerged around end-of-life care: one seeking to control, cap, and limit both spending and treatment near the end of life. Built around the expertise of Hospice and Palliative Care, this economy draws on the moral conviction that near the end of life, less treatment (and consequently, less spending) is better. Based on a historical analysis and ethnographic fieldwork in three California hospitals, Livne examines the interactive work that palliative care clinicians do with severely ill patients and their families, trying to facilitate their voluntary consent to pursue less life-sustaining and life-prolonging treatments.
Joseph joined CBSSM as a Research Area Specialist in November 2017. As a project manager, he coordinates the daily operations of Dr. Jeffrey Kullgren’s project “Provider, Patient, and Health System Effects of Provider Commitments to Choose Wisely,” a grant funded research project using novel approaches to reduce the overuse of low-value services in healthcare.
Professionalism, Ethical Obligations, and the Moral Imperative of Self-Care
Healthcare providers are inevitably called to participate in and bear witness to emotionally challenging cases. Combined with time constraints, competing responsibilities, the urgent nature of these cases, healthcare providers risk burnout. The consequences of burnout have been shown to be increased staff turnover, substandard patient outcomes and increased likelihood for errors. As part of competent clinical practice, healthcare providers must not only attend to the needs of the patient and family but also themselves. However, a tension exists between making enough time for patients and taking enough time for oneself. But, engaging in self-care activities can help address clinician distress; this practice is essential for remaining compassionate, providing competent patient care services, and avoiding harm. Healthcare providers, therefore, have an ethical duty to engage in personal self-care. This presentation makes a case for why self-care is a key component of competent clinical practice. Several ways in which a lack of self-care can undermine professional competence, thus risking burnout and poor patient outcomes, are discussed. Strategies for recognizing and addressing burnout are also reviewed.
What's the difference between opting in and opting out of an activity? Who decides if people will be put automatically into one category or another? Click this interactive decision to learn how default options work.
Imagine that you're a US Senator and that you serve on the Senate's Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions. The Infectious Diseases Society of America has come before your committee because they believe that too many health care workers are getting sick with influenza ("flu") each year and infecting others. As a result, your Senate committee is now considering a new bill that would require that all health care workers get annual influenza vaccinations ("flu shots") unless the worker specifically refuses this vaccination in writing.
Do you think you would support this bill for mandatory flu shots for health care workers?
Imagine that you're the human resources director at a mid-sized company that's initiating an employee retirement plan. Management is concerned that many employees are not saving enough for retirement. They're considering a policy that would automatically deduct retirement contributions from all employees' wages unless the employee fills out and submits a form requesting exemption from the automatic deductions.
Do you think a policy of automatic retirement deductions is reasonable for your company to follow?
Organ transplants save many lives each year, but there are always too many deserving patients and too few organs available. To try to improve the number of organs available for donation, the state legislature in your state is considering a new policy that all people who die under certain well-defined circumstances will have their organs donated to others. The system would start in three years, after an information campaign. People who do not want to have their organs donated would be given the opportunity to sign a refusal of organ donation when they renewed their drivers' licenses or state ID cards, which expire every three years. Citizens without either of these cards could also sign the refusal at any drivers' license office in the state. This is a policy similar to ones already in place in some European countries.
Does this seem like an appropriate policy to you?
How do your answers compare?
For many decisions in life, people encounter default options-that is, events or conditions that will be set in place if they don't actively choose an alternative. Some default options have clear benefits and are relatively straightforward to implement, such as having drug prescriptions default to "generic" unless the physician checks the "brand necessary" box. Others are more controversial, such as the automatic organ donation issue that you made a decision about.
Default options can strongly influence human behavior. For example, employees are much more likely to participate in a retirement plan if they're automatically enrolled (and must ask to be removed, or opt out) than if they must actively opt in to the plan. Researchers have found a number of reasons for this influence of default options, including people's aversion to change.
But default options can seem coercive also. So, an Institute of Medicine committee recently recommended against making organ donation automatic in the US. One reason was the committee's concern that Americans might not fully understand that they could opt out of donation or exactly how they could do so.
The policy scenarios presented to you here have been excerpted from a 2007 article in the New England Journal of Medicine titled "Harnessing the Power of Default Options to Improve Health Care," by Scott D. Halpern, MD, PhD, Peter A. Ubel, MD, and David A. Asch, MD, MBA. Dr. Ubel is the Director of the Center for Behavioral and Decision Sciences in Medicine.
This article provides guidance for policy-makers in setting default options, specifically in health care. Generally, default options in health care are intended to promote the use of interventions that improve care, reduce the use of interventions that put patients at risk, or serve broader societal agendas, such as cost containment.
In this NEJM article, the researchers argue that default options are often unavoidable-otherwise, how would an emergency-room physician decide on care for an uninsured patient? Many default options already exist but are hidden. Without either returning to an era of paternalism in medicine or adopting a laissez-faire approach, the authors present ways to use default options wisely but actively, based on clear findings in the medical literature.
Some examples of default policies that may improve health care quality:
- routine HIV testing of all patients unless they opt out.
- removal of urinary catheters in hospital patients after 72 hours unless a nurse or doctor documents why the catheter should be retained.
- routine ventilation of all newly intubated patients with lung-protective settings unless or until other settings are ordered.
Drs. Halpern, Ubel, and Asch conclude, "Enacting policy changes by manipulating default options carries no more risk than ignoring such options that were previously set passively, and it offers far greater opportunities for benefit."
Read the article:
Harnessing the power of default options to improve health care.
Halpern SD, Ubel PA, Asch DA. New England Journal of Medicine 2007;357:1340-1344.