Jenny joined CBSSM in July 2017. She works with Dr. Geoff Barnes on projects focused on improving care for patients on anticoagulants by addressing barriers to medication adherence and patient, physician, and hospital staff communication.
Page not found
Sam joined CBSSM in November 2017. She works with Drs. Julie Wright, Michele Gornick, and Renuka Tipirneni on projects examining provider-patient communication regarding chronic kidney disease, VA data sharing, and the effect of Medicaid expansion on healthcare for low-SES aging adults.
CBSSM Faculty, Kayte Spector-Bagdady, Ray De Vries, and Lisa Harris, along with Lisa Low recently co-authored a Hastings Center Report article, "Stemming the Standard-of-Care Sprawl" about clinician self-interest and the case of electronic fetal monitoring.
Link to article here.
Funded by Robert Wood Johnson Foundation
Funding Years: 2014 - 2016.
The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation Clinical Scholars Program at the University of Michigan has established a rigorous curriculum, with enhanced and mentored research practicum and exciting opportunities to engage in community-based and partnered participatory research. The curriculum is based on adult learning theory and integrates research theory and practical applications. This curriculum will fulfill requirements for a Master's Degree in Health and Health Care Research, a degree program that was designed specifically to meet the needs of the Clinical Scholars at the University of Michigan. These above courses make up the central components of the first year of Clinical Scholars Program at the University of Michigan. The second year of the Clinical Scholars Program is primarily devoted to research, with the Scholars' Research Committee continuing as an advisory committee. Education in the second year focuses more closely to each Scholar's specific needs. In the second year the Scholars also participate in a "Work-in-Progress Seminar" led by one of the Program Directors. Throughout all years of the program, Scholars participate in the Clinical Scholars noon health Seminar. This is a weekly 1.5 hour seminar which will alternate between presentation of research findings by Scholars, faculty, or invited guests, and presentations about health policy by Michigan faculty and invited guests. All Scholars are expected to attend the seminar each week, as well as the CSP Leadership, most Core Faculty, and selected guests.
PI(s): Rodney Hayward
Co-I(s): Matthew Davis, Gary Freed, Mary Ellen Heisler, Timothy Hofer, Joel Howell, Theodore Iwashyna, Eve Kerr, Joyce Lee, Richard Lichtenstein, Laurence McMahon Jr, Caroline Richardson, Mary AM Rogers, Sanjay Saint, Antonius Tsai, Michael Volk, Sara Waber
Do you think that your life is worth more than the amount that the government usually uses as the maximum to spend to provide one year of life?
Imagine that you are a member of a government panel that is trying to decide how cost-effective a medical treatment must be in order for the government to cover the costs of the treatment. Suppose that a certain treatment could provide one additional year of life to an otherwise healthy person. What is the highest amount the government should be willing to pay per person for this treatment?
How do your answers compare?
For the past twenty years, the figure most often used as the maximum amount to spend to provide one year of life has been $50,000. This figure was originally proposed since it was the cost of a year of kidney dialysis, a lifesaving treatment that the U.S. government funds in Medicare.
Should the number be higher or lower than the current standard?
Conventional wisdom would suggest that the number be higher to take into account the inflation that has occurred in the years since the standard was developed. Current practices such as annual Pap smear screening for women with low risk for cervical cancer, which has a cost of $700,000 per year of life gained, also suggest that society is willing to pay more than the current standard for a year of life. The authors of the cited article recommend, based on current treatment practices and surveys of the general public, that the cost-effectiveness threshold should be revised to be around $200,000.
Should the number increase, decrease, or stay the same over time?
Again, it seems that the threshold amount should increase over time due to inflation. However, other factors come in to play that affect the value.
Since new technologies are emerging all the time, some of which will be deemed cost-effective, there will be more and more treatments to be offered in the future. Also, the rate of use of treatments is an important consideration, because even if a new treatment is more cost-effective than an old one, if it is used more often it will end up costing more to society overall. With more treatments becoming available and more people being given treatments, the threshold cost will probably have to decrease so that insurance companies and the government can keep up with the increasing availability and demand.
Why is this important?
Insurance companies and government health care entities face a continuing struggle when trying to determine which medical treatments to cover. Health care costs are increasing rapidly, so these groups will be facing even tougher decisions in the future. Establishing cost-effectiveness guidelines would be extremely helpful as an aid to making the decisions about treatment coverage. Evidence shows that the current threshold is probably not an accurate reflection of the desires of society or actual prescribing practices. It needs to be adjusted to become useful once again, and must be reevaluated periodically to make sure the value keeps up with trends in the health care market, rather than being left alone without question for two decades as is the current situation.
For more information see:
Ubel PA, Hirth RA, Chernew ME, Fendrick AM. What is the price of life and why doesn't it increase at the rate of inflation? Archives of Internal Medicine. 163:1637-1641, 2003.
The Center for Bioethics and Social Sciences in Medicine (CBSSM) Research Colloquium was held Wednesday, April 27, 2016 at the Founders Room, Alumni Center, 200 Fletcher Street, Ann Arbor, MI 48109.
The CBSSM Research Colloquium featured the Bishop Lecture in Bioethics as the keynote address. William Dale, MD, PhD presented 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.
The 2016 Research Colloquium Presentation Schedule:
- 8:30 AM -- Check in & refreshments
- 9:00 AM -- Welcome
- 9:05 AM -- Katrina Hauschildt, MA, PhD Candidate, Department of Sociology: "Language and Communication as Professionalization Projects in Clinical Ethics Consultation"
- 9:30 AM -- Devan Stahl, PhD, Assistant Professor of Clinical Ethics, MSU: "Is there a right not to know?"
- 9:55 AM -- Chithra Perumalswami, MD MSc, Robert Wood Johnson Foundation/Veterans Affairs Clinical Scholar: "Insurance Status of Elderly Americans and Location of Death"
- 10:20 AM -- Break
- 10:35 AM -- William Dale, MD, PhD, 2016 Bishop Lecture in Bioethics: "Why Do We So Often Overtreat, Undertreat, and Mistreat Older Adults with Cancer?"
- 12:00 PM -- Lunch
- 12:45 PM -- Lauren B. Smith, M.D., Associate Professor, Department of Pathology/Ginny Sheffield, UM Medical Student (M3): "Special treatment for the VIP patient: Is it ethical? Is it dangerous?"
- 1:10 PM -- Naomi Laventhal, MD, MA, Assistant Professor, Department of Pediatrics and Communicable Diseases: "Roman Charity Redux: The Moral Obligations of the Breastfeeding Physician"
- 1:35 PM -- Archana Bharadwaj, Graduate Student, UM School of Public Health: "Patient understanding and satisfaction regarding the clinical use of whole genome sequencing: Findings from the MedSeq Project"
- 2:00 PM -- Kayte Spector-Bagdady, JD, MBioethics, CBSSM Postdoctoral Research Fellow: "Direct‐to‐Consumer Biobanking"
- 2:25 PM -- Break
- 2:40 PM --Panel Presentation (Susan Goold, MD, MHSA, MA & colleagues) : "Community engagement in setting research priorities: Representation, Participation and Evaluation"
- Why (and how) was CBPR supported in DECIDERS?
- How were communities represented in DECIDERS decision making?
- Why and how was the partnership evaluated?
- How were the 47 focus groups engaged in setting research priorities?