Error message

The page you requested does not exist. For your convenience, a search was performed using the query news events press coverage 2016 02 04.

Page not found

You are here

Journeys in Genetics: Ethical, Legal, and Social Implications

Tue, September 27, 2016, 3:00pm
Location: 
2610 SPH I

Journeys in Genetics: Ethical, Legal, and Social Implications
with Toby Citrin, J.D. and Scott Roberts, Ph.D.


September 27, 2016
3:00 - 4:00 p.m.
2610 SPH I
1415 Washington Heights
Ann Arbor, MI 48109-2029


Sponsored by Certificate Program in Public Health Genetics 20th Anniversary Seminar Series


"Journeys in Genetics" is an interactive series of seminars that will highlight the unique personal and professional paths that the Certificate Program in Public Health Genetics (CPHG) faculty members have traversed throughout their careers in the field of public health genetics. In this seminar, Professor Citrin will describe a phone call from Detroit's Mayor in 1970, a request from Francis Collins in the early '90s, creation of the Center for Public Health and Community Genomics in 2001, and projects engaging minority communities in learning about genetics and helping to shape policies to guide the field. Professor Roberts will discuss his research program on how individuals appraise and respond to personal genetic information in contexts including genetic susceptibility testing for Alzheimer's disease, cancer genomics, and direct-to-consumer genetic testing.

Tanner Caverly and colleagues performed a systematic review to determine how U.S. cancer prevention and screening recommendations present the potential benefits and harms associated with the procedures. They found that 69% of recommendation statements either did not quantify benefits and harms or presented them in an asymmetric manner. They conclude that improved presentation of benefits and harms in guidelines would better ensure that clinicians and patients have access to the information required for making informed decisions.

Caverly TJ, Hayward RA, Reamer E, Zikmund-Fisher BJ, Connochie 2, Heisler M, Fagerlin A. Presentation of Benefits and Harms in US Cancer Screening and Prevention Guidelines: Systematic Review. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2016 Feb 24;108(6). pii: djv436. doi: 10.1093/jnci/djv436.
 

Research Topics: 

Edward Goldman, JD, BA

Faculty

From 1978 to 2009, Ed was head of the U-M Health System Legal Office.  In 2009 he moved into the Medical School Department of ObGyn as an Associate Professor to work full-time on issues of sexual rights and reproductive justice.  He has teaching appointments in the Medical School, the School of Public Health, the Law School, and LSA Women's Studies.  He teaches courses on the legal and ethical aspects of medicine at the Medical School, the rules of human subjects research at the School of Public Health and reproductive justice in LSA and the Law School..  In 2011, Ed went to Ghana and helpe

Research Interests: 
Last Name: 
Goldman

What is the price of life? (Aug-03)

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.

Bioethics Grand Rounds: Janice Firn, MSW; Andrew Shuman, MD; Christian Vercler, MD

Wed, January 27, 2016, 12:00pm
Location: 
UH Ford Amphitheater & Lobby

"Implementation of the Program in Clinical Ethics"

Janice Firn, MSW; Andrew Shuman, MD; Christian Vercler, MD

Abstract: The Program in Clinical Ethics within the Center for Bioethics and Social Sciences in Medicine represents an expansion of existing services designed to promote a culture of patient-centered excellence by developing a comprehensive set of ethics-related activities at UMHS. We will introduce and outline the projects and services available to all members of the UMHS Community.

PIHCD: Jessica Mellinger

Thu, February 11, 2016, 4:00pm
Location: 
B004E NCRC Building 16

Alcoholic liver disease represents a large and growing portion of the liver disease in the US and worldwide, and the most powerful treatment shown to improve outcomes for patients with ALD is complete abstinence from alcohol.  Unfortunately, many patients with ALD continue to drink or relapse to alcohol use, even after their diagnosis, worsening liver-related outcomes and  mortality. Jessica Mellinger will be speaking about her K award project to improve outcomes for patients with ALD by developing and testing a pilot intervention designed to increase engagement in alcohol use disorder treatment.

CBSSM Seminar: Jason Rose, PhD (Toledo)

Wed, March 09, 2016, 3:00pm to 4:00pm
Location: 
NCRC, Building 16, Room 266C

Jason Rose, PhD
Associate Professor
University of Toledo

Title: “Decisions, Decisions: The Impact of Treatment Choice on Health-Related Outcomes”

Abstract: From selecting a health care provider to choosing among an array of over-the-counter treatment options, choice has become a ubiquitous element of health care. Using an experimental, lab-based approach, the current research examines how, why, and when treatment choice impacts health-related outcomes (e.g., pain, discomfort).

 

Thu, March 03, 2016

In an interview with MedicalResearch.com, Dr. Sarah Hawley discusses her new study regarding breast cancer patients' understanding of risk. She states, "Research has shown that breast cancer patients do not have a good understanding of their risk of distant recurrence, and and that the fear of cancer spreading is one of the biggest concerns that patients have. The research that has been done shows that most patients over-esimate this risk, and think they have a bigger chance of the cancer coming back than they actually have."

CBSSM Seminar: Michael D. Fetters, MD, MPH, MA

Thu, April 14, 2016, 3:00pm to 4:00pm
Location: 
NCRC Building 16, Conference Rm 266C

Michael D. Fetters, M.D., M.P.H., M.A.
Professor, University of Michigan
Co-Director, Michigan Mixed Methods Research and Scholarship Program
Director, Japanese Family Health Program
Co-Editor, Journal of Mixed Methods Research

"Mixed methods research approaches for empirical medical ethics”

Abstract: Mixed methods research involves the integration of qualitative and quantitative methodology. The purpose of this presentation is to illustrate potential applications of mixed methods methodology for conducting empirical medical ethics research.

Emily Chen, MA

Research Associate

Emily Chen joined CBSSM in February 2016 and works with Drs. Julie Wright and Darin Zahuranec on several grant funded research projects on developing decision aids and family perspectives in decision making. Prior to moving to Michigan, Emily worked on several studies regarding mindfulness and cognitive styles at Harvard University. Emily received her BS in Atmospheric Science and a certificate in Neurobiology and Cognitive Science from National Taiwan University. She went on to receive her MA in Psychology from Boston University.

Last Name: 
Chen

Pages