Error message

The page you requested does not exist. For your convenience, a search was performed using the query news events news 2016 11 09.

Page not found

You are here

2017 Bishop Lecture featuring Norman Daniels, PhD

Tue, April 25, 2017, 11:15am
Location: 
Great Lakes Room, Palmer Commons, 100 Washtenaw Ave, Ann Arbor, MI 48109

The 2017 Bishop Lecture in Bioethics was presented by Norman Daniels, PhD, Mary B Saltonstall Professor and Professor of Ethics and Population Health in the Department of Global Health and Population at Harvard School of Public Health. Dr. Daniels presented a talk entitled, "Universal Access vs. Universal Coverage: Two models of what we should aim for." The Bishop Lecture served as the keynote address during the CBSSM Research Colloquium.

Abstract: We contrast two models of health care insurance, the Universal Coverage model underlying the Affordable Care Act and the Universal Access model underlying the (now withdrawn) American Health Care Act. Our goal is to evaluate the strongest argument for the Universal Access model. That model suggests that if people have real choices about health care insurance, some will buy it and some will not, and no one should be mandated to buy it. We argue that the Universal Access model presupposes that people can afford insurance, and that means subsidizing it for millions of people as the Universal Coverage model underlying the ACA does. These costs aside, the strongest argument for the Universal Access model is that giving people true choice may make the population level of well-being higher. Some people will have other priorities that they prefer to pursue, especially if they can free ride by enjoying the benefits of a system that provides health care without their contributing to it. If the additional costs that third parties have to pay as a result of the increase in real choice are significant, then the strongest argument for Universal access fails: the benefits of choosing not to be insured are outweighed by the imposed costs on others from these choices.

Norman Daniels, PhD is Mary B. Saltonstall Professor of Population Ethics and Professor of Ethics and Population Health in the Department of Global Health and Population at the Harvard School of Public Health. Formerly chair of the Philosophy Department at Tufts University, his most recent books include Just Health: Meeting Health Needs Fairly (Cambridge, 2008); Setting Limits Fairly: Learning to Share Resources for Health, 2nd edition, (Oxford, 2008); From Chance to Choice: Genetics and Justice (2000); Is Inequality Bad for Our Health? (2000); and Identified versus Statistical Lives (Oxford 2015). He has published 200 peer-reviewed articles and as many book chapters, editorials, and book reviews. His research is on justice and health policy, including priority setting in health systems, fairness and health systems reform, health inequalities, and intergenerational justice. A member of the IOM, a Fellow of the Hastings Center, and formerly on the ethics advisory boards of the CDC and the CIHR, he directs the Ethics concentration of the Health Policy PhD at Harvard and recently won the Everett Mendelsohn Award for mentoring graduate students.

  • Click here for the video recording of the 2017 Bishop Lecture.

2018 Bishop Lecture featuring Barbara Koenig, PhD

Tue, May 01, 2018, 11:15am
Location: 
Henderson Room, Michigan League, 911 N. University Avenue, Ann Arbor, MI

The 2018 Bishop Lecture in Bioethics was presented by Barbara Koenig, PhD, Professor of Bioethics and Medical Anthropology and Director of UCSF Bioethics at the University of California, San Francisco. Professor Koenig presented a talk entitled, " Does Enhancing Individual Choice and Control Promote Freedom? Challenges in Contemporary Bioethics." The Bishop Lecture serves as the keynote address during the CBSSM Research Colloquium.

Abstract: Over the past three decades, the discipline of bioethics has advocated for enhanced patient choice and control over a range of medical decisions, from care near the end of life to participation in clinical research. Using two current policy challenges in California—1) the advent of legally sanctioned medical aid in dying and, 2) efforts to share UC Health “big data” from the electronic health record in research with private sector partners—Professor Koenig will explore how current bioethics practices may unintentionally and ironically impede our shared goals of promoting human freedom.

Barbara A. Koenig, PhD is Professor of Bioethics and Medical Anthropology, based at the Institute for Health & Aging, University of California, San Francisco. She is the Director of “UCSF Bioethics,” a nascent program that spans ethics research, clinical ethics, and ethics education across the university’s four professional schools. Prof. Koenig pioneered the use of empirical methods in the study of ethical questions in science, medicine, and health. Prof. Koenig’s current focus is emerging genomic technologies, including biobanking policy and using deliberative democracy to engage communities about research governance. Her work has been continuously funded by the National Institutes of Health since 1991. Currently, she: 1) directs the ELSI component of a NICHD award focused on newborn screening in an era of whole genome analysis, 2) is P.I. of UCSF’s Program in Prenatal and Pediatric Genomic Sequencing (P3EGS), part of the CSER2 national network, and, 3) is supported by NCI to conduct an “embedded ethics” study of the Athena “Wisdom” PCORI-funded clinical trial of genomic risk-stratified breast cancer prevention. Previously, she directed an NHGRI-funded “Center of Excellence” in ELSI Research. Prof. Koenig was the founding executive director of the Center for Biomedical Ethics at Stanford University; she created and led the Bioethics Research Program at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn. She received her Ph.D. from the University of California, Berkeley and San Francisco joint program in Medical Anthropology. She is an active participant in policy, having served on the ethics committee that advises the director of the CDC and the Department of Health and Human Services “Secretary’s Advisory Committee on Genetic Testing.” She recently served on a state-wide “Health Data Governance Task Force” which advised UC’s president.

Click here for the video recording of the 2018 Bishop Lecture.

Funded by Department of Health and Human Services - National Institutes of Health Subcontracts

Funding Years: 2014.

Promoting physical activity and decreasing sedentary behavior are key goals in the fight against cancers; physical activity is associated with lower risk of several cancers [1-10], and lower overall morbidity and mortality [11-26]. Thus, theory-driven initiatives to change these behaviors are essential [1-10, 26-40]. PQ#3 highlights the necessity for new perspectives on the interplay of cognitive and emotional factors in promoting behavior change. Current theories, which focus primarily on predictors derived from self-report measures, do not fully predict behavior change. For example, recent meta-analyses suggest that on average, variables from the Theory of Planned Behavior account for ~27% of the variance in behavior change [41, 42]. This limits our ability to design optimally effective interventions [43], and invites new methods that may explain additional variance. Our team has shown that neural activation in response to health messages in hypothesized neural regions of interest can double the explained variance in behavior change, above and beyond self-reports of attitudes, intentions, and self-efficacy [44, 45]. We now propose a next leap, inspired by PQ3, to identify how cognitive and affective processes interact in the brain to influence and predict behavior change. Our core hypothesis is that the balance of neural activity in regions associated with self-related processing versus defensive counterarguing is key in producing health behavior change, and that self-affirmation (an innovative approach, relatively new to the health behavior area [46]) can alter this balance. Self-affirmation theory [47] posits that people are motivated to maintain a sense of self-worth, and that threats to self-worth will be met with resistance, often i the form of counterarguing. One common threat to self-worth occurs when people are confronted with self-relevant health messages (e.g. encouraging less sedentary behavior in overweight, sedentary adults). This phenomenon speaks to a classic and problematic paradox: those at highest risk are likely to be most defensive and least open to altering cancer risk behaviors [48]. A substantial, and surprisingly impressive, body of evidence demonstrates that affirmation of core-values (self-affirmation priming) preceding messages can reduce resistance and increase intervention effectiveness [46, 49-53]. Uncovering neural mechanisms of such affirmation effects [46], has transformative potential for intervention design and selection. To test our conceptual assumptions and core hypothesis we will: (1) Identify neural signals associated with processing health messages as self-relevant versus counterarguing; (2) Test whether self-affirmation alters the balance of these signals; (3) Use these neural signals to predict physical activity behavior change, above and beyond what is predicted by self-report measures alone. Our approach is innovative methodologically (using fMRI to understand and predict behavior change), and conceptually (self-affirmation may dramatically increase intervention effectiveness). Benchmarks will include objectively measured decreases in sedentary behavior in affirmed vs. control subjects (using accelerometers), and increases in predictive capacity afforded by neuroimaging methods, compared to self-report alone.

PI(s): Thad Polk

Co-I(s): Lawrence An, Sonya Dal Sin, Kenneth Resnicow, Victor Strecher

2019 Bishop Lecture featuring Ruha Benjamin, PhD

Wed, May 22, 2019, 11:15am
Location: 
Forum Hall, Palmer Commons, 100 Washtenaw Ave, Ann Arbor, MI 48109

The 2019 Bishop Lecture in Bioethics was presented by Ruha Benjamin, PhD. Dr. Benjamin presented a talk entitled, “Black Afterlives Matter: Reimagining Bioethics for an Ailing Body Politic." The Bishop Lecture serves as the keynote address during the CBSSM Research Colloquium.

Ruha Benjamin is Associate Professor of African American Studies at Princeton University, where she serves on the executive committees of the Center for Digital Humanities and Center for Global Health and Health Policy, and is an Associate Faculty member in the Center for Information Technology Policy, Center for Health and Wellbeing, Program in History of Science, Gender and Sexuality Studies Program, and Department of Sociology.

Ruha’s work investigates the social dimensions of science and technology with a focus on the relationship between innovation and inequity, health and justice, knowledge and power.

She is the author of People’s Science: Bodies and Rights on the Stem Cell Frontier (Stanford University Press 2013); Race After Technology (Polity 2019); and editor of Captivating Technology: Reimagining Race, Carceral Technoscience, and Liberatory Imagination in Everyday Life (Duke University Press 2019) among numerous other publications.

Ruha is also the recipient of fellowships from the American Council of Learned Societies, National Science Foundation, and Institute for Advanced Study among others, and in 2017 she received the President’s Award for Distinguished Teaching at Princeton.

For more info, please visit ruhabenjamin.com

This year's Colloquium and Bishop Lecture was co-sponsored by the Institute for Research on Women & Gender (IRWG) and the Science, Technology, and Society (STS) Program.

Abstract: In this talk, I expand the frame of health and illness and broaden the terrain of bioethics, moving beyond a focus on individual bodies to the social patterns and politics that produce premature death. By engaging the idiom of “afterlife” in relation to Black existence in the United States, this talk grapples with the multiple ways in which life after death and debt are stratified. Especially when it comes to Black maternal health -- so often the site of trauma and neglect – we must consider a full range of life-affirming practices that implicate the body politic writ large. In this way, I also want to shift from diagnosis to remedy. Yes, subordination, subjugation, subaltern, literally “under the earth,” racialized populations are buried people. But there is a lot happening underground. Not only coffins, but seeds, roots and rhizomes. And maybe even tunnels and other lines of flight to new worlds, where alternative forms of kinship and collective wellbeing have room to grow. Will you imagine with me?

Click here for the video recording of the 2019 Bishop Lecture.

 

The Privileged Choices (Jan-08)

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.

Scenario 1

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?

  • Yes
  • No

Scenario 2

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?

  • Yes 
  • No

Scenario 3

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?

  • Yes 
  • No

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.

CBSSM Seminar: Paul A. Lombardo, PhD, JD

Thu, September 22, 2016, 3:00pm to 4:00pm
Location: 
NCRC Building 16, Conference Rm 266C

Paul A. Lombardo, PhD, JD
Regents' Professor and Bobby Lee Cook Professor of Law
Georgia State University College of Law

"From Psycographs to FMRI: Historical Context for the Claims of Neuroscience"

Abstract: In the U.S., announcement of the Presidential “Brain Initiative” has focused attention on “revolutionizing our understanding of the human brain” And neuroscience has begun to replace genetics as the field most likely to fill press headlines. The promise of more research funding for the field has led to extraordinary claims that research will soon lead to mind reading, lie detection, and unlocking the brain-based foundations of virtue and character. But these claims echo similar assertions from a century ago, many of which were eventually discarded as quackery, eugenics or misguided pseudoscience. Then the power of phrenology was touted, and machines like the “Psycograph” were offered to “thoroughly and accurately” measure “the  powers of intellect, affect and will.” Today similarly expansive claims are being made for color-coded functional magnetic resonance imagery. Are we facing true scientific triumph or mere recycled hyperbole? This presentation will explore the historical echoes of today’s most extravagant claims in the field of neuroscience, and analyze how our actual understanding of mental functioning compares to the hopeful assertions that are filling both the lay press and scientific journals.

CBSSM Seminar: Jeff Kullgren, MD, MS, MPH

Wed, October 19, 2016, 3:00pm to 4:00pm
Location: 
NCRC Building 16, Conference Rm 266C

Jeff Kullgren, MD, MS, MPH
Assistant Professor, Internal Medicine

Consumer Behaviors among Americans in High-Deductible Health Plans 
More than 1 in 3 Americans with private health insurance now face high out-of-pocket expenditures for their care because they are enrolled in high-deductible health plans (HDHPs), which have annual deductibles of at least $1,300 for an individual or $2,600 for a family before most services are covered.  Though it is well known that HDHPs lead patients to use fewer health services, what is less known is the extent to which Americans who are enrolled in HDHPs are currently using strategies to optimize the value of their out-of-pocket health care spending such as (1) budgeting for necessary care, (2) accessing tools to select providers and facilities based on their prices and quality, (3) engaging clinicians in shared decision making which considers cost of care, and (4) negotiating prices for services.  Such strategies could be particularly helpful for people living with chronic conditions, who are even more likely to delay or forego necessary care when enrolled in an HDHP.  In this seminar we will examine these issues and review preliminary results from a recent national survey of US adults enrolled in HDHPs that aimed to determine how often these strategies are being utilized and how helpful patients have found them to be, which patients choose to use or not use these strategies and why, and identify opportunities for policymakers, health plans, and employers to better support the growing number of Americans enrolled in HDHPs.

Lesly Dossett, MD, MPH

Faculty

Dr. Lesly Dossett MD, MPH is Assistant Professor of Surgery in the Division of Surgical Oncology at the University of Michigan. Dr. Dossett is an Honors Program and Summa Cum Laude graduate of Western Kentucky University. She earned her medical degree at Vanderbilt University School of Medicine in 2003, attending on a United States Navy Health Professions Scholarship. She completed general surgery residency at Vanderbilt University Medical Center in 2010, where she served as Administrative Chief Resident.

Last Name: 
Dossett

Masahito Jimbo, MD, PhD, MPH

Faculty

Masahito Jimbo is Professor of Family Medicine and Urology at the University of Michigan. Having worked as a family physician in both urban (Philadelphia) and rural (North Carolina) underserved areas, he has first-hand knowledge and experience of the challenges faced by clinicians and healthcare institutions to be successful in providing patient care that is personal, comprehensive, efficient and timely. Initially trained in basic laboratory research, having obtained his MD and PhD degrees at Keio University in Tokyo, Japan, Dr.

Last Name: 
Jimbo

A New Drug for the New Year (Jan-04)

Out with the old drugs and in with the new! How is your doctor prescribing for you?

Imagine that you are a physician and your patient is a 55-year-old white male with high blood pressure. He has no other medical problems, is on no medications, and has completed a 1-year program of diet and exercise to control his condition, but his blood pressure remains elevated at 170/105 (140/90 is the definition of high blood pressure).

As his physician, you have to decide on a medication to prescribe him in order to lower his blood pressure. You have the following options to choose from:

Diuretics: Diuretics are medications that lower blood pressure by getting rid of excess fluid in your body, making it easier for your heart to pump. They were first introduced in the 1950s.

Beta-blockers: Beta-blockers are medications that lower blood pressure by helping the heart to relax and pump more effectively, and by also reducing heart rate. They were first introduced in the 1960s.

ACE inhibitors: Angiotensin converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors are medications that lower blood pressure by widening blood vessels and increasing blood flow. They were first introduced in 1981.

Calcium channel blockers: Calcium channel blockers are medications that lower blood pressure by relaxing blood vessels, reducing the heart's workload, and increasing the amount of blood and oxygen that reach the heart. They were also first introduced in 1981.
 
What type of medication would you prescribe this patient?
 
  • A diuretic
  • A beta-blocker
  • An ACE inhibitor
  • A calcium channel blocker

How do you compare to the physicians surveyed?

Of the physicians surveyed, 18% chose the same medication as you did. 38% chose an ACE inhibitor, 29% chose a beta-blocker, and 11% chose a calcium channel blocker. Most physicians chose an ACE inhibitor, a newer type of medication, rather than beta-blockers or diuretics, which are older types of medication.

Why is this important? When asked how they made their decision, the majority of physicians believed that diuretics were less effective and that beta-blockers were less likely to be tolerated by a patient's body than the other medications. However, a number of important studies have shown that beta-blockers and diuretics are as effective at lowering blood pressure as newer medications like ACE inhibitors and calcium channel blockers. Studies have also shown that beta-blockers and diuretics are equally or even better tolerated than the newer types of medications. Yet, the use of beta-blockers and diuretics has declined steadily in the past 15 years in favor of the newer and more expensive types of medications.

Why do physicians believe these things when the studies say otherwise?

The answer to this question is not fully known. One possibility is that physicians may be prescribing newer medications because these are the medications actively promoted by pharmaceutical companies. By providing free samples of the newer medications for physicians to give to patients, these companies may be influencing which medications physicians actually decide to prescribe. To test this possibility, after physicians had decided between diuretics, beta-blockers, ACE inhibitors, and calcium channel blockers, they were asked if they ever provide their patients with free medication samples from these companies to treat their high blood pressure. It was found that physicians who used free samples were more likely to believe that ACE inhibitors are more effective. This isn't proof that physicians are influenced by pharmaceutical companies when prescribing medication for high blood pressure, but it does urge us to seriously consider if physicians may need to be re-educated about the effectiveness and tolerability of beta-blockers and diuretics.

For more information see:

Ubel, PA, Jepson, C, Asch, DA. Misperceptions about beta-blockers and diuretics. Journal of General Internal Medicine, 18, 977-983. 2003.

 

Pages