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 11.

Page not found

You are here

Funded by Health and Human Services, Department of-Agency for Health Care Research and Quality

Funding Years: 2014-2016

This grant aims to engage communities, particularly underserved communities, in informed deliberations about current and potential changes to Medicaid eligibility, coverage, and cost-sharing. Building on community-based research partnerships state-wide, we will convene a Steering Committee including community leaders, researchers, decision makers in private healthplans and the Michigan Department of Community Health (MDCH) and other stakeholders. We will adapt an innovative, award-winning web-based simulation exercise, CHAT (CHoosing All Together, usechat.org) in which individuals and groups make tradeoffs between competing needs for limited resources. Options in Medicaid-CHAT may include variations in covered benefits; out-of-pocket spending; population health and public health programs; rewards for healthy behaviors; and quality improvement activities. We will facilitate deliberations throughout the state, disproportionately sampling medically underserved communities and balancing locale (urban, suburban, rural and remote rural) and sociodemographic characteristics, ensuring inclusion of particular perspectives, e.g., those with chronic illness and those who are or will soon be eligible for Medicaid coverage or dually eligible.

We will prepare policy briefs describing the views of Michigan citizens about Medicaid eligibility, coverage, and cost-sharing and implications for policy. We aim to communicate Medicaid priorities of communities and the policy implications to state leaders, community leaders, insurers, and other stakeholders. We will examine the impact of public engagement on participants’ knowledge, attitudes, and priorities, and explore the impact on policy decisions.

We will also evaluate the effect of deliberations including a key element of deliberative procedures – representation.

PI(s): Susan Goold, MD, MHSA, MA

Co-I(s): A. Mark Fendrick, MD; Hyungjin Kim, PhD; Richard Lichtenstein, MD

Oxford University Press has published Evaluation of Capacity to Consent to Treatment and Research, by CBSSM's Co-director Scott Kim, MD, PhD. The book is part of the series Best Practices in Forensic Mental Health Assessment. For further information about this volume, click here.

Thu, December 08, 2016

Reshma Jagsi, MD, discusses the risk of complications on patients receiving radiation therapy if they've had implant reconstruction. Radiation therapy may affect outcomes of breast construction, and more is needed to help patients make informed choices.

San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium (SABCS) Presentation Title: Impact of radiotherapy on complications and patient-reported satisfaction with breast reconstruction: Findings from the prospective multicenter MROC study

CBSSM was well-represented at the Wednesday's Researchpalooza. Kerry Ryan, Nicole Exe and Valerie Kahn (not pictured) spoke to hundreds of faculty, staff, students, and others about the great work we do here at CBSSM!

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.

The Center for Bioethics and Social Sciences in Medicine (CBSSM) Research Colloquium will be held Wednesday, April 17, 2013 at the Founders Room of the Alumni Center, 200 Fletcher Street, Ann Arbor, MI.

Click here to register for the Colloquium!

Click here for the Colloquium Schedule and Presentation Abstracts.

More details about the CBSSM Research Colloquium and Bishop Lecture can be found at the Events page.

 

 

Please visit the events page of the CBSSM website to view the video of the February 1, 2012, talk and panel discussion, "Ethical Imperialism: The Case Against IRB Review of the Social Sciences," featuring Dr. Zachary Schrag of George Mason University; Dr. Cleo Caldwell of U-M's School of Public Health; Dr. Alford Young, Jr., of U-M's College of Literature, Science, & Arts; and Carl Schneider of U-M's Law School.

Wendy Uhlmann, MS, CGC

Faculty

Wendy R. Uhlmann, MS, CGC is the genetic counselor/clinic coordinator of the Medical Genetics Clinic at the University of Michigan.  She is a Clinical Associate Professor in the Departments of Internal Medicine and Human Genetics and an executive faculty member of the genetic counseling training program.  Wendy Uhlmann is a Past President of the National Society of Genetic Counselors and previously served on the Board of Directors of the Genetic Alliance and as NSGC’s liaison to the National Advisory Council for Human Genome Research.

Last Name: 
Uhlmann

Funded by the National Institutes of Health

Funding Years: 2015-2016

POINT is a randomized, double-blind, multicenter clinical trial to determine whether clopidogrel 75mg/day (after a loading dose of 600mg) is effective in improving survival free from major ischemic vascular events (ischemic stroke, myocardial infarction, and ischemic vascular death) at 90 days when initiated within 12 hours time last known free of new ischemic symptoms of TIA or minor ischemic stroke in subjects receiving aspirin 50-325mg/day.

PI(s): Claiborne Johnston

Co-I(s):  J. Donald Easton, Mary Farrant, William Barsan, Holly Battenhouse, Robin Conwit, Catherine Dillon, Jordan Elm, Anne Lindblad, Lewis Morgenstern, Sharon Poisson, Yuko Palesch

Pages