Michele Heisler, MD, MPA, is Professor of Internal Medicine at the University of Michigan Medical School, Professor, School of Public Health, and Research Scientist at the Ann Arbor VA's Center for Clinical Research Management. Dr. Heisler's clinical interest is chronic disease, with a focus on diabetes. Her research centers on patient self-management of chronic illnesses, patient-doctor relations and disparities in processes and outcomes in chronic illnesses.
Page not found
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the Universal Coverage model underlying the Affordable Care Act and the Universal Access model underlying the (now withdrawn) American Health Care Act.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.
Imagine that you are concerned about your risk for heart disease. You look on the Web and find a risk calculator for heart disease.
The calculator asks you some questions about your health and uses your answers to estimate how likely you are to develop certain diseases. The health questions include things like age, gender, weight, height, whether you are a smoker, and whether you have diabetes or high blood pressure.
Imagine that you have answered all the health questions.
Raymond De Vries PhD is Associate Director at the Center for Bioethics and Social Sciences in Medicine at the University of Michigan and is a Professor in the Department of Learning Health Sciences and the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology. He is also visiting professor at CAPHRI School for Public Health and Primary Care, University of Maastricht, the Netherlands.
Martina will be presenting about building a survey out of some qualitative interviews to assess contraception need and priorities for components of a contraception intervention, among women age 15-44 years old using Detroit Emergency Departments for non-urgent issues.
Kevin and Sameer will be presenting data and abstract on a project regarding patient preferences for repeat screening in the setting of colonoscopy with inadequate bowel preparation.
Dr. Naomi T. Laventhal joined the University of Michigan in August 2009, after completing her residency in pediatrics, fellowships in neonatology and clinical medical ethics, and a master’s degree in public policy at the University of Chicago. She is a Clinical Associate Professor in the Department of Pediatrics and Communicable Diseases in the Division of Neonatal-Perinatal Medicine, and in the Center for Bioethics and Social Sciences in Medicine (CBSSM).
Tell us what you think about certain public policies designed to reduce the incidence of diabetes in the US.
Please read this hypothetical news article and then answer a few questions at the end.
People with Diabetes Lobby Congress This Week
- strongly disagree
- strongly agree
- strongly disagree
- strongly agree
- strongly disagree
- strongly agree
Generally speaking, do you usually think of yourself as a Republican, a Democrat, an Independent, or what?
- Strong Democrat
- Not so strong Democrat
- Independent, close to Democrat
- Independent, close to Republican
- Not so strong Republican
- Strong Republican
- Don't know, haven't thought much about it
How you answered:
Researchers affiliated with CBDSM and the School of Public Health have found that "Americans' opinions about health policy are polarized on political partisan lines. Democrats and Republicans differ in the ways that they receive and react to messages about the social determinants of health."
In the study, lead author Sarah Gollust, PhD, randomly assigned participants to read one of four hypothetical news articles about type 2 diabetes. Diabetes was used as an example of a common health issue that is widely debated and that is known to have multiple contributing factors, including genetic predisposition, behavioral choices, and social determinants (such as income or neighborhood environments).
The articles were identical except for the causal frame embedded in the text. The article that you read in this Decision of the Month presented social determinants as a cause for type 2 diabetes. Other versions of the article presented genetic predisposition or behavioral choices as a cause for type 2 diabetes, and one version had no causal language.
Dr. Gollust then asked the study participants their views of seven nonmedical governmental policies related to the environmental, neighborhood, or economic determinants of diabetes:
- bans on fast food concessions in public schools
- incentives for grocery stores to establish locations where there are currently few
- bans on trans fat in restaurants
- government investment in parks
- regulating junk food advertisements
- imposing taxes on junk foods
- subsidizing the costs of healthy food
Dr. Gollust also asked participants their political party identification and a number of other self-reported characteristics.
The most dramatic finding of this study was that the news story with the social determinants as a cause for type 2 diabetes had significantly different effects on the policy views of participants, depending on whether they identified themselves as Democrats or Republicans. After reading the social determinants article, Democrats expressed a higher level of support for the proposed public health policies. Republicans expressed a lower level of support for the proposed public health policies. This effect occurred only in the group of participants who were randomly assigned to read the version of the news article with social determinants given as a cause for type 2 diabetes. Dr. Gollust summarizes: "Exposure to the social determinants message produced a divergence of opinion by political party, with Democrats and Republicans differing in their opinions by nearly 0.5 units of the 5-point scale."
The study suggests several possible explanations for these results:
"First, the social determinants media frame may have presumed a liberal worldview to which the Republican study participants disagreed or found factually erroneous (ie, not credible), but with which Democrats felt more comfortable or found more familiar. . . Second, media consumption is becoming increasingly polarized by party identification, and . . . the social determinants message may have appeared particularly biased to Republicans. . .Third, the social determinants frame may have primed, or activated, study participants' underlying attitudes about the social group highlighted in the news article. . . Fourth, participants' party identification likely serves as proxy for . . . values held regarding personal versus social responsibility for health."
Dr. Gollust and her colleagues conclude that if public health advocates want to mobilize the American public to support certain health policies, a segmented communication approach may be needed. Some subgroups of Americans will not find a message about social determinants credible. These subgroups value personal responsibility and find social determinants antagonistic to their worldview. To avoid triggering immediate resistance by these citizens to information about social determinants of health, public health advocates may consider the use of information about individual behavioral factors in educational materials, while working to build public familiarity with and acceptance of research data on social determinants.
For more details about this study: