Brian Zikmund-Fisher, PhD
Editor-in-Chief
|
Ellen G. Engelhardt, PhD
Deputy Editor
|
|
by
Brian Zikmund-Fisher
, PhD; University of Michigan
As we prepare to reassemble for the 2019 SMDM North American Annual Meeting in Portland, Oregon, I want to take a moment to share a few reflections on the challenges and opportunities of the past year.
We have seen substantial political instability in the US, the UK, and elsewhere. Vitriol and hatred towards many groups is everywhere, with targets ranging from immigrants to ethnic groups to gender identity groups. This is having, and will continue to have, real effects on our SMDM community, not just arbitrary “others.” I have watched friends and colleagues live in personal fear based on where they live or who they are. Some have even felt the need to uproot their careers to move to new locations. It is hard to be productive as a scholar when these issues are a daily concern. We must each acknowledge this reality. We can only help each other, and ourselves, when we can give voice to the impact of these experiences.
I also have had the honor to serve on the SMDM Special Committee for Policy on Conduct and Inclusion, which has wrestled with how best to ensure that every single SMDM member is able to feel confident, safe, able to learn, and able to thrive at SMDM events and within the SMDM community. We will be presenting our recommendations to the SMDM Board at Portland. Regardless of the outcome of that process, my participation has reminded me of two truths: First, my personal attributes make navigating many environments easier for me than it is for others. Second, I have a duty (both in spite of and because of the first truth) to learn from the experiences of those who face barriers and to work to reduce those barriers. I hope our committee’s work prompts each of us to reflect on our truths and our duties.
The work of inclusion is not merely related to the social environment at SMDM. It is also a critical question related to our research. For example, when we incorporate social constructs like race or gender into our models or our communications designs, the way we conceptualize those ideas becomes embedded in our work and affects its findings and implications. For medical decision making work to have its maximal impact, we need to subject our use of social constructs to the same constructive criticism that SMDM provides on every other part of our work.
To promote further consideration of use of social constructs in MDM, we worked with SMDM member
Bert Chantarat
to design
the
Fall 2019 Scientific Issues in MDM Poll
, which will gather some preliminary data on how SMDM members think about different social constructs and use them in their work
. I urge all readers to take 2-3 minutes to complete our survey. (Do it right now!!!
Here’s the link again!
) We need information from everyone, regardless of whether you build analytical models or patient communications, whether you think about race or gender or ethnicity a lot or a little, to move this discussion along.
This issue of the Newsletter also provides a lot of valuable information for members, including:
- President Heather Taffet Gold discusses in her column the ways that SMDM considers the potential for conflicts of interest in SMDM activities and seeks to balance between benefits of collaborations and risks.
- Mark Liebow provides an update on health-related governmental funding issues in the US – another continuing resolution!
- Joanna Siegel highlights the Shared Decision Making Interest Group and invites everyone to attend its upcoming gathering at the Annual Meeting in Portland
- Newsletter Deputy Editor Ellen Engelhardt reports the results of the Summer 2019 Scientific Issues in MDM Poll, which examined member perspectives on patient participation in MDM research activities.
- Ivar Kristiansen reports on a survival analysis course that he and several other SMDM members conducted for governmental, industry, and university experts in Norway and provides insight as to why SMDM members might want to pursue similar trainings elsewhere.
In addition, there are several updates on the upcoming Annual Meeting, including a listing of the SMDM 2019 election results and awardees (Congratulations, all!) and a review of the career development activities presented by
Tara Lavelle
and
Channing Tate
. It is one of SMDM’s great strengths that career development is embraced as a priority by junior trainees and senior members alike, and I urge all new attendees to make a point to participate in any of these activities that might interest you.
Be well, be safe, and I hope to see many of you shortly in Portland.
|
|
|
|
|
|
by
Heather Taffet Gold,
PhD; New York University School of Medicine
At SMDM we think a lot about potential, perceived, and actual conflicts of interest in order to protect scientific integrity. These conflicts could be financial or reputational. SMDM is known for our expertise, rigor, and high integrity. We take our mission seriously and try to push the field forward. And therefore we think deeply about what it implies if we partner with other organizations or accept funds. Fortunately, thoughtful leaders of our organization developed explicit guidance for decision-making around potential conflicts over 15 years ago. We use and occasionally update these policies and guidelines to drive our decisions.
Strategic partnerships. When we talk about strategically partnering, we first ask: How is the world/science/research better for our merger or partnership? When we contemplate collaborations and partnerships, we focus on three goals: 1) to access skills, knowledge, or other resources that are not currently available to SMDM or its members; 2) to inform others about the fields of expertise within the SMDM membership, with the hope of attracting interested researchers to SMDM meetings, journals, and membership; and 3) to further the knowledge and use of methods from the field of medical decision making by key stakeholders. Examples include joint abstract sessions with other professional societies, training fellowships for SMDM members or courses by SMDM faculty at other institutions, and joint scientific guideline development with members of other organizations.
External funding. In contemplating whether to accept outside funding, we are careful and strategic. There are many opportunities where we might accept external funding, directly or indirectly (e.g., providing space at our meeting). Our guiding principle is that “SMDM should maintain control over the planning, content, and presentation of all its activities. Furthermore, these activities should be free from real conflicts of interest, and the risk of apparent conflicts of interest should be minimised.” In these decisions, we must consider whether there are conflicts with prior policy or Board decisions and how the funds will further our mission and benefit our membership. For example, we have received requests from commercial organizations to organize or host a methodological session or reception at our meeting and invite speakers, which might not allow SMDM to control the content of the activities. We engage in these activities only after thorough dissection of their implications and appearance of potential conflicts.
There often are nuances to the potential conflicts of interests, and perhaps not all conflicts are “equal.” Historically, government agencies and academic institutions have encouraged rigorous research and its dissemination, so there may not be much discussion about the influence or interests of government or academia when we engage with them. However, if there were any interests of those organizations that might sway the presentation of data or discussion, such as a patented technology or program to disseminate, we need to ensure we recognize the conflict when deciding how to proceed in partnership. When a patient advocate engages with us to ensure our meeting’s relevance to patients, we can all learn and benefit. However, some organizations that present as patient advocacy groups may be funded by industry, run by clinicians, or have a profit motive. Sometimes the distinctions around these conflicts are subtle or hidden.
From my perspective, SMDM should always aim to strike a balance between active stakeholder engagement and true conflicts of interest. It is important for SMDM to be vigilant about our partnerships, while also being open to creating collaborations when it will further our mission and benefit our membership. Closing the door before we fully explore how a collaboration could benefit SMDM would be a mistake if we want to grow as an organization and expand our impact.
|
|
|
|
The opinions stated in the following commentaries are solely those of the authors and do not reflect the opinions of the Society for Medical Decision Making or the author's institution.
|
|
|
|
Continuing Resolution Again -
For How Long?
|
by
Mark Liebow
, MD, MPH; Mayo Clinic
The House passed its bill funding health care and research agencies in June, which was very early for recent Congresses. The Senate did not pass any of its appropriations bill by mid-September. It had waited until September to consider appropriations because Senate leadership wanted to see if a budget deal abolishing the “sequestration” caps would pass, which would mean more money could be spent on domestic discretionary programs including clinical care and research. That deal passed in August and was signed by the President, but Congress then went on a district work break for a month. When the Senate returned, the first attempt at passing health care appropriations in the relevant Appropriations subcommittee failed because of threats of attaching policy provisions to the appropriations bill. On September 18, the Republican majority put out its draft for health care appropriations, but the subcommittee has not yet taken action on it. The House passed a continuing resolution on September 19 that would continue funding at Fiscal Year 2019 levels through November 21. The Senate passed its continuing resolution using the House's language September 26. President Trump signed the resolution on September 27. The House bill and Senate proposal give more money to the NIH (House $ 2 billion and Senate $3 billion) but other agencies are not likely to fare as well, though deep cuts are unlikely.
The original authorization and funding for the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI) was scheduled to end on September 30. However, the continuing resolution temporarily extends its authorization and funding along with temporarily funding community health centers, teaching health centers, and the National Health Service Corps (NHSC). The bill also will delay reductions in Medicaid Disproportionate Share Hospital (DSH) payments through November 21. Fortunately, even if the reauthorization isn't passed (or extended by another continuing resolution) by November 21, PCORI has enough money to keep going for some time while waiting to see if it gets reauthorized. The House bill in its current form would permit PCORI to use economic analyses in its work, something forbidden now. It’s unclear if the Senate will go along with this.
|
|
|
|
|
|
The Evolving Field of Shared Decision Making: Join Us at the Interest Group Meeting in Portland!
|
by
Joanna Siegel,
SM, ScD; SMDM Shared Decision Making Interest Group
Research in support of shared decision making has long been a mainstay of SMDM meetings, and if attendance at SMDM Interest Group meetings is any indicator, interest continues to grow! The Shared Decision Making Interest Group meeting at this year’s SMDM Annual Meeting represents a particular opportunity for members who want to remain informed about others’ work in this area and who want to contribute to this evolving field.
One important question for SMDM members to consider is the role of the organization in supporting broader shared decision making initiatives. From my perch at PCORI, I have a particular interest in the implementation of shared decision making in practice settings – moving past the creation and testing of decision aids and shared decision making approaches to thinking about how to promote their uptake and their maintenance, once integrated into a clinical workflow. Other prominent issues include SMDM’s potential role in policy conversations, like those around reimbursement of shared decision making, and in development of better measures of shared decision making for use in evaluation. Individual members of SMDM have taken the lead in developing better ways to communicate risk and assess preferences – but the Society is less well represented in looking beyond the tools that support shared decision making to steps in assuring that these tools and approaches are actually used for the benefit of patients.
This year, following
Jim Dolan
’s retirement from the position of Shared Decision Making Interest Group Chair – we are also in need of a new leader! To facilitate our convening at the Annual Meeting, I’ve been listed as “temporary chair” – a position I’m prepared to cede to a more permanent chair at the meeting! I hope many of you will come join us at the meeting to think through new directions, as well as new leadership.
|
|
|
|
Ellen G. Engelhardt, PhD
Deputy Editor
|
|
Results from the Summer 2019 Scientific Issues in MDM Poll: Patient Participation in MDM Research
|
by
Ellen G. Engelhardt
, PhD; SMDM e-newsletter Deputy Editor
In the Summer Poll we explored your thoughts about patient participation in research and to what extent you already involve patients in your own work. A total of 45 SMDM members shared their thoughts with us, thank you! Respondents work in the SDM fields of Decision Psychology and Shared Decision Making (20 (44%)), Applied Health Economics (7 (16%)), Health Services, Outcomes, and Policy Research (10 (22%)), Quantitative Methods and Theoretical Developments (5 (11%)), and Patient and Stakeholder Preferences and Engagement (3 (7%)).
Most respondents seem to embrace the concept of patient involvement in research practice to some degree. A majority of respondents indicated that grants in which patients are actively involved better serve end users (76%) and that patient participation in scientific conferences like SMDM should be encouraged (67%) (see Figure 1, click the figure below to enlarge). Most (71%) respondents also indicated that patient representatives had been involved in one or more of their past and/or current research projects. Of those who indicated that they directly involved patient representatives in their projects, most gave these representatives an advisory role (94%) and/or a role in the review of designs (e.g., grant proposals, surveys, materials) (52%).
However, there is a greater degree of hesitation amongst respondents for certain types of patient involvement in research. While half of respondents think that patient involvement in the grant writing process leads to better science, one-third of respondents disagreed with this statement. Opinions also varied regarding whether patient representatives need to be well-versed in scientific methodology, with 42% agreeing and one-third of respondents disagreeing with this statement. Respondents were less open to patient participation in the publication peer review process, with 53% disagreeing with the statement that patients should participate in this process. When patient representatives were directly involved in research (n=33), they were less often involved in reviewing products (e.g., manuscripts) (36%), co-production (e.g., active team member in at least some phases of the work, co-author) (30%), or co-ownership (e.g., participatory research processes) (21%).
Generally, respondents were positive towards patient participation in different facets of research, especially those aspects that have been widely stimulated by funding agencies. However, there are some areas of the scientific process for which at least some researchers feel reluctance towards patient participation, particularly involvement in the journal peer review process. There seems to be general support for consulting patients about research ideas and content intended for patients (e.g., surveys), but there seems to be less enthusiasm for involving patients in the interpretation of research findings and setting the research agenda for example.
What are your thoughts? Do you share these hesitations regarding patient participation in research? This a relevant topic worthy of reflection and discussion among our SMDM colleagues.
|
|
|
|
Ivar Sønbø Kristiansen,
MD, MPH, PhD
|
|
Transatlantic Survival Course
|
by
Ivar Sønbø Kristiansen
, MD, MPH, PhD; University of Oslo, Norway
|
Course instructors Henrik (left), Jeremy (right) and course organizer Ivar (middle)
|
Norway has adopted priority setting in health care based the cost per QALY gained. The national priority setting board, the Decision Forum, has cost per QALY thresholds that depend on the severity of the health problem or disease. Thresholds are kept secret with the stated rationale that it enables the government to be better negotiate lower drug prices. In practice, the Decision Forum almost exclusively considers pharmaceuticals although these represent only 6-7% of the total health care expenditure.
The Norwegian Medicines Agency (NoMA) evaluates health economic submissions from pharmaceutical companies and then publishes HTAs which are subsequently used by the Decision Forum. For years, there has been disagreement between companies and NoMA with respect to the cost-effectiveness of new pharmaceuticals, not least anti-cancer drugs. A major area of disagreement has been estimation of survival gains for pharmaceuticals that prolong life.
In August 2019, SMDM member
Jeremy Goldhaber-Fiebert
of Stanford University along with
Henrik Støvring
of Aarhus University in Denmark gave a course on estimation of survival gains at the University of Oslo, Norway. Additionally,
Tron Moger
of the University of Oslo presented frailty analyses. The course was open to anybody with an interest in survival analysis and proved so popular that registration for it was closed in June. Some 65 people attended the course; attendees comprised a mix from various government agencies including NoMA, pharmaceutical companies and the University of Oslo. With speakers from institutions independent of government as well as industry, the course was very well received by “all parties”. In fact, it had been funded by government and industry in cooperation. Norway has a special word for such cooperation: “dugnad”.
When the course was finished, the course organizer, SMDM member
Ivar Sønbø Kristiansen
, took Jeremy and Henrik to the Finnish archipelago for a “sauna seminar” which included further discussions of survival analysis, sauna, swimming, island hiking and a boat trip to the city of Turku. Jeremy, with a recent double marathon behind him, tested his attitude to risk and swam 2.1 km in the windy waters of the Baltic Sea. A nice finish for a successful transatlantic collaboration.
A crucial question is whether the costs in terms of time and travel is worth the outcome. From my perspective, the answer is yes. I know that knowledge of survival analysis is often needed for priority setting. Some comments from those involved with using survival analysis for priority setting, however, indicate considerable lack of understanding. Several examples from government decision making indicate a lack of knowledge of even basic decision analysis. I suspect that this is the case in many health care systems, and this lack of knowledge means that patients will suffer from inappropriate decision making. The many positive comments during and after the seminar indicate a positive impact although no formal evaluation was undertaken.
We encourage SMDM members to consider building decision making expertise among those setting priorities in their own health care systems. A seminar is only one of many approaches. Any format may be fun for the organizers and build friendship. So fun that Henrik, Jeremy and I are now planning a research project together.
|
Jeremy halfway through his Baltic Sea adventure
|
|
|
|
|
|
Join us in Portland for the
2019 Annual Meeting!
|
Meeting co-chairs:
Karen Eden
, PhD,
Carmen Lewis
, MD, MPH and
Dan Matlock
, MD
This year's Annual Meeting will be held from October 20 - 23, 2019 at the DoubleTree by Hilton in Portland, Oregon, USA.
All health care decisions aim to optimize value; however, value is an elusive construct. First, “value” is both a noun and a verb, and it can relate to deeply held beliefs or a mathematical ratio of benefits and costs. The theme “Many Views on Value” rests on the idea that value is a function of the lens through which one sees the world. Inherent in this is an assumption that different stakeholders are necessary to understand the true value of any health care intervention. Members of SMDM are the academic leaders in understanding multiple stakeholder perspectives and in calculating value. The 2019 Annual Meeting aims to unite the robust behavioral science on perspectives with the rigorous analytical science of value.
The Keynote speaker is
Paul Slovic
, PhD. Dr. Slovic will give the Keynote Address on Monday, October 21 at 8:30 AM on The More who Die, the Less We Care: Confronting the Deadly Arithmetic of Compassion.
Visit the 41st Annual Meeting Homepage or download the free SMDM Annual Meeting mobile app for more information. Search "SMDM 2019" in the App or Google Play stores to download the annual meeting mobile app. We look forward to seeing you in Portland later this month!
Not attending the meeting? SMDM will livestream five Annual Meeting sessions this year on Monday, October 21st and Tuesday, October 22nd. More information and livestream instructions will be posted to the Annual Meeting website, SMDM social media, and will be e-mailed to the SMDM database the week of October 14th.
|
|
|
|
Channing Tate, MPH, PhD Candidate
|
|
Career Development Activities at the
41st Annual Meeting
|
by 2019 Career Development Committee Co-Chairs
Tara Lavelle, PhD
, and
Channing Tate, MPH, PhD Candidate
The SMDM Career Development Committee is excited to offer a range of activities at the Annual Meeting!
Dinners with Experts
Sunday, October 20, 2019 8:30 PM
Tuesday, October 22, 2019 7:30 PM
Explore the restaurant scene in Portland and enjoy a relaxed discussion among a group of junior and senior members with similar interests!
|
Trainee Luncheon
Sunday, October 20, 2019: 12:30 – 2:00 PM
This lunch is a great opportunity for trainees and senior members of SMDM to meet and talk informally with each other. Back for a third year, is the “speed mentoring” event where trainees will meet with several different mentors in small groups. Sign up for the lunch with meeting registration. The cost is $5 USD for trainees to attend.
Career Development Workshop: Preparing for the Job Market
Monday, October 21, 2019: 12:30 – 1:20 PM
This workshop will give trainees a chance to obtain constructive feedback from mentors on a specific topic. Mentees will have an opportunity to have mentors review their CV, cover letters or other job market materials and obtain feedback. Mentors will also be available to provide feedback on an elevator pitch and help trainees craft a succinct introduction about themselves and their career goals.
Trainee Happy Hour
Monday, October 21, 2019: 5:30 - 7:00 PM
Please join us at the hotel bar, Gather Food and Drink, to meet and connect with other SMDM trainees. This will be an informal networking event. All beverages are self-pay.
Career Development Public Speaking Workshop
Tuesday, October 22, 2019: 12:30 – 1:20 PM
This workshop brings together three of SMDM’s best presenters to share their tips and tricks on how to deliver clear, compelling, and effective presentations. This session is targeted to all SMDM attendees, from trainees to those in mid-career or higher, and will include brief presentations and an open discussion period.
Presenters:
Ankur Pandya,
PhD (Assistant Professor of health decision science in the Department of Health Policy and Management at Hazard T.H. Chan School of Public Health).
Laura Scherer,
PhD (A
ssistant Professor in the Department of Medicine at the University of Colorado, Denver).
Davene Wright,
PhD (Assistant Professor in the Department of Population Medicine at the Harvard Pilgrim Health Care Institute and Harvard Medical School).
|
|
|
|
SMDM is pleased to announce the winners of its 2019 Awards:
|
|
Pictured above
(l to r): Murray Krahn, Alan Schwartz, Stephen Downs, Hawre Jalal, Anne Stiggelbout
The
Career Achievement Award
recognizes distinguished senior investigators who have made significant contributions to the field of medical decision making. The 2019 recipient is
Murray Krahn, MD, MSc, FRCPC
The
SMDM Award for Distinguished Service
recognizes service to SMDM in terms of leadership, role in the operations of the Society, and contributions to the scientific and educational activities of the Society. The 2019 recipient is
Alan Schwartz, PhD.
The
John M. Eisenberg Award for Practical Application of Medical Decision Making Research
recognizes an individual or organization that has demonstrated sustained leadership in translating medical decision making research into practice, and that has taken exceptional steps to communicate the principles and/or substantive findings of medical decision making research to policy makers, to clinical decision makers, and to the general public. The 2019 recipient is
Stephen Downs, MD, MS
.
The
Young Investigator Award
is presented annually for the best paper published by a trainee or junior faculty member.
Hawre Jalal, MD, PhD
is the 2019 recipient.
Anne Stiggelbout, PhD,
is the 2019 recipient of the
Lee B. Lusted sub-award in Patient and Stakeholder Preferences and Engagement (PSPE) category
and will have the sub-award named after her for five years for the period 2019 - 2024.
These individuals will be honored at the upcoming meeting in Portland. Please join us in congratulating all of the winners and thanking the Awards Committee for its work.
|
|
2019 - 2020 Officers and Trustees
|
|
Congratulations to the newly elected Officers and Trustees of the Society for Medical Decision Making!
|
|
Pictured above: Top row from left to right:
President-Elect:
Natasha Stout,
PhD
Vice President-Elect:
Beate Jahn,
PhD
Historian:
J. Robert Beck,
MD
Pictured above: Bottom row from left to right:
Trustees:
Jesse Jansen
, PhD;
Davene Wright
, PhD;
Ankur Pandya
, PhD
Thank you to everyone who voted and especially to those who were willing to serve. Your contributions make the Society stronger! Please feel free to reach out to our new slate of Officers and Trustees to welcome them and become more involved in the Society's activities.
|
|
Latest News From Your Fellow Members
|
Donald Brand
, PhD, recently retired from NYU Winthrop Hospital. He now has an adjunct faculty appointment at the affiliated medical school, which will facilitate continuing collaborations and writing projects. His retirement has enabled him and his wife, Catherine, to move from the New York metro area to New Haven, Connecticut to be closer to their 3 youngest grandchildren. Donald said, "To manage 3 toddlers, the parents can use all the help they can get, and we are eager to oblige." He recently published a "perspective" article in the
Journal of General Internal Medicine
, "The Stage IV Shuffle: Elusiveness of Straight Talk About Advanced Cancer." The article touches on several issues that are of interest to SMDM members, including medical ethics and risk communication. He hopes the piece will stimulate debate on a complex and controversial topic. (
Donald.Brand@nyulangone.org
)
|
Golf Interest Group to Meet in Portland
By
Joel Tsevat
,
Bob Beck
, and
Jarrod Dalton
Chip from just off of the green, or putt? Driver off the tee, or hybrid? Lay up to a water hazard, or Tin Cup it? To attempt to address such weighty decisions as these is the raison d’être of the SMDM Golf Interest Group – that and to add some work/life balance to the SMDM meetings by playing a round in the annual meeting host city.
Per SMDM Historian
Bob Beck
, the Golf Interest Group was formed in 1997 at the Houston annual meeting, where on a hot, steamy day at the Tour 18 Golf Course,
Bob Centor
famously asked host Beck, “Does it ever get humid here?” The Golf Interest Group has met every year since its inception. Regular members are
Neal Dawson
,
Jarrod Dalton
,
Bob Beck
, and
Joel Tsevat
. The group often has a mid-year meeting as well at the SGIM meeting.
In recent years, we have introduced cost as a variable to be modeled in decisions: Should I schlep my clubs across the country, or rent clubs at the course? (The decision to schlep is generally dominant if you get free luggage on the flight.) Should I buy $2 balls, or $4 balls? Should I get an (overpriced) souvenir golf shirt at the pro shop?
The Golf Interest Group will convene this year on the afternoon of Sunday, October 20 at
The Reserve in Portland
. Come join
Dalton
,
Beck
, and
Tsevat
(Dawson is out this year because of the high disutility that would be incurred from missing his daughter’s wedding that weekend). We plan to have 2 foursomes. If interested, contact
Bob
at
robert.beck@fccc.edu
– first come, first served. Cerebral, strategic golf highly encouraged. Mulligans allowed on the first tee. And even if you don’t get free luggage, you might want to schlep your clubs on the chance that they will save you 1 or 2 strokes.
|
Nicole Fowler
, PhD, MHSA became the new Associate Director of the Indiana University Center for Aging Research on October 1, 2019 (
fowlern@iu.edu
)
|
Karen Kelly-Blake
, PhD, was promoted to Associate Professor effective July 1, 2019 in the Center for Ethics and Humanities in the Life Sciences and Department of Medicine College of Human Medicine Michigan State University.
View the Press Release
|
Rachel Pozzar, PhD, RN
and fellow SMDM member,
Donna Berry
recently published a manuscript describing the results of my dissertation. This manuscript details our finding that patient-provider communication and other psychosocial factors play an important role in the ovarian cancer care process.
View the manuscript
. (
rpozzar@partners.org
)
|
Jag Chhatwal
, PhD,
Peter Mueller
, PhD,
Yueran Zhuo
, PhD, and
Qiushi Chen
, PhD
in collaboration with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, recently launched an online, interactive tool,
Hep C State Policy Simulator
, to help state health policy makers and practitioners make decisions regarding policy, strategy, and investments related to hepatitis C. With the simulator, users can explore the potential impact of different screening and treatment policies and cost drivers. This information is designed to help states evaluate the short- and long-term economic and public health consequences of specific policies (e.g., universal screening), as well as potential tactics (e.g., drug price negotiations) for managing hepatitis C with constrained resources
. (
jagchhatwal@mgh.harvard.edu
)
|
In June, 2019,
Charles Phelps
, PhD, was presented the Victor R. Fuchs Award for Lifetime Contributions to the Field of Health Economics by the American Society of Health Economists (ASHEcon). In July, he also published an extension of
his previous work on cost-effectiveness theory
, deriving a new way to estimate the maximum willingness to pay for health care (in Value in Health, July, 2019). (
chuckphelps2@gmail.com
)
|
|
|
|
Student News
Congratulations to our upcoming graduates
Courtney Williams
, MPH
Degree/Graduation Date:
May 2020
Area:
Outcomes Research
Position Seeking:
Post-Doc
Mentor: Natasha Stout
, PhD
Dissertation Title:
Understanding Financial Hardship in Women with Breast Cancer
Presented at SMDM Annual Meeting:
Guideline Discordance and Patient cost Responsibility in Older Adults with Metastatic Breast Cancer (2018)
Are older and Younger Metastatic Breast Cancer Patients Treated Differently? A Comparison of Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Program (SEER)-Medicare and MarketScan Claims Data (2018)
Short Courses attended at the SMDM Annual Meeting:
Causal Inference and Causal Diagrams in Medical Decision Making Using Big Real World Observational Data and Pragmatic Trials – Methods and Software Practicals (2018)
|
|
|
|
Here are the most recent job opportunities since our last newsletter. SMDM members can stay current on the newest opportunities in the Resources Section of
SMDM Connect
.
|
|
The SMDM Lifetime Contributors list acknowledges the SMDM members who have made contributions to the Annual Fund and
acknowledges donations and in-kind donations, received from October 2005 - October 7, 2019.
Our heartfelt appreciation goes out to everyone who has supported our Society!
|
|
Editor-in-Chief
University of Michigan
|
|
Deputy Editor
Netherlands Cancer Institute
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
